Climate Change: Initiating the Dialogue - Part III

-

I recently got called a "child" on Twitter. And as much as I would like to take it as a compliment, I can't help facing that it was actually meant as a derisive remark to shut me up because .. well, the person who said that had nothing concrete to say. It began with a tweet from Nupur Sharma, Editor of OpIndia.com, tweeted:

[ Please check out the context of this tweet, if you have the time. It would be quite interesting to delve into it, but I would be straying away from the central point of my post. ]

To this, I replied:


That's quite truly the central problem here. If climate change were like a disease -- say, I take precautions to not get affected, and I don't -- or like burning your home -- say, I don't burn my own home and my home doesn't get burned down -- it would perhaps be okay. It would be okay to let people be, as long as they are not harming me. But it isn't this way. The trouble is, we're all sharing a home here and we are burning it down.

Anyway, back to the conversation:

And to me, that is an ideal setting for laying down some ground rules for a sensible climate change dialogue.

Rule 0

(so basic, it shouldn't even need to be mentioned, but what the hell..let's do this for the sake of completeness)

No name-calling in a rational argument.

Seriously, if you have to resort to name-calling, it's clear you don't have any substance in your argument.

But now to the rules more pertinent to the climate conversation:

Rule 1

Learn your science from the relevant scientists.

- NOT the media
- NOT the popular interpretation of science by the media
- NOT the convenient interpretation of science by politicians
- NOT by WhatsApp forwards

Here's a cool illustration that I often share with my family and friends:

Source

Ground reality is twisted by incomplete understanding and personal agenda on multiple levels. The climate conversation today has become so much like Chinese Whispers, but it really doesn't need to. Scientists have been writing reports for fellow scientists, policy makers and the general public, for decades now. There are summary reports that don't go unnecessarily deep into the technicalities, there are outreach articles on numerous university pages and it is now possible to interact directly with many scientists on Twitter.

The best place to get the facts today is the IPCC website. The IPCC stands for the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. It is a UN body that releases reports after consensus with experts from all the countries across the world. It consists of experts from many fields - for eg,. economics, finance, humanities - and not just climate science. It releases reports for policy makers and general public in a manner that is simple for everyone to understand. Another awesome website is climate.nasa.gov.

Rule 2

While discussing the science, focus on the science.

Yes, the final policy cannot depend only on the science. Scientists understand that, and we do not ask that you keep science above everything else, because we do not understand the economic or sociological (or other related) perspectives. Since we do not understand about them, we do not dictate policy about those perspectives.

Understanding the science is step 1. Using scientific information to frame policy (with other inputs) is step 2. Step 1 is independent of step 2. 

Rule 3

Cut the crap.

Science is not affected by your nationality, your political outlook, your religion, your ignorance or your level of apathy. The laws of this universe stays the way they are, whether you understand them or not, whether you care for them or not. A cyclone will hit the coast if it has to, and looking the other way will not lessen the damage.

Climate science is NOT about:
  • Left wing or right wing
  • India or the West
  • Greta Thunberg - or Asperger's - or any leader - or what they're being portrayed as - or what you think of them - or what you think they're being portrayed as
  • Miscellaneous controversy theories
  • Generation X, Y or Z
  • Any religion in the world -- seriously !

Rule 4

Admit to your ignorance / incomprehension.

It is okay to not know the technicalities of climate science. That's the job of the scientists after all. But having strong opinions based on half-baked knowledge is a bad thing for everyone -- it hurts you and it hurts everyone who listens to you. It's perfectly okay to say "I don't know how to cure cancer, you should go see an oncologist" or "I don't know much about climate change, let's listen to what the scientists say". Seriously.

-----

To summarise:

  1. Get your facts straight. Focus on the facts. The rest is consequential.
  2. Value expert opinions over those of climate quacks.
  3. Be responsible for your words and actions, because you're burning my home down too.
-----

If you like such posts, you may subscribe here.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

हिमाचल की आपदा और नागरिकों से आग्रह

-
Image
हिमाचल प्रदेश से एक के बाद एक भयावह विडीओ और तस्वीरें सामने आ रही हैं। भारी बारिश के कारण कई क्षेत्रों में बाढ़ जैसे हालात हैं। इस संदर्भ में हिमाचल प्रदेश और पूरे देश के नागरिकों से आग्रह है कि वे इन चार ज़रूरी बातों पर गौर करें :   (१) बाढ़ क्षेत्रीकरण में ढील देना आपदाओं को निमंत्रण देने जैसे है अलग अलग विशेषज्ञों द्वारा ये बात बार-बार उठायी जा चुकी है, पर फिर भी नज़र-अन्दाज़ करी जाती है। हर नदी का एक बाढ़-क्षेत्र होता है और उस क्षेत्र में निर्माण करना जोखिम की बात है। प्रशासन के द्वारा बाढ़ क्षेत्र में निर्माण करने की अनुमति देना उचित नहीं है। ये नागरिकों का दायित्व नहीं होना चाहिए, बल्कि ये प्रशासन का दायित्व होना चाहिए की नदियों के बाढ़ क्षेत्र में कोई निर्माण ना हो, ख़ास कर कोई भी सार्वजनिक निर्माण तो क़तई ना हो। बाढ़ क्षेत्रीकरण से कई लोग पहले से वाक़िफ़ होंगे। ये सिर्फ़ पहाड़ी इलाक़ों में ही नहीं, पूरे देश में ज़रूरी ही। इसके बारे में और जानने के लिए ये लेख पढ़ें (अंग्रेज़ी में)। ये ट्वीट भी ज़रूर देखें: भूविज्ञान विशेषज्ञ ने मनाली के एक विडीओ में ढेर होती हुई रोड को &qu
Read more

What is a monsoon?

-
Image
Note: This post is written primarily for an Indian audience. - - - What leads to a strong or a weak monsoon? What will happen to the monsoon as the world warms? What happens to the monsoon in an El Niño year? -- These are popular and practical questions that the reader has probably heard, read or thought about. This post has no answers for any of these questions, but instead focuses on a more foundational and theoretical question -- What is a monsoon? Easy! Monsoon means the rainy season, right? This first order approximation is generally accepted as universal truth, since it works for a large part of the country. People equate monsoon with rains, especially summer rains. But what about winter rains? They are usually labelled as "post monsoon", and anything else can be put under "pre-monsoon". If you're a bit more nuanced, you may even label some non-summer rains as "non-monsoon". But the general discussion around rains in India tends to revolve around
Read more

Albedo, and why you should care about it

-
Image
I'm a big fan of albedo . I think this concept is very relevant to the climate system, especially to modern climate change. So this is my attempt to familiarize the reader with this concept and show its practical applicability. What is albedo? In simple terms, it is the ability of a surface to reflect sunlight. A surface with high albedo reflects more sunlight, a surface with low albedo reflects less sunlight. Source There are more general terms, such as reflectance, which are used in other sciences. For the sake of climate, we are primarily interested in sunlight. Albedo values lie between 0-1. The overall, average albedo of the Earth is 0.30. This means that 30% of sunlight is reflected back. The rest is absorbed and radiated as heat. Greenhouse gases tend to trap the radiated heat. In the context of a warming planet, it might have been more comfortable if the Earth's albedo was higher. A higher albedo would mean lesser sunlight would be absorbed, lesser heat would be radiate
Read more