How does global warming research create a climate of fear?

0
281

How does global warming research create a climate of fear?

The polar ice caps are disappearing! The Gulf Stream will soon reverse! For? Perhaps. But it is increasingly hard for scientists to question the theory of revelation. Meanwhile, the public is fed up with the fear of eating.

Gone are the days when climate researchers were content to sit on ivory towers, where supercomputers crush Numbers. Today, their field is more likely to provide dangerous materials, and they themselves are the protagonists. The problem became so intense that it was no longer just a matter of media coverage. The professionals who make everyday bread a revelation have been enticed. Last year, director Roland emmerich described the global climate collapse caused by human activity in the film “tomorrow.” In January, the film’s literary work “the state of fear” was published in English by British best-selling author Michael crichton. The state of fear, “six months later in English.

Crichton’s thriller deals with the violent conflict over climate between sober realists and radical idealists. The idealists’ weapon is the fear of climate change, which interprets any unusual weather event as evidence of man-made global warming. A public relations consultant advises environmental groups: “no matter what weather we have, you have to organize your information in this way. Realists claim that there is little evidence that extreme weather is caused by human activity and that they have lost the battle. Their dry scientific facts did not have the opportunity to fight public relations in the terrible scenes depicted in the color ink paintings of climate idealists.

Movies and novels are similar in some ways. Although emmerich’s film is about to take place in the climate, Clayton predicted the economic collapse of his novel. In both cases, however, the culprit is man-made greenhouse gases. In the film, emissions are the cause of disasters, and the novel is the fear of future climate disasters. In Clayton’s book, idealists are so obsessed with their mission that, in their last attempt to sway public opinion, they have finally triggered the disaster they predicted.

So pay attention to

Though cleverly invented, Crichton does accurately depict the dynamics of communication between science, environmental groups, governments and civil society. In fact, the scientific community does face serious problems in understanding and understanding climate change. Scientific research faces a crisis as public figures gain news value in a highly competitive market.

Man-made climate change can be blamed for everything. This is 2002 flooding in parts of east Germany.

Man-made climate change can be blamed for everything. This is 2002 flooding in parts of east Germany.

Climate change caused by human activities is an important issue. But is this really what U.S. senators call “the most important issue on earth”? Will global conflict and poverty bring similar challenges? What about population growth, population change and more common natural disasters?

Today, few americans are interested in the greenhouse effect. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was a different story. There was a huge drought in 1988, and then the Mississippi River floods in 1993-both of which should give the public a real sense of climate change. But not in the United States, interest in the issue quickly faded. According to a CBS survey in May 2003, environmental issues are no longer one of the top six hot topics. Even on the environment, climate change is only seventh. Although the German view takes a different approach, what happens?

Disaster is fun: sober analysis is boring.

Just like the protagonist in the thriller Clayton, it is generally believed that in order to make the public attention on the problem of “climate disaster” (this word in the german-speaking countries occasionally does not exist), it must be “more attractive” is put forward. In the early 1990s, Germany was hit by a severe storm, and German media reported an increasingly severe storm. Since then, the fact that storms of this size have become less common in northern Europe has been ignored by the media. They also ignore the fact that changes in atmospheric pressure measured in Stockholm since the Napoleonic era do not show the frequency and severity of storms. Instead, the media is now filled with stories of heat waves and flooding. The media now claim that extreme events happen frequently, as do those who incite public fear in crichton’s novels. Using this logic, the drought in the German state of Brandenburg and the disastrous floods in the oder river are not contradictory.

In addition to the normal floods and storms, and other more dramatic scene – for example will result in most of Europe or the threat of temperature drop rapidly melting of Greenland’s ice shelf to reverse the Gulf Stream – image is growing close to disaster. There is even speculation that the Asian tsunami may have been caused by disastrous human work.

One river floods, the other dries up. Because of global warming. Here, the Rhine river was hot in the summer of 2003.

One river floods, the other dries up. Because of global warming. Here, the Rhine river was hot in the summer of 2003.

Public attention will not be focused on these issues for long. Before long, people would warn about the weather and go back to business as usual: unemployment, transatlantic hostility, Turkey’s entry into the European Union, or the marriage of prince Charles and camilla parker. With our short attention span, we will experience how doomsday prophets describe the dangers of climate change in more trivial detail. People can already imagine the future image of terror: the downfall of the west Antarctic ice shelf will lead to rising sea levels, after decades of carbon dioxide emissions, temperature, atmosphere and human life would be suddenly changed. Has this prediction been known to the public for a long time?

The price of fear is high because it is the principle of sacrifice and prudence. A scarce resource – public interest and confidence in the reliability of science – is being restored through consumption rather than by being offered a positive example.

