David Suzuki: We ignore scientists at our peril
It’s happening again. Research confirms agreement among most climate scientists that we are altering the Earth’s climate, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And industrial interests, backed by climate change deniers, pull out every trick to sow doubt and confusion. What will it take for us to start seriously tackling the problem?
For the latest study, investigators led by John Cook at Skeptical Science examined abstracts of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate science. They also received comments from 1,200 scientists, who rated more than 2,100 full studies. In both cases, more than 97 per cent of studies that took a position on the causes of global warming said human activity is a primary factor. Less than one per cent rejected the consensus position. The results are consistent with previous research.
As expected, deniers are out in full force, many employing methods common to those who reject science. Medical scientists Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee examined these tactics in the European Journal of Public Health: cherry picking, reference to fake experts, misrepresentation and logical fallacies, impossible expectations of what research can deliver, and conspiracy theories. Deniers often rely on talking points spread by a handful of usual suspects, including Christopher Monckton in the U.K., the Heartland Institute and Anthony Watts in the U.S. and Friends of Science and Tom Harris in Canada.
The Alberta-based group was caught several years ago funnelling money—most from fossil fuel companies—through a “Science Education Fund” at the University of Calgary. It was used to create a disinformation campaign and video with Harris, who then worked with PR firm APCO Worldwide and now heads up an organization called (ironically) the International Climate Science Coalition, which rejects the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. According to Desmog Blog, Friends of Science has misrepresented the recent survey, calling it “careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide.”
Another recent misrepresentation concerns research by the U.K. Met Office, which deniers falsely claim shows the Earth hasn’t warmed for 17 years.
Science isn’t perfect, but it’s one of the best tools we have for understanding our place in the cosmos. When people around the world apply rigorous scientific method to study our actions and their impacts on the things that keep us alive and healthy—clean air, water, soil and biodiverse plants and animals—we must listen, not just about climate, but about a range of issues.
Many scientists are saying we’re creating serious problems—but we have solutions. A recent statement, “Scientists’ Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century”, lists five major challenges: climate disruption, extinctions, loss of ecosystem diversity, pollution, and human population growth and resource consumption.
More than 2,200 have signed, stating, “As scientists who study the interaction of people with the rest of the biosphere using a wide range of approaches, we agree that the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support systems is overwhelming.”
Some may claim this is “alarmist”. It is—because the situation is alarming. It goes on: “For humanity’s continued health and prosperity, we all—individuals, businesses, political leaders, religious leaders, scientists, and people in every walk of life—must work hard to solve these five global problems starting today.”
Many of the proposed solutions have long been advocated by people working in science, the environment and even business: conserving energy and reducing fossil fuel use; better ecosystem management through processes like natural capital evaluation; improved food production and distribution and waste reduction; regulating and preventing pollution; and stabilizing population growth through better education, health care, family-planning services, economic opportunities and women’s rights.
Humanity has changed direction before. When our tools become outdated, we invent new ones. It’s why in many countries, we no longer rely on slavery to maintain economies, we can all vote regardless of race or sex and we enjoy longer and healthier lives than before. Many systems we’ve invented don’t apply to current circumstances. We can and must change the way we act. That requires listening to scientists and those who are working on solutions, and not to the naysayers and deniers who would keep us stalled in a doomed spiral.
Comments
14 Comments
Yeah but Robo Cons...
Jun 18, 2013 at 6:57pm
As usual the Scientist is correct.
However unfortunately Robo-Cons are in power and under our system of Government have a virtual Dictatorship including the ability to pass any Law they want.
And Robo-Cons believe that the Big Guy (Cons don't believe that Women can be the almighty) in the Sky magically heals the Earth, even though the Bible says that he left Earth in our care (Robo-Cons don't read or understand the Bible well although they claim to be it's 'keeper').
And Robo-Cons believe that Oil Profits & Corporate Welfare for mostly Foreign and Soveriegn State owned Oil Mega Corporations from Communist China to Norway (Stat Oil) comes before Canadians, Canada's Environment & any Scientific consensus.
In fact Robo-Cons hate Canada and love Big Oil, they sing Oh-Canada but give Communist China a one sided Trade Deal that by passes any Canadian Environmental Checks & Balances.
In fact Robo-Cons & their ignorant supporters are Deniers of Climate Change & would deny what's best for Canadians & Canada.
Time for a Re-Call if you love Canada, your & Childrens future.
Scientists are human too
Jun 18, 2013 at 6:59pm
Listening to scientists is fine. Believing them is another matter for they are human too. Apply logic, intuition and good sense, that is the answer. I agree with Suzuki's comments about the environment, but putting faith in scientists is ridiculous.
Ronnie
Jun 19, 2013 at 8:24am
The summary points of this piece implores the reader to reject the "denier" and embrace the "scientist". Why? Because the scientist must be right and the denier must be wrong.
We are asked to accept the scientific authority over that of the denier. Science, itself, describes this type of reasoning an example of a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".
It is also the basic construct of revealed religion. One can clearly observe the many parallels between catastrophic anthropogenic global climate disruption and revealed religion . The 'apostle' must be right and the 'heretic' must be wrong.
