Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The Arctic sea melt is already
irreversible. If any one of these other processes crosses the tipping point,
we are in for major trouble. Yet all of these tipping points are drawing
nearer every day. Our contribution to climate change right now is signifi-
cant enough, but once very large ecosystems get into the game, they will
dwarf what we can do.
There you go again , another voice objects; you are sounding much too
loud an alarm. Climate change is real and is caused by human beings, but
don't make any reckless statements about its potential effects. . Don't get carried
away; cut back on statements that go too far, that warn against all kinds of
horrible and devastating consequences. Some “skeptics” apply this advice to
nearly all discussions of climate change, advocating what they regard as a
“moderate” estimate of global warming's dangers; others, such as Claire
Parkinson, a clear-sighted scientist well within the mainstream who oth-
erwise has a great deal to teach us, targets more narrow claims. 22
No doubt it is best for all participants in the debate to stick as closely
as possible to demonstrable findings. But because this argument places
far more emphasis on curbing wild talk than the danger of the crisis itself,
it ultimately treats caution and politeness as more important than the
future of the planet. Such a preference reveals an excessive distaste for
the language of crisis. This kind of talk, some think, is always irresponsi-
ble, just a form of panic-mongering. Evidently, a responsible, sane person
should avoid speaking of an emergency or doing anything reckless, like
proposing that we consider modifying our way of life. But to focus on
excessive statements rather than the underlying threat of climate change
diverts atention from the most pressing concerns to relatively marginal
ones. It's as if these authors live in a house that is starting to burn down,
but would do anything rather than actually sound the alarm: that would
be noisy and rude!
This preference for understating the severity of the threat, as it turns
out, is shared not only by a handful of scientists but may characterize the
general tone of climate science overall. One recent study suggests that
“scientists are biased not toward alarmism but the reverse,” toward “err-
ing on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions,” possibly
because researchers generally adhere to the “scientific norms of restraint,
objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation.” The
Search WWH ::




Custom Search