But what about climate researchers themselves? How do they interact with the media and the public?

Any scientific consensus?

The public statements of German climate researchers give the impression that the scientific foundations of climate change have been largely resolved. They claim that the scientific community has created the conditions for concerted action. In this case, concerted action means reducing greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible.

It’s not really in science. This is because quite a few climate scientists refuse to believe that potential problems are adequately addressed. Last year’s survey of global climate researchers, for example, found that one in four respondents still questioned whether human activity was the cause of recent climate change.

The public no longer knows what to believe – and is tired of it.

But most researchers do believe that human-induced global climate change has occurred, will accelerate and become more pronounced in the future. This transition will be accompanied by higher temperatures and higher sea levels. Scientists predict that in the far future, a significant increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere will lead to more severe precipitation events in the northern hemisphere in about 100 years. Some areas may face more severe storms and other less risky areas.

But there are always scientists who agree with the alarmists in Clayton’s book that these scenes are not dramatic enough. As a result, they are increasingly linking current extreme weather events to climate change caused by human activity. They do tend to use cautious language to describe the similarities, and interviews are watered down. When asked the following questions: “evidence of high water levels in the elbe river, hurricanes in Florida and this year’s mild winter weather disasters? They responded that while this was not scientifically proven, it was thought to be. None of this is true, but when they merge, it becomes clear that these weather events are, of course, evidence of climate catastrophe,

Always choose the most dramatic person.

The pattern is always the same. The importance of personal events becomes material presented by the media, and then subtly dramatized. When discussing the future, predicting the highest growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions – and, of course, the most important climate impact – is always an option for all possible scenarios. There was no mention of a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Each prediction exceeds the last one. Melting Antarctic ice is one of the current horrors.

Who benefits? Fear forces people to act, but forgetting it can also produce a fairly brief reaction. Climate change, on the other hand, requires a long-term response. The impact on the public may be “better” in the short term, which could also have a positive impact on reputation and research funding. But to make sure the system runs for a long time, every new requirement for the climate and the planet’s future must be more dramatic than the last. It is hard to draw public attention to animal species and climate extinctions after reports of an end to the world heat wave. The only news beyond such reports is the order in which the Gulf Stream is reversed.

All this leads to an exaggerated spiral. Each step in the process may seem harmless, but in general, knowledge of climate, climate change, climate change and its effects has been greatly distorted.

Unfortunately, the scientific correction mechanism is failing. Reserved for climate disaster proof standard of public science is often considered unlucky, because they damage the “valuable”, especially since scientists claimed that they could be “sceptics” abuse. Small plays are considered acceptable and correcting exaggerations is considered dangerous because it is politically inappropriate. This means that suspicion is kept secret. By contrast, the scientific community has given the impression that the science of climate change research is solid and requires only minor additions and adjustments.

Science has lost its objectivity.

The self-examination of scientists eventually led to a new, surprising insight that contradicted or even contradicted traditional models of interpretation. Science is deteriorating into a traditional, politically correct, scientifically claimed repair shop. Science is not only impotent, it also loses the ability to be objective and open.

An example of this is the so-called hockey stick discussion, where the temperature curve is said to describe the development of the past millennium. The name for the curve comes from the shape of a hockey stick. In 2001, the United Nations formed the climate research group of the intergovernmental group on climate change. The hockey stick curve is a symbol and institutionalization of climate change caused by human beings. On the curve, the upward sloping blades of hockey sticks represent the effects of decades of steady human temperatures.

In an article we published in October 2004 in the journal science, we were able to show that the basic method of hockey stick curves was flawed. Our goal is to partially reverse the spiral of inflation, but don’t call this core idea the real problem of man-made climate change. Members of the climate research community did not respond to the article, but took advantage of disputes over facts. Instead, they worry about damage to valuable climate protection causes.

Other scientists are succumbing to a form of enthusiasm that almost evokes the McCarthy era. In their opinion, the criticism of the methodology is just a “conservative think-tank and error information movement” of great products, it is lobbying oil and coal, they think it is their responsibility. On the contrary, from education’s point of view, the drama of climate change is useful.

The same principle that drives other areas of science should apply to climate research as well: disagreement promotes sustainable development, and disagreement is not a regrettable thing. Silence and uncertainty about the benefits of politically valuable causes will reduce credibility because public information is better than it is in general. In the long run, it is said that useful drama is the opposite of what they intend to achieve. If that happens, science and society will miss out.

Hans von Storch, 55, director of the GKSS coastal research institute (IfK) in Geesthacht, Germany, studies water and climate in coastal areas. Nico Stehr, a 62-year-old sociologist at the university of Berlin in Germany, has long been a researcher on climate change attitudes.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here