I think its important for scientists ("The Science") to be humbe and to admit that they don't really know, aren't sure and might be wrong. It's also important to allow free no taboo debate among scientists and citizens about climate. I remember when sceptics were called "climate deniers." Just like the vaccine debate, you had to be all in, or otherwise you are an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier!
I am more worried about the chemical tsunami that is in our water, our soils, our food, our bodies. The most fertile land is being gradually contaminated with chemicals that dont degrade, some of it from sewage sludge as well as conventional agriculture that sprays and sprays and sprays! Then there are microplastics which apparently are everywhere including the arctic.
The above problems could be solved more easily than climate change - or at least reduced. Example: Ban plastic water bottles, ban most plastic packaging. Instead of an energy transition, we need an agriculture transition. Over a generation get agriculture back to mostly organic. Many of the young people unemployed by AI would love to be regenerative farmers!
I wholeheartedly agree with your view that we should have open public conversations about the issues acknowledging our uncertainty.
We do, however, live in a democracy in which many are not accustomed to such discussions. The uncertainty that you and I can process can get glossed over or ignored, not to speak of those who may use the uncertainty to improperly sway the discussion. What could be the consequences of this ?
I've seen it expressed by some that it is more desirable to exaggerate the risks so that the "right" action is taken, rather than try to have the real conversation and risk the "wrong" outcome.
I may, like you, be more optimistic that people can learn to deal properly with the issues. It may take some time and effort however.
[I seem to recall some years ago, John Roberts Chief Justice, said we should educate people to properly deal with misinformation instead of trying to "protect" them from it. Similar to what I understand Finland did for its citizens particularly younger ones, to deal with Russian misinformation which they were being subjected to.]
If we are living under uncertainty, the "right" action is:
1) not necessarily the right action, and
2) even if the action is directionally correct based on current uncertain information, it can be the wrong kind of "right action" using precious resources fighting a rather ineffective battle.
Uncertainty with error bars like these needs to be treated as a reason to build in insurance, not a reason to overturn the global economy.
I think its important to remember that citizens are adults. Collectively the people tend to be wiser and more moral than the leadership. Look at the dysfunction in every government.
Although I agree with Robert's statement, I am sceptical of the misinformation "experts." Such people told us that the covid lab leak origins theory was a conspiracy theory. That questioning climate catastrophe ideology was "denialism." The list goes on. Sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.
There is no clear evidence to support either the lab leak theory or the zoonotic theory as we don't have (and will never have) all the data we need to get close to the truth. Discussing this amongst the scientists I know (none of us virologists, but all biologists), we each have our favoured "most likely" source, but have to agree that we just don't know.
Let's pay heed to what Churchill once said “Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears.” except substitute different scientific disciplines for sailor, airman and soldier. That is not to say that there is zero chance for climate or pandemic (e.g. hantavirus) catastrophe, but the catastrophe that you expect and try to avoid is not the catastrophe that you get.
Except that the mechanism will be obvious in hindsight. For example, we can argue endlessly about whether closing schools during COVID was prudent, but the damage done to the education of our children was in hindsight entirely foreseeable.
I'm confused about the additional alarmism in here regarding what might happen if our temperatures rise, or rise too fast -- those issues with "large error bars." The earth has been much warmer in the past than it is today. Is the concern the speed of the warming?
Cry wolf once, okay, you lose some trust. Start looking like you're still crying wolf, while there really could be a wolf, you start to understand why maybe the public doesn't (and feels like it would be irresponsible to) put its trust in you.
Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago. Before our generation, no member of our species had never lived in an atmosphere like the one we have now.
No. Is there some reason to believe we couldn't? We are incredibly adaptable. The question is what we'd lose; how much arable land. How much fresh water. Could we support our population, or would it cease growing, and then regress? How big a tragedy would that *really* be? Are we talking millions dying of starvation, or are we talking about a slow decline in birthrates? Probably closer to millions starving -- kind of like we had less than a hundred years ago.
I'm not suggesting that we should do nothing. Nor am I suggesting that we should just write off whatever happens. I'm suggesting that we are operating under the illusion of control, and worse, the illusion of actionable information. Sometimes the best possible action is to wait, study further, and figure out what to do when the error bars start to get a little narrower.
And yes, the unknown-unknown could bite us. But that unknown-unknown might not even be climate. We spend some money on searching for meteors and other such objects, and planning for what we *could* do about them, but comparatively very little. I am entirely uninterested in trying to rewrite our economy, which thrives entirely on energy, cheap, plentiful energy, to want to do things likely to upend that. I'm willing to pay a mild tax on it to reduce the potential risk scenarios, and I'm certainly willing to lean into appropriate energy production mechanisms and spend money on plans and technologies to help us adapt to whatever may arise. Beyond that, I think being alarmist solves literally nothing.
Thank you Quico Toro. Well presented and gives me something to show my doubters. Also gives a great explanation as to how we came to where we are (or were)!
Great article! I think that concerns about climate change need to translate into not fund raising dollars but investment dollars 🙂 Also I think the most extreme effects of climate change really seem to be on the extremes of the earth, especially the arctic and Antarctic regions! If we lose more glaciers and sea ice there our planet might well have an ecological disaster. And another real danger is that hurricanes and tropical storms will be much more rapidly intensifying and deadly. Think about Helene and Milton which still are effecting coastal Florida .
I think its important for scientists ("The Science") to be humbe and to admit that they don't really know, aren't sure and might be wrong. It's also important to allow free no taboo debate among scientists and citizens about climate. I remember when sceptics were called "climate deniers." Just like the vaccine debate, you had to be all in, or otherwise you are an anti-vaxxer or a climate denier!
