Are there any climatologists in the house?

[HippieSmell]

Just wondering if there are any climatologists here. A lot of global warming threads pop up, and I only have a degree in plant biology with an emphasis on plant ecology. It's doesn't make me highly qualified, but I also read a lot. Not sources like junkscience.com or Rush Limbaugh either, actual science (not that I'm not familiar with those sources). Just curious if others feel that their pieces of paper give weight to their arguments. Or, maybe it doesn't matter?

 

[Rosseau]

I know that people have heard from me a little bit on these forums already, however I'll input what I can here.

Though I am not a climatologist, I'm currently 4 years into an earth system science degree weighted heavily on climatology. I have spent a lot of time around climatologists in the field and am spending this summer doing the same. I too enjoy reading up on these topics.

This does not make my ideas superior, correct or definitive. However, I believe when talking about the science of something you must be exposed to the proper scientific channels. It's this exposure which helps gives weight to your statements.




I have said this before, but will again. I think the most difficult part of many of these climate/earth science related discussions is that many people don't know what it means to "do science". In science, there is a strict method which must be followed and repeated before anything is considered scientific.

As these issues/topics involve us all (we all live on the Earth) a great deal of side topics (economics, politics, ethics) enter the discussion and cloud over the scientific portion. Though they are important they must be considered separate from science.

 

[Samala]

I dont know that those peices of paper really stand up in all these topics. You practically need first hand field/research experience in every social, biological and physical science to have a consummate informed opinion for this problem. I see this as the crux of the warming debate.. we are dealing with so many fields and experts that no consensus can be reached.

My training is also ecology/biology focused, so I understand the trickel down effects of climate variances and what they mean to some biological systems. But I dont claim to understand it all, I dont think anyone could. Maybe the question should be: if we had a climatologist regularly weigh in on these discussions, would it really help the situation? Would we truly understand the topic any better than we already do? Or would more people be swayed (either way) by someone who is a professional climatology researcher?

>Sarah

 

[HippieSmell]

Sorry, I've neglected this thread. I agree with both of you, but you both have or are close to obtaining degrees in natural science, so I guess we're all a bit biased. I have a feeling that many people without education in science will disagree with us. But what do we do? How do we deal with those that don't understand what it means to be scientifically objective? How do you deal with misinformation and people who cling to poor sources? There is a lot of mud to wade through, and I'm just trying to figure out how to effectively communicate with everyone, not just people like us that understand what natural science is all about.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9674935#post9674935 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Rosseau
I have said this before, but will again. I think the most difficult part of many of these climate/earth science related discussions is that many people don't know what it means to "do science". In science, there is a strict method which must be followed and repeated before anything is considered scientific.

I'm glad you brought this up. What is science? It's a very complex question. How do you deal with those that have education in science yet disregard climatology? Climatology has aspects of it that are very anti "strict method". You know what I'm saying?

 

[Samala]

Maybe the question should be: do we have to understand climatology, and grasp all the nuances of the debate, in order to do something positive?

We are all arguing about the degree of impact human activity has on the environment and the long term capacity for our planet to sustain our way of life. Yet, we all seem to at least concede that what we do has some impact. Do we need to know exactly how much it is before we can do something? Does a number motivate people? Does the conversion of a scientific theory into a law motivate people?

Or, is it enough to appeal to others to make small steps and small commitments that can have a cumulative positive outcome? Is it enough to ensure that all children growing up have positive experiences with the natural world so that they want to keep it around for their children?

I think we are literally drowning people with too much overly technical information. We are creating an atmosphere of intellectual elitism, and forsaking everyone who doesnt have access to the latest issue of Nature, Science and all the rest. (You dont need to know or appreciate Bergman's rule to understand that Key deer need human help to stay alive in the Florida Keys. You dont need to grasp the fine principles of convection to see condor's fly. Maybe these aren't the best examples, but they're what came to mind first for this train of thought.)

When we overwhelm people, we push them towards inaction. You can only pound people over the head with facts and figures before they fall asleep, before they lose sight of the reason we were debating in the first place, and before they ignore the message entirely.

Perhaps we need to focus less on who's right and who's wrong, and get back to the idea at the heart of this mess.

>Sarah

 

[HippieSmell]

I agree with you, but what do you do when people don't believe we are having an impact? I've heard the "humans are too insignificant to have an impact" claim many times, and "proof" is often demanded to show that we do have an impact. When the evidence is shown, it is dismissed as being somehow biased or tainted. There is a large percentage of the population that doesn't believe the evidence and therefore doesn't see a problem to begin with. Maybe there is a percentage that will never understand and it's pointless to try and convince them?

 

[Samala]

I'm actually pretty exasperated with the constant, well, attacks on science as a process and on actual researchers (and their ethics, funding sources, and etc) that is a common component of arguments about climate. I honestly do not understand where this comes from or why. I do not see how it does anything positive, at any level.

Honestly, I'm glad that I dont regularly encounter this percentage of the population. How big of a slice would you estimate it to be? What I usually see are people that are eager to do something positive for the wild things around them, and who feel a connection to their place in the environment. That alone, not numbers and theories and the latest papers, seems to inspire change.

>Sarah

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9919277#post9919277 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Samala
I'm actually pretty exasperated with the constant, well, attacks on science as a process and on actual researchers (and their ethics, funding sources, and etc) that is a common component of arguments about climate. I honestly do not understand where this comes from or why. I do not see how it does anything positive, at any level.

Honestly, I'm glad that I dont regularly encounter this percentage of the population. How big of a slice would you estimate it to be? What I usually see are people that are eager to do something positive for the wild things around them, and who feel a connection to their place in the environment. That alone, not numbers and theories and the latest papers, seems to inspire change.

>Sarah

Sarah,

I think it is just a way for some folks to discount science so they can ignore the issues and continue on their merry way. Kind of like burying their heads in the sand like an Ostrich. As for how much of the population, I find the further away you get from folk with a solid education in the biological, ecological, and climate type sciences the more folk you find like that.