Grasping at Straws

The competition is so fierce around climate change science because of the massive sacrifices that will be necessary if the science is true, and also because the thought of what is at stake. I really believe that many people would rather live in denial of what will happen than accept that the Earth is changing. Although I do not necessarily agree with this, many people fear the economic losses we will experience if we lower our carbon emissions. While I do not know the origins of the Friends of Science website, I know that many arguments that are skeptical of climate change have been developed by fossil fuel interests, who also work with the media to twist evidence and make the scientific community appear less certain than it actually is. The combination of social and economic factors with the simple fear of the truth is my explanation for the “scientific” competition surrounding climate change.

To really evaluate these two websites, I would have to read each article on the site, analyze who wrote it, and why they did so. On the “Friends of Science” website, many of the papers seem to come from the same source, the “Science and Public Policy Institute,” which is biased towards finding arguments against climate change. To me, even the arguments the Friends of Science present do not answer all the questions I have. I do not come from a scientific background, but climate skeptic arguments have always seemed like they were grasping at straws to explain away a phenomenon, rather than a comprehensive explanation.

The Grist website does not give clear evidence of its sources, either, but it does have a more comprehensive approach. From what I remember of the Scientific Method, we are told to look for theories that are elegant and beautiful, meaning that they offer a simple explanation for the phenomenon. Applying this standard to the two websites, arguments in support of climate change science are much more straightforward than arguments against, which tend to piece together many smaller theories which often seem unrelated or are based on unclear evidence.

Obviously my reading of the science is biased, since I am already pretty invested in fighting climate change. However, given the sacrifices that are associated with accepting climate change science, I feel that the response of the international community, as well as a growing voice of individuals, is evidence enough of which scientific data is the most convincing. Even though UN climate negotiations inevitably result in conflict, every country that attends is there because they believe that climate change is a serious problem. I do not think that countries would be so willing to engage in negotiation or reductions if they felt there was any significant doubts that the problem was real. The same can be said for grassroots level climate activists, U.S. domestic climate policy at the state level, and similar domestic policies around the world. To me, climate change skeptics seem to be trying to push against an overwhelming tide of opinion.