Fact vs. Doubt

One of the most contentious issues in American politics today is the debate over climate change. Considered by many to be the most dire threat to our nations prosperity. Others believe that it is a hoax designed by anti-consumerists, in what they also argue (ironically) is a threat to our nations prosperity.

The root of both sides concern is material well being, and by extension, money. And oh boy is their a lot of money involved. The human forces most often attributed to climate change are some of the biggest engines of our 21st century global economy (i.e. petro-chemicals, agriculture, etc...). Alternatively, proponents of man made climate change envision a green economy not only replacing our currently fossil fuel based system, but becoming the largest and fastest growing market in the world. Those who support the status quo have the most to lose, but also have far more capital to expend on keeping things the way they are, as was witnessed in the well publicized Proposition 23 in California.

Money is the clear driver of peoples passion on the issue, but why can't facts just be accepted at facts? I purposefully labelled climate change as a contentious political issue in my opening paragraph, as opposed to a contentious scientific debate, because their is a consensus among the vast majority of scientists and scholars in the world. That consensus is that the world is warming due to the primary driver of anthropomorphic GHG emissions; obviously their are other contributing factors. Their are legitimate skeptics in the scientific community but they are a minority to say the least and are generally not considered preeminent members of their respective fields.

With little debate in the scientific field, it is the interpretation of scientific studies by policy makers, the media and industry and its subsequent dissemination to the public, where doubt arises. Often those most opposed to stopping our reliance on fossil fuels fund this doubt but some blame does lie with the failure of the scientific community to properly explain climate change in lay-mens terms. Part of this failure is due to the sheer complexity of global climate change, however this leads to an argument for more science education in general and is a bit too off topic to delve into further.

A lot of these communications problems can be exemplified by two websites, http://www.friendsofscience.org/ and http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics. The former supporting man made climate change, the later proposing natural causes as the leading drivers. friendsofscience.org seems to intentionally bombard the reader with indecipherable graphs and figures while making bold claims on historical climate trends. However, the how to talk to a climate skeptic series on Grist often runs into many of the same problems, although to a lesser extent. Their short comings center mostly around a lack of organization and navigability of the site.

Neither site is perfect, but Grist does a better job of seeming legitimate. Data is more thoroughly cited, an abundance of links to additional sources are available and a comprehensive debunking of skeptics claims is provided (I was able to find a cited article refuting every claim on friendsofscience.org and only looked through the first section of the site).

Much of the world believes in human driver climate change, as does much of the worlds scientific community. The American public and the businesses and industry that shape the public narrative will one day reach this position but only once the costs of continuing on a business as usual approach become apparent. People vote with their pocketbooks, and tend to have shorter memories and even shorter far-sight. Proper public policy and education are the solutions to this. One can only hope that they will start working soon