Since no one denies the fact that the climate changes (always has and always will) a reasoned response to this appeal to scientific authority is to embrace the view of the heretic, submit to the facts then simply express one's conclusion which differs from that of the authority.
Yes! The heretic accepts the scientific theory that the 'climate is changing'. No debate there. The issue is the Forcast known as future 'climate catastrophe'. Just as with a prophesy, a fore cast is unprovable so there in lies the reasonable debate between the scientist (apostle) and the denier (heretic).
No one denies 'climate change' but there are heretics who challenge the claim that Earth's climate future is no longer subject to debate.
-ronnie
Martin Dunphy
Jun 19, 2013 at 8:42am
Ronnie:
Exactly. Life's too short to dispute your reasoning.
Now please sit down quietly at the small table here with the NRA, the tobacco lobbyists, and the flat-Earth society members while the adults serve dinner.
There's a good boy.
Ronnie
Jun 19, 2013 at 9:37am
Greetings Mr. Dunphy,
It is apparent that you believe that my expressed positions are on the wrong side of the climate science debate. What is unclear to me is which points are in contention and why?
I concede that my original post did not address the science of climate change but rather it addressed the science of semantics that were employed in the original commentary by those who are apparently advocates of Carbon Dioxide Driven Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Climate Disruption. That would be an entirely different and enjoyable debate.
-ronnie
Post Script:
Life is seldom too short to enjoy respectful, intellectually challenging discourse... IMHO :-)
Kooky
Jun 19, 2013 at 9:50am
So the Kooky Nut Bars come out denying or trying to discredit the Science and/or the Scientists giving us the alarming Data Climate Change and Environmental effects.
I guess I should ignore most Nobel Prize winning Scientists Consensus, I should ignore trained Scientists who have put years if not Decades of Research peer reviewed and again with MAJORITY Consensus.
Versus some Nut Bar Deniers commenting here against Suzuki who happens to quote
http://mahb.stanford.edu/consensus-statement-from-global-scientists/.
The Science Consensus Paper.
At Ronnie Climate Change FORECAST Denier, what's your Scientific Peer Reviewed Research spanning Decades with majority Scientific consensus to back that idiocy up? None? What Science qualifications do you have?
Duncan
Jun 19, 2013 at 10:58am
If you like more proof of global warming, drive down the Icefield Parkway from Jasper to Banff. About halfway in between them is the Columbia Icefield. It melts and goes into the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. However, in the ground, are markers that show where the edge of the glacier was. You can easily see how much it has shrunk over the last few decades. This is very vivid proof that we are experiencing warming and climate change.
Ronnie
Jun 19, 2013 at 11:06am
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/meeting-unusual-s...
Thank you for this link... A most timely and informative site.
Clearly there is a strong case to be made for 'consensus science' and it's cousin; 'appeal to authority'. Unfortunately, every science academy in the world agrees; such 'evidence' supporting future catastrophic climate change is by definition a logical fallacy.
In regards to the reference... "...some Nut Bar Deniers commenting here against Suzuki...": since I am the only one thus far who is offering a divergent opinion I reason that this is a personal reference to me.
So, the two points of debate rebutting my original post are:
1) Nobel Laureates most likely would disagree with my assessments and
2) I am a "Nut Bar Denier" lacking relevant credentials.
Are the above two rebuttals a fair characterization of one's "catastrophic climate change" position?
-ronnie
Ronnie
Jun 19, 2013 at 11:50am
Hej Duncan,
I love that park though I have had but 1 visit. Some day I hope to return.
Also, I agree that Banff is a timely example of Global Warming. Another example of Global Warming is the Paleo-evidence of the glaciers that were once covering most of Minnesota. If we were having this discussion 12000 years ago I would be writing this from beneath 4000 feet of ice and snow!
Yes, Global Warming (GW) has been and is occurring. That is a fact. As.To GW's net benevolence or menevolence; that is a matter of one's opinion.
Kooky
Jun 19, 2013 at 12:20pm
Ronnie when making an argument even a Nut Bar one cite your soruces such as peer reviewed Scientific Research, blanket statements such as th following...
"Unfortunately, every science academy in the world agrees;..."
Every, really? can you name a few? Are you talking about Nut Bar private Academies? Or are you talking about Universities that have a long history of peer reviewed & published Research? Can you cite a few so that we may follow your statement to it's illogical conclusion.
Every? Really? What Bunk!
You aren't the only Nut Bar I was referring too unless you posted under a different name above as well.
Can you provide any consensus peer reviewed Scientific Research widely published that Proves the trend of Climate Change leading to 'Catastrophic climate change' will not happen? Wheres your Data? Can you cite Data?
Or are you talking out of your backside?
Prove your statements cite your Data.
Otherwise your statements are mere opinion of one deluded individual and in itself a logical fallacy.
Like the Statement 'Every...Academy' that is clearly a Logical Fallacy and indeed illogical and can not possibly be true.
We are all awaiting your amusing Logical Fallacy reply.
Thanks and don't forget to eat lots of Nuts :).