I am more worried about the chemical tsunami that is in our water, our soils, our food, our bodies. The most fertile land is being gradually contaminated with chemicals that dont degrade, some of it from sewage sludge as well as conventional agriculture that sprays and sprays and sprays! Then there are microplastics which apparently are everywhere including the arctic.
The above problems could be solved more easily than climate change - or at least reduced. Example: Ban plastic water bottles, ban most plastic packaging. Instead of an energy transition, we need an agriculture transition. Over a generation get agriculture back to mostly organic. Many of the young people unemployed by AI would love to be regenerative farmers!
There is no subject that is taboo to discuss among scientists. You just have to come armed with reliable data.
I wholeheartedly agree with your view that we should have open public conversations about the issues acknowledging our uncertainty.
We do, however, live in a democracy in which many are not accustomed to such discussions. The uncertainty that you and I can process can get glossed over or ignored, not to speak of those who may use the uncertainty to improperly sway the discussion. What could be the consequences of this ?
I've seen it expressed by some that it is more desirable to exaggerate the risks so that the "right" action is taken, rather than try to have the real conversation and risk the "wrong" outcome.
I may, like you, be more optimistic that people can learn to deal properly with the issues. It may take some time and effort however.
[I seem to recall some years ago, John Roberts Chief Justice, said we should educate people to properly deal with misinformation instead of trying to "protect" them from it. Similar to what I understand Finland did for its citizens particularly younger ones, to deal with Russian misinformation which they were being subjected to.]
If we are living under uncertainty, the "right" action is:
1) not necessarily the right action, and
2) even if the action is directionally correct based on current uncertain information, it can be the wrong kind of "right action" using precious resources fighting a rather ineffective battle.
Uncertainty with error bars like these needs to be treated as a reason to build in insurance, not a reason to overturn the global economy.
I think its important to remember that citizens are adults. Collectively the people tend to be wiser and more moral than the leadership. Look at the dysfunction in every government.
Although I agree with Robert's statement, I am sceptical of the misinformation "experts." Such people told us that the covid lab leak origins theory was a conspiracy theory. That questioning climate catastrophe ideology was "denialism." The list goes on. Sometimes the solution is worse than the problem.
There is no clear evidence to support either the lab leak theory or the zoonotic theory as we don't have (and will never have) all the data we need to get close to the truth. Discussing this amongst the scientists I know (none of us virologists, but all biologists), we each have our favoured "most likely" source, but have to agree that we just don't know.
Let's pay heed to what Churchill once said “Why, you may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together - what do you get? The sum of their fears.” except substitute different scientific disciplines for sailor, airman and soldier. That is not to say that there is zero chance for climate or pandemic (e.g. hantavirus) catastrophe, but the catastrophe that you expect and try to avoid is not the catastrophe that you get.
"...the catastrophe that you expect and try to avoid is not the catastrophe that you get."
I'm privately convinced that the way Climate Change will ultimately kick us in the arse is through some mechanism we haven't even identified yet.
Except that the mechanism will be obvious in hindsight. For example, we can argue endlessly about whether closing schools during COVID was prudent, but the damage done to the education of our children was in hindsight entirely foreseeable.
Well I feel that’s not a good analogy, after all we’ve seen brave men be sources of strength together as often as paralyzed by their fears 😎
It's the sum of all fears that results in bad or no decisions being made.
I'm confused about the additional alarmism in here regarding what might happen if our temperatures rise, or rise too fast -- those issues with "large error bars." The earth has been much warmer in the past than it is today. Is the concern the speed of the warming?
Cry wolf once, okay, you lose some trust. Start looking like you're still crying wolf, while there really could be a wolf, you start to understand why maybe the public doesn't (and feels like it would be irresponsible to) put its trust in you.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/800/cpsprodpb/0de1/live/676db750-d43a-11ef-87df-d575b9a434a4.png
Homo sapiens evolved around 200,000 years ago. Before our generation, no member of our species had never lived in an atmosphere like the one we have now.
No. Is there some reason to believe we couldn't? We are incredibly adaptable. The question is what we'd lose; how much arable land. How much fresh water. Could we support our population, or would it cease growing, and then regress? How big a tragedy would that *really* be? Are we talking millions dying of starvation, or are we talking about a slow decline in birthrates? Probably closer to millions starving -- kind of like we had less than a hundred years ago.
I'm not suggesting that we should do nothing. Nor am I suggesting that we should just write off whatever happens. I'm suggesting that we are operating under the illusion of control, and worse, the illusion of actionable information. Sometimes the best possible action is to wait, study further, and figure out what to do when the error bars start to get a little narrower.
And yes, the unknown-unknown could bite us. But that unknown-unknown might not even be climate. We spend some money on searching for meteors and other such objects, and planning for what we *could* do about them, but comparatively very little. I am entirely uninterested in trying to rewrite our economy, which thrives entirely on energy, cheap, plentiful energy, to want to do things likely to upend that. I'm willing to pay a mild tax on it to reduce the potential risk scenarios, and I'm certainly willing to lean into appropriate energy production mechanisms and spend money on plans and technologies to help us adapt to whatever may arise. Beyond that, I think being alarmist solves literally nothing.
Thank you Quico Toro. Well presented and gives me something to show my doubters. Also gives a great explanation as to how we came to where we are (or were)!
Great article! I think that concerns about climate change need to translate into not fund raising dollars but investment dollars 🙂 Also I think the most extreme effects of climate change really seem to be on the extremes of the earth, especially the arctic and Antarctic regions! If we lose more glaciers and sea ice there our planet might well have an ecological disaster. And another real danger is that hurricanes and tropical storms will be much more rapidly intensifying and deadly. Think about Helene and Milton which still are effecting coastal Florida .