Entries RSS · Maybe it’s just a bad dream?
There is a really disturbing trend about environmental issues, outright self-deception that it might not actually exist. People do have this strange tendency, once things go complex, to make up stories that explain why things are how they are. This, in a way, explains why, in this age of reason and science, people choose to believe in things like make-believe medications, which they, in an effort to legitimize them, call “alternative” medicine.
An utterly insignificant little blue-green planet in the unfashionable part of the galaxy
This morning at the gym, I overheard people talking about the recent e-mail leak from UK’s Climatic Research Unit. Paraphrasing, the discussion went something like this. “…I read from the news that they have exaggerated the numbers.” “Yeah, I never could believe that the sea levels could rise by so many meters.” And off they went talking about heatwaves in the Middle Ages and other stuff, probably trying to assure each other that everything is just fine.
Ars Technica does a good job, as always, explaining how the e-mail leak means probably nothing. And anyway, the scientific community has ways routing around fraud – which, you have to keep in mind, is not the case here.
At another occasion, before the e-mail leak, in a bus an older woman wondered “how can they measure that the sea-levels have risen by a fraction of a millimeter. It’s so tiny.” I almost wanted to tell her about the DNA, carbon nanotubes, integrated circuits and other wonders of science in an effort to explain that, yes, “they” can measure things even if they are really small.
I’m seriously worried that these people secretly wish that the whole climate change is just a bad dream, and that they have a confirmation bias to believe all evidence that disproves that our planet is in peril – that status quo will prevail.
Yes, I’d also like if the whole climate issue was just a bad dream. But no e-mail leak or even a group of fraudulent scientist (which, once again, isn’t the case here) does not disprove the massive amount of evidence that we have for an accelerating climate change. What’s going on is a good example of our cognitive dissonance at work. Maybe it’s easier to justify why you’re not doing anything to counter the problem, if the problem doesn’t exist in the first place.
Unfortunately, the newspapers and TV news aren’t really helping, going for flashy headlines instead. True, the scientific community has a bad track record trying to explain things to laypeople, but sometimes things are a bit difficult – especially when they are as complex as the climate of a planet.
In fact, it seems that television can make things worse, as this video from a Sarah Palin’s book-signing shows (see 7:00 for the kicker). People, instead of trying to even rationalize their arguments themselves, just throw catchphrases to explain their position. My favourite? How polar bears must be removed from endangered species list so it would be easier to drill for oil in Alaska.
I’m really, really worried.
Like
Related posts:
- A dream about electronic clothing
- [Mac] SizeUp makes window management on the Mac… a dream
- 5 reasons why business is going green
- Thoughts on What It Takes to Sell Something
- The 21st Century: What will it look like?
Tags: climate change, confirmation bias, environment, environmental issues, green, science
I love this part from Ars Technica: "The document trove makes it clear that scientists communicate on three levels: in common and emotional terminology during personal conversation, which gets translated to detached and technical terms when writing papers, which (ideally) is phrased in cautious language and analogy when presented to the public. The hackers have basically short-circuited that process, and given the public a window into the messy world of day-to-day scientific communications. "
It's kind of like they're talking about the exciting world of penguin mating habits: "Penguin calls (vocalizations) are individually identifiable, allowing mates to recognize each other and also their chick. This is important because members of a large colony of penguins are nearly indistinguishable by sight." (actual quote from Seaworld)
I think Ars Technica is over-analysing this and the basic fact is that these types of communications should've never happened via email. I don't communicate my idiotic assumptions via mail (at least I try not to), instead saving that for an unrecorded conversation. This is a big blunder, even if it was attained illegally.
As for the rest, I hope this won't disrupt the very-very-very slow wheel of eco-reform that has already been set in motion. My idealistic self says it hasn't, because economic, commercial, and political interests have already aligned behind the idea that we need to and CAN save our planet. My cynical self says that people still vote for politicians and if the people don't believe in it any such idea will fail.
It still comes down to anyone working for an organisation of such status has the highest responsibility to keep the arguments scientific and accountable. With privacy being a non-issue these days, we should perhaps all be prepared to get hacked eventually and have our words come out into the open.
This is even a better quote from Seaworld.org:
There are three main kinds of penguin calls.
• The contact call assists in recognition of colony members. The contact call of emperor and king penguins can be heard one kilometer (0.6 mi.) away.
• The display call is the most complex of all the calls and is used between partners in a colony. The call must convey information on territorial, sexual, and individual recognition.
• The threat call is the simplest and is used to defend a territory and warn other colony members of predators.