Earlier this year, I took part in a fast-paced tour of the science of climate change at the Seattle Science Festival. I posted on the event at the time, but the Pacific Science Center has uploaded better video versions.
Richard Alley of Penn State talked about the hunt for "climate zombies" and explained why climate science is solid. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research dug into the physical science underpinning knowledge of the human role in global warming.
My job was to describe the empirical social science that, in part, explains why more climate science hasn't led to more climate-smart energy action, but also hints at paths forward even in an era of intense political polarization.
I started by examining the deeply divergent climate change views of four Nobel laureates in physics and reviewed the valuable work on "cultural cognition" by Dan Kahan and others. Read on for a few transcribed moments, starting with my admission that, on some points, I am a climate denier:
We've heard this term climate denier. There are actually professional deniers whose job is to cast doubt on global warming. No question about it. But I was in denial on climate for decades. I expected more information would change the world, just as many scientists do…. And then there's this idea out there that if you just clear away the disinformation, we'll magically decarbonize….
I show a slide of a cartoon illustrating why the problem is not nearly that simple.
It's a hidden law of physics. An object at rest stays at rest. Well, society on fossil fuels is an object at rest.
I pivot to a description of the valuable "Six Americas" surveys on climate change attitudes led by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and show a set of slides, posted here, that illustrate how climate disputes hide energy agreement:
My bottom line:
If you change the conversation to things that we all care about — efficiency, not being wasteful, innovation, moving things forward, you can actually create consensus where there seems to be only polarization.
So if I had to have a bumper sticker on my Prius…, I would choose "Join the Energy Quest" over "Fight the Climate Crisis."
I conclude by noting that a range of approaches, from activism to engineering, is vital:
There was a kid I wrote about at M.I.T., an 18 year old, who was inventing an electric motorcycle as his solution. And we're not going to save the world with 9 billion people riding around on electric motorcycles, especially if it's coal-powered electricity. And then there are the kids in the hallways at the climate talks protesting. Neither one is wrong or right, they're just different. But they're engaged and have a sense of urgency, but also hopefully some patience. Because the other reality about this problem is it's not a one-piece-of-legislation or one-treaty problem. It's about a new relationship with energy and the atmosphere, and we have to have a little patience even as we retain that commitment to moving forward.
I hope you'll listen to the 15-minute talk and those by Alley and Trenberth. Weigh in constructively below.
Disclosure note | This was a paid speaking engagement, but my views, as always, are my own.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Dot Earth Blog: The Social Science Explaining Why More Climate Science Hasn’t Led to Greenhouse Action
Dengan url
https://scienceteko.blogspot.com/2013/10/dot-earth-blog-social-science.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Dot Earth Blog: The Social Science Explaining Why More Climate Science Hasn’t Led to Greenhouse Action
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar