There are few subjects that seem capable of generating as much heat—pun entirely intended—as the climate change debate. What should be a discussion grounded in science, evidence and reasonable disagreement has too often become a political and ideological battlefield. I find myself frustrated not necessarily by the subject itself, but by the way in which the debate is conducted.
So, in no particular order, here are twelve things that annoy me about the climate change debate.
First, misinformation. Both sides are guilty of it. Advocates and skeptics alike have, at times, presented selective facts, exaggerated claims or outright misinformation in support of their preferred position. If the argument depends upon distorting the evidence, it isn't a very good argument to begin with.
Second, the insistence that the science is "100% settled." Science doesn't work that way. Scientific knowledge is built on evidence, testing, observation, revision and, above all, a willingness to question existing conclusions. There may be broad scientific agreement on particular aspects of climate change, but declaring an entire field of inquiry permanently and absolutely settled is fundamentally contrary to the scientific process.
Third, selective interpretation of data. Data are remarkably useful things, but they can also be remarkably easy to cherry-pick. A particular temperature record, time period, computer model or collection of observations can be highlighted while inconvenient information is ignored. If we're going to have a serious debate, we need to look at the whole body of evidence rather than simply the pieces that happen to support our preferred conclusion.
Fourth, extrapolations of convenience. This is where today's trends are projected indefinitely into the future, often with a level of certainty that the underlying evidence simply doesn't justify. Climate systems are enormously complex, and predicting precisely what will happen decades or centuries from now is hardly comparable to forecasting tomorrow's weather.
Fifth, the army of so-called experts. Expertise matters, but credentials alone do not settle an argument. There seems to be no shortage of people presented as climate authorities despite having limited scientific backgrounds outside their particular field. Expertise should be respected, but it shouldn't become a substitute for examining evidence and questioning assumptions.
Sixth, politics dictating science. This may be my biggest concern. Once scientific conclusions become politically useful, there is an enormous temptation to work backward from the desired policy and then assemble the science necessary to justify it. Science should inform politics; politics should not determine scientific conclusions.
Seventh, fear mongering as a form of reasoning. "Act now or catastrophe awaits" may be an effective political slogan, but it isn't a scientific argument. Predictions of disaster can certainly be appropriate when the evidence warrants them, but fear should never be used as a substitute for evidence.
Eighth, decisions based solely on emotion. Climate change raises legitimate concerns about the environment and the future, but emotional appeals cannot substitute for rational analysis. Good intentions do not automatically produce good policies, and policies with enormous economic and social consequences deserve something more substantial than an emotional response.
Ninth, the muzzling of debate. This is particularly troubling. If the evidence is overwhelming, then opposing arguments should be easy to defeat through evidence and reason. Attempts to silence dissent, marginalize skeptics or declare certain questions off-limits do precisely the opposite of what science requires. Debate is not an obstacle to scientific progress; it is part of the process.
Tenth, the name-calling. "Warmists," "climate deniers," "alarmists," and whatever other labels happen to be fashionable add almost nothing to the discussion. They are rhetorical shortcuts that allow people to dismiss an opponent without actually addressing the opponent's argument. If the goal is to understand the climate, perhaps we could start by talking to one another rather than assigning each other insulting labels.
Eleventh, the overuse of the "think of the children" argument. Of course we should think about future generations. But invoking children does not magically transform a debatable proposition into an established fact. In fact, decisions made today in the name of protecting future generations could themselves have enormous unintended consequences. We owe our children more than good intentions—we owe them sound reasoning.
And finally, irrationalism. There is an astonishing amount of it on all sides. The climate debate can sometimes resemble a religious argument more than a scientific one, with competing camps defending their respective orthodoxies and treating dissent as heresy. Facts become political weapons, uncertainty becomes evidence of bad faith, and anyone who questions the prevailing narrative is immediately assigned to the opposing camp.
That, ultimately, is what annoys me most.Climate science is important. Climate change may pose serious challenges, and those challenges deserve to be examined carefully. But precisely because the subject is important, we should demand better from the debate surrounding it.
We should be able to acknowledge uncertainty without being accused of ignorance, examine inconvenient data without being accused of conspiracy, and disagree without resorting to name-calling.
Science isn't a popularity contest, a political campaign or a religious faith.
It's supposed to be a method for figuring out what we actually know—and, equally importantly, what we don't.
No comments:
Post a Comment