Archive for October, 2011
Today I have seen the film Margin Call. I have really enjoyed it, maybe because I do not go too much to the cinema, surelly because the film is absolutelly great. And even if it seems far from climate change issues, it has led me to think in those two aspects:
1.- Before 2008 some people were warning about toxic assets, or financial great risk. I do not know if they were reputed experts or solitary voices (in the film many of the managers say I told you). Nevertheless, we could be in the same position after a climate disaster, saying I told you but nobody did what had to be done. In some cases the risks are only understood by most of the people when it is too late and it looks evident.
2.- Considering the financial turmoil we are in (in Europe specially) due to loses of values of some things we considered more valuables (houses, mortages, debts). What could happen if we suddenly realize that some cities might be under the water not very long? Or that some lands might not be so productive due to climate changes? Or that water supplies might be a real nightmare? I am not an economist, but I have the strong felling that some of the economic negative effects of climate change will become true just when enough people is aware of them even before happening. Because the fears spread out fast in society and economy. And some people still continue to focus on short term cost of carbon emission regulations…
I studied physics, I have some friends working in basic research, and myself work in applied research in a classical Industry. With this background I am inclined to position myself close to scientific points of view. And regarding Climate Change, scientists majority point of view is that it is happening and happening due to our greenhouse gas emissions. See for example general science telling webs like Neofronteras , or TV programs like Redes 2.0.
Climate Hawks say there is consensus[LLL], or that science is settled [LLL]. Skeptics say there is not consensus [LLL], and show scientific skeptics, or even collect climate change skeptic papers [LLL]. As this time I am explaining more the feelings than evidence, for me it is clear that science divulgers, blogs and field researchers have a clear opinion: yes they believe in anthropogenic climate change. And this is important for me because I have confidence in science, not blind or absolute confidence, but confidence.I even understand when some researchers get angry about skepticism, it is like considering all their work useless. I sometimes have felt something close to this when after a research with data it is refuted by “feelings” or sensations” or just a decision. But may be it is important to note that CC public debate is not so much about science (only a few people would understand), it is about believing in something that should make us change a lot of things in our living standards or economy, and this is not easy to accept.
Just in case, I want to say that apart from my feelings the data I read also confirm a vast majority of climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate change for example the peer reviewed study mentioned in the next figure from Skeptical Science.