Climate change is a hotly debated topic, and there is a lot of political fervor that finds its way into discussions about the topic. A discussion of climate change science, with someone who rejects climate change, will generally lead nowhere. But while climate change is so prominent in the media, health problems caused by burning of fossil fuels, mercury poisoning, and other areas of ecological and public health issues are often ignored.
I think that even such deniers would admit that burning of fossil fuels has led to a great deal of other hazards. Smog has long been a recognized problem of pollution. Recent studies suggest that mercury is almost universally found in freshwater fish.
So would we better serve the population by expanding our discussion about pollution, and focusing less on climate change specifically?
I think people should address environmental problems first based on their specific expertise. Scientists risk loosing credibility when we stray to far from our area of training. Having said that, climate change, in terms of its total scale, is the single largest issue of our time. There is broad scientific consensus that it has happened; continues to happen; and that burning of fossil fuels causes it. Any well informed scientist can interpret that consensus, recognize the gravity of the situation, and express an opinion.
That does not mean that we should exclusively focus our efforts on the single largest problem, or that it should be the top priority of every scientist. I want to hear about chimpanzee conservation from Jane Goodall....but I'd also respect her opinion on climate.
In addition, habitat destruction, the dramatic and downright scary loss of insects and insectivorous birds are examples of problems that need our attention. If we could manage emissions and reign in climate change, these other issues would still remain unsolved. So I advocate moving forward on many fronts. So please, reduce impervious surfaces in your landscape and reduce stream erosion!
Finally, regarding deniers; in decades past they denied that the climate changes. Many spoke up and eventually turned that tide. Now most accept that it's happening but they deny a causal link to fossil fuels. If we keep speaking up we can push back that tide also; if we stop speaking up then we have given up.
Thank you for your reply, Declan J. Mccabe.
There is a tendency for experts to think of themselves as experts on every topic. As an example, towards the end of his life, Hawking started to discuss various topics, such as artificial intelligence, in an authoritative way, even though he lacked expertise on the topic. It's a bit of a problem.
Now, as to convincing people, I think it's easy to convince people that climate has changed. The science on the topic is very robust. However, the science is far murkier when it comes to the exact impact that humans have, and even murkier when it comes to how climate will continue to change in the future.
While this study is old, I do not know of a similar statistically robust study on CMIP6 models. As you can see, CMIP5 models grossly overestimated warming. http://www.blc.arizona.edu/courses/schaffer/182h/climate/overestimated%20warming.pdf
Now, perhaps that's because of issues with data that have since been cleaned up, and CMIP6 might be far more robust. However, I am still waiting on proper analysis with new data.
Now, we expect a high degree of uncertainty, with models such as these, but that also means that we have to be very careful about what conclusions we draw from them, and how they are sensationalized.
Basically, there's a lot of argument to be made, whether good or bad, against the severity of climate change. It's really not going to be easy to convince people. But it's a lot easier to convince people that there's mercury in the food and it's poisoning them, or that there's smog and it's causing asthma, cancer, etc.
Should science communicators focus on general environmental harm rather than climate change?
The focus is for both together especially evident on a longer time basis.
Methil Narayanan Kutty, I do agree that it's not exactly an either or question. Perhaps I should have asked it this way: should scicomm focus a greater fraction of its resources on general environmental harm, rather than the almost exclusive focus on climate change?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change