FA+
Shop
Doran Eirok: Mad Scientist
16 years ago
...where by 'mad' I mean 'angry.'
I'm in Las Vegas currently at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers. It's going well so far, if a bit awkward and lonely but I think that's true of me and professional/academic conference settings regardless of anything else. And what I'm being scientifically angry about is global change.
It's a big issue with me, I'll make that clear right now, and one of a very few that it's possible for me to get pretty worked up about. The massive gulf of perception on it between the scientific community and, apparently, the entire rest of the world continues to baffle me. I'm a scientist, I'm a graduate student, and I spent more or less every day being exposed to scientific research proving beyond any doubt in any sensible person's mind that human-caused global change is an indisputable fact. The only uncertainty remains in the details of how it will change things at local scales, how quickly and how severely.
To what feels sometimes like the rest of the world, global change remains an alarmist myth, a bunch of hysterical babbling intellectuals flailing their arms in the air trying to get attention without knowing what they're talking about. I think the reason for tthis can be traced to two things; a) the people in power who have an interest in maintaining the status quo and would be forced to change their ways (and possibly make less money) are generally the kind of people who have become very effective at spinning issues and swaying public opinion, and b) the scientific community is particularly weak against this because it generally has never done a good job of communicating effectively to the public.
Laypeople have become convinced that the uncertainty -demanded- by a valid expression of the scientifi process simply means that scientists don't know anything. They have also allowed themselves to be grossly misled about what global change (previously referred to as global warming) means. The term 'global warming' refers to worldwide average temperature increase, not a uniform increase at all locations and times. Global change instead carries predictions of a much higher degree of -uncertainty- and more extreme weather events across the planet. As such, the argument that global change can't be real because 'last winter it was really cold/snowy' represents a complete and utter failure to pay ANY attention to what's being said by scientists or attempt to correctly understand it. And I'm likely to pounce and maul the next person who lobs that piece of nonsense at me.
The scientific truth, which thank you very much has been arrived at and continues to be arrived at by a structured, empirical, and logical process of thinking and discovery, is that global change will happen, is happening, is in part a natural process but is being significantly and dangerously exacerbated by human activity, and is already beginning to manifest notable changes to our world. The strong possibilities are that our ways of life and especially those of our children and grandchildren are going to have to change to adapt, and the sooner we as a society can get our heads around that the better we'll be able to cope with it. What infuriates me is that we already have the solutions to these problems, we know what needs to be done to adapt to, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of our changing world, but we won't because our heads are stubbornly stuffed in the sand. Firmly enough that I'm beginning to worry more and more just how hard reality is going to have to bite us in our exposed and unguarded rear before we start paying attention. As alarming as the predictions and cascading effects of global change are, they don't scare half as much as human stubbornness and apathy. It is this that's the real problem, the real danger.
As a scientist (and a fluffy I'm-OK-you're-OK idealist) I hold on to a kind of nervous hopefulness that the human spirit and potential will win out and we'll get shaken up a little but ultimately pull together and adapt and get through it all just fine. But at the same time as more and more people tell me it can't be a problem because they got a lot of snow last winter, I'm also left with a feeling of grim resignation that all I can do is my best as a scientist and try to spread and advance knowledge a little, while otherwise sitting back and watching and waiting to see how much the world will need to burn before people can admit it's getting a bit warm.
I'm in Las Vegas currently at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers. It's going well so far, if a bit awkward and lonely but I think that's true of me and professional/academic conference settings regardless of anything else. And what I'm being scientifically angry about is global change.
It's a big issue with me, I'll make that clear right now, and one of a very few that it's possible for me to get pretty worked up about. The massive gulf of perception on it between the scientific community and, apparently, the entire rest of the world continues to baffle me. I'm a scientist, I'm a graduate student, and I spent more or less every day being exposed to scientific research proving beyond any doubt in any sensible person's mind that human-caused global change is an indisputable fact. The only uncertainty remains in the details of how it will change things at local scales, how quickly and how severely.
To what feels sometimes like the rest of the world, global change remains an alarmist myth, a bunch of hysterical babbling intellectuals flailing their arms in the air trying to get attention without knowing what they're talking about. I think the reason for tthis can be traced to two things; a) the people in power who have an interest in maintaining the status quo and would be forced to change their ways (and possibly make less money) are generally the kind of people who have become very effective at spinning issues and swaying public opinion, and b) the scientific community is particularly weak against this because it generally has never done a good job of communicating effectively to the public.
Laypeople have become convinced that the uncertainty -demanded- by a valid expression of the scientifi process simply means that scientists don't know anything. They have also allowed themselves to be grossly misled about what global change (previously referred to as global warming) means. The term 'global warming' refers to worldwide average temperature increase, not a uniform increase at all locations and times. Global change instead carries predictions of a much higher degree of -uncertainty- and more extreme weather events across the planet. As such, the argument that global change can't be real because 'last winter it was really cold/snowy' represents a complete and utter failure to pay ANY attention to what's being said by scientists or attempt to correctly understand it. And I'm likely to pounce and maul the next person who lobs that piece of nonsense at me.
The scientific truth, which thank you very much has been arrived at and continues to be arrived at by a structured, empirical, and logical process of thinking and discovery, is that global change will happen, is happening, is in part a natural process but is being significantly and dangerously exacerbated by human activity, and is already beginning to manifest notable changes to our world. The strong possibilities are that our ways of life and especially those of our children and grandchildren are going to have to change to adapt, and the sooner we as a society can get our heads around that the better we'll be able to cope with it. What infuriates me is that we already have the solutions to these problems, we know what needs to be done to adapt to, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of our changing world, but we won't because our heads are stubbornly stuffed in the sand. Firmly enough that I'm beginning to worry more and more just how hard reality is going to have to bite us in our exposed and unguarded rear before we start paying attention. As alarming as the predictions and cascading effects of global change are, they don't scare half as much as human stubbornness and apathy. It is this that's the real problem, the real danger.
As a scientist (and a fluffy I'm-OK-you're-OK idealist) I hold on to a kind of nervous hopefulness that the human spirit and potential will win out and we'll get shaken up a little but ultimately pull together and adapt and get through it all just fine. But at the same time as more and more people tell me it can't be a problem because they got a lot of snow last winter, I'm also left with a feeling of grim resignation that all I can do is my best as a scientist and try to spread and advance knowledge a little, while otherwise sitting back and watching and waiting to see how much the world will need to burn before people can admit it's getting a bit warm.
