Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
17 Cavemen, climate, and computers
Christopher Essex
AdebatetakesplacebetweenamysterioustimetravellerandaPaleolithicshamanbeforean
audience of Paleolithics about the merits of cooking with microwave ovens. The mysterious
traveller introduces the electromagnetic field and discusses the merits of eating cooked
versus raw meat. The shaman sings mystically about what the gods say. Meanwhile the
audience chants: 'Club. Club. Club …'
It sounds bizarre, but I didn't entirely make it up. I have lived it—well, mostly. There
wasn'tanytimetravel,ofcourse,andthesubjectwasclimate changeratherthanmicrowave
ovens, but everything else was much the same, modulo some details. Naturally, objections
to the Paleolithic aspect may arise: this is the modern world, not the old stone age. Modern
people are educated, supporters of science, and not just a bunch of superstitious cavemen,
aren't they? Well, let me relate some of my experiences in answer.
Sometimes I give a pop quiz before giving an interview on climate. 'Tell me,' I ask
the journalist, 'what you know about the Navier Stokes equations?' It's pretty vague, so
nearly any puny, pathetic answer would do. But there is still one wrong answer: 'What're
the Navier Stokes equations?' Despite the low standard, they never pass. Some think that's
unfair, but is it? Those equations tell us how water and air move—tough to have an
intelligent conversation about climate without that.
Scientists are criticised for speaking in incomprehensible ways. But compromising has
led to distorted, simplistic gibberish, making the full technicalities appear like a fraud to
keep outsiders out. And then the near-gibberish gets set like concrete and called 'science.'
But, mathematical equations are a precise language. While little known to popular culture,
they're essential to human understanding of nature. Sadly, equations appear freely in public
less frequently than pornography, and can prove to be even more socially unacceptable.
Have you ever seen a differential equation in a newspaper? Claiming to discuss climate
whiletryingtoescapemathematicscomesacrosstomelikechildrenwailingfordessertafter
refusing to eat their vegetables.
But if I forego the quiz and the journalist wants to talk about actual science, doing the
interview with scientific technicalities off limits is more challenging than doing charades.
At least in charades, when you act out a movie title, you can count on the audience knowing
whatamovieis.Afterdecadesofslaveringclimateobsession,wearestilladmonishednotto
question the persistent and stunningly stunted level of discourse because it's 'unfair.' While
many worry about climate, time and again they fail to truly discuss it because of awkward
cultural attitudes about science. Instead, I've witnessed something else. It sounds an awful
