In recent months, I’ve addressed the range of environmental anecdotes, U.S. climate “scandals” and the larger debate over the legitimacy of climate science. Generally speaking, it’s obvious to me that no matter your stance on the issue, waiting for 100% clarity is waiting too long. Instead, we can take very meaningful action now that, in many ways, (no, not all), appeals simultaneously to economic, social and ecological objectives. Naturally, we can converge at a place where global and domestic living standards are improving, all the while our eco footprint is being minimized.
In March, the Economist addressed this debate and the challenge of scientific certainty, in a very even-handed way:
Constructing a set of data that tells you about the temperature of the Earth over time is much harder than putting together the basic theoretical story of how the temperature should be changing, given what else is known about the universe in general.
In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misconceptions and mistakes. Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will depend on your attitude to the project at hand.
And most true of all:
The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.
If you’re interested in an easy-to-digest tutorial on the names and claims behind the climate change debate, in addition to an outline of “what we know so far,” I suggest you read the entire article.
