Doomsaying as industry

http://scienceblogs.com/nosenada/2006/12/so_what_happened_at_agu_last_w.php

So what happened at AGU last week?


What I am starting to hear is internal backlash. Sure, science is messy and always full of tension between holders of competing positions, opinions and analyses. That has always been the nature of science, and of course extends to climate science. Tensions come out at meetings, on listservs, on letters pages, and in the press. But these tensions normally surround a particular paper, or a particular question. While much more broadly-based tensions have existed for years on the state of understanding on global warming, they haven't really been tensions internal to the climsci community, but tensions between the climsci community and interested outsiders.

What I am sensing now is something much broader and more diffuse, something that has less to do with particular components of the science in the field and is much more about how the field is composing itself.

What I see is something that I am having a hard time labeling, but that I might call either a "hangover" or a "sophomore slump" or "buyers remorse." None fit perfectly, but perhaps the combination does. I speak for (my interpretation) of the collective: {We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}


I'm sure the Greens will storm his house with pitchforks and torches. Heresy! Apostasy! (Isn't it amazing that environmentalism has taken the trappings of religion?)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

For Gerard

 Many moons ago, I started reading blogs and shortly thereafter I started reading them.  I became discouraged because I read many writers, far more talented than me and the ease with which they elucidated the very points I wanted to make but so much more elegantly and completely that I just gave up.    Gerard of American Digest was one such writer.  His facility with prose and his ability to evoke emotion was remarkable.  I linked to him once with my nascent blog and he was kind enough to reach out to me and thank me for the link.  I literally had zero readers.  Just like now.  But that was the measure of the man.  He took the time to reach out to me and genuinely thank me for the link.   The closest I ever had to meeting the man was meeting Morgan in person.  Morgan and Gerard were friends.  They had an evident mutual respect for their respective works.   I never met Gerard, didn't know the man personally but having read his work I had a sense of the man.  He's dying now.  If
Read more

So....the autism thing

Since April is nearly over and it's autism awareness month, I suppose I should talk a bit about it. I guess the best way to start is to rehash the story of How I Got Here. My oldest was born in 1999. Healthy, happy and so on. One peculiar thing he did as an infant was to avoid eye contact. Our doctor assured us it was because he was so young and his eyesight was undeveloped and he was probably focusing on something in the background that was more interesting. Besides, babies don't recognize faces for a few months after birth. Only later did we find out that our doctor was an idiot. He was 16 mos. old when his little brother was born and he was walking and making wishes known by pulling me or my wife by the hand to whatever he wanted etc. He was fascinated with the wheels on toys. If you gave him a truck he'd turn it over and spin the wheels and smile. Only later would I find out this is a major warning sign. This was our first born and what the hell did I know?
Read more