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

On Darwin's Lost World - Part II

-
<< Previous page So what do we (did Darwin) know by now (then) ? That living creatures from the very very ancient past (we're talking in terms of millions of years) were often found preserved in the rock record. That we could make out some things about the past environments from these fossils. Fossils showed specific associations: you saw only certain types and groups of fossils in certain suites of rocks (belonging to different periods of geological time). There came a dead end at the base of the Cambrian. Scientists like to call this the Cambrian Explosion today, but back then, many of them were more inclined to dismiss this either as a figment of the imagination of relatively smaller body of researchers, or simply, incomplete/inaccurate science. That the Creator had made us all, was the popular view. 3 theories emerged to explain why we see the Cambrian Explosion (if it even is a real thing!): Charles Lyell Interestingly, it is said that Lyell was
Read more

On Darwin's Lost World

-
Image
Martin Brasier was a prolific paleontologist. And from what little I know of him, he must have been a pretty cool guy. I recently read his book "Darwin's Lost World" and it was definitely one of the better decisions of my life. On Darwin Thankfully, even the most plebeian of science curricula finds it worthwhile to describe Charles Darwin's scientific accomplishments. To me, all through childhood, Darwin represented my superiority to the apes. When someone said Darwin, I would get a mental picture of an ape gradually turning human. That's an overly simplistic picture, but then again, there is so much to learn about everything  that one doesn't quite know where to start. Source The rock record is the only thing that can give us a picture of the ancient Earth. Most other branches of science can tell you what the Earth is like, and why it is the way it is. But it was Geology that first told us what the Earth was  like, and bits of why it w
Read more

What is ENSO? Page 2 - SSTs and trade winds

-
Image
  This is Page 2 of the sub-series "What is ENSO?". If you haven't already, please read Page 1 first. For convenience, keep that page open in a different tab. = = = What is ENSO? In the previous post , we learnt to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperature anomalies . In this post, I'm going to answer a question that no one really asked ―  What if I wanted to identify ENSO phases from the perspective of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) instead? What if, for no good reason but because I felt like it, I wanted to do away with the "anomalies" bit? Looking at SSTs instead of SST anomalies makes matters unnecessarily complicated, but we're going to do it anyway because it also teaches us a lot. In the image below, I've plotted SSTs from the HadISST dataset. These are mean SSTs for the months of December, January and February (DJF) over all years from 1872-2009. Why did we select the months of DJF? Because ENSO events can be seen
Read more