On Climate Change and the Irresponsible Use of Science

I see a major part of the problem being that opinion seems to be considered just as valid as research. Yes, our understanding of the effects of greenhouse gasses has changed since the 1970s. Yes, new conclusions have been drawn. This is how science works.

To quote Dara O'Briain, "[s]cience knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise, it'd stop."

I, personally, find it an obvious conclusion that human industry, including agriculture (and by extension, cattle), can and have had a significant measurable effect on climate. I'm starting to hate that word. Let's say weather instead. Our species is changing the weather.

This is not the first time we have demonstrated our capability to alter global systems, nor will it be the last. Fishing industries around the world have devastated what once seemed an infinite resource. The need for cheap beef has sundered the rain forests. Strip mines and clear cutting left great swaths of land naked and scarred. There is a lake in Russia that is so radioactive it kills anything near it in minutes. Our people have done these things. Why does it seem so far-fetched that we could affect the atmosphere? Especially since we already have, notably the ozone layer, which is now full of holes due to the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Looking at the advances in our understanding of the global climate over the last fifty years, and focusing specifically on the staggering increases in computing power and hence our ability to build more accurate models of the world, we should expect that recommendations will change. It was a decade ago already that more powerful computers finally allowed scientists to begin to accurately model the sun. Previously, they had been unable to simply have enough particles interacting. Similar problems have plagued climatologists.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of money and power at stake, not only for the industries who are affected by attempts to moderate their unintended side effects. Naturally, the men who run these industries will be skeptical and just as naturally, they will put their money and power to work on efforts to prove the opposite.

With carefully chosen data, you can subtly skew the results of a study to say just about anything you damn well please. Big tobacco has demonstrated mastery of this. This is pernicious, wrong, and evil. Corrupting science reduces trust in it, and trust in the leaders who make decisions based on it. What we are left with, now, is a legacy of confusion where clarity is badly needed. Worse, we are left with little hope that clarity will ever be found.

The worst part is that the most fundamental truth of the situation is being ignored. That truth is this:

Whenever possible, we should strive for efficiency and a lack of toxic byproducts. In industry, in society, globally. It is irresponsible, ignorant and idiotic to do otherwise, no matter what you believe.