Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick - climate scientist with a strange fascination for extreme events
sarahinscience
  • Summary
  • Blog
  • Publications
  • CV
  • Conferences & Workshops
  • Media

power to the people!

9/24/2013

0 Comments

 
_ Just over two weeks ago, the Australian public voted in their 28th prime minister, Tony Abbott. He won with an overwhelming majority, with 90 seats to Labor’s 55, and will perhaps gain another seat as the last 7% of votes remain to be counted. 

I’m really not surprised that he got in, and I don’t think most people are. The Labor party has showed little cohesion over their last two terms, providing the perfect storm for the Liberals to shine. If nothing else the Liberal party say can provide a stable government, which they argue outweighs by far anything that Labor can provide. And I guess to most members of the general public this was enough.

Under this government, however, I really fear for the future of climate science, and research in general (but I’ll get to this second point another day). 

Particularly if we sit back, do nothing, and let Abbott and his posse run the show.

Barely two days after being sworn in, Abbott got his new minister for Environment to axe the Climate Commission. This commission was set up as a federally-funded, yet independent body to communicate climate science to the public. In their few short years of service, they provided a large range of infographics, videos, presentations and reports to help explain the causes and impacts of increasing anthropogenic emissions on Australians and their environment. While the head commissioner, Tim Flannery, is not technically a climate scientist, he possesses communication skills that far outweigh many scientists in this field. The team was also made up of an ecologist, an economist, an ex-president of BP, an associate dean of the UNSW faculty of science, and an expert climate science researcher, to ensure that non-bias and non-partisan information was presented.  This is key in in developing a well-informed public, which, unfortunately is mainly informed by highly biased media sources on this issue.

Never heard of the commission? Or don’t really care that they’re gone? Well the new chair of Abbott's business advisory council, Maurice Newman, was quoted last week for stating the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology need to be stopped in spreading the propaganda that is climate change. It absolutely baffles and astounds me that this view still exists with such conviction, and that Newman wants to silence two of the most trusted science organizations in this country, because they provide scientific evidence of the damage we have done, and will continue to do so on our current trajectory. Factual evidence is not propaganda.

What reason do we have not to trust them? What would their motivation be in creating propaganda?  Indeed, it is pertinent to note that Tim Flannery mentioned that the former Climate Commission acted as a voice for these organizations to disseminate their research to the greater public, when they are not permitted to do so themselves.

How can one spread propaganda when they are not permitted to speak in the first place?

Perhaps Newman and Greg Hunt (the environment minister) should have a chat - Hunt is now saying that the government will turn to the Bureau and CSIRO for information about climate change (any one else getting mixed messages here?).

Moreover, the Bureau and CSIRO are not the only research groups providing this evidence. Many, many research groups and universities at the international scale are providing the exact same evidence that research efforts from CSIRO and the Bureau are. I am not sure how they are providing propaganda when their research outputs are consistent with the global effort.  Perhaps this is a good place to make the point that it is only non scientific bodies and groups with vested interests that state the human contribution to climate change does not exist. There are no climate or weather related groups that say anything of the sort, and 97% of climate scientists agree that humans have caused the steadily increasing trend in global temperature we’ve been observing since we started pumping so much crap into the atmosphere.

In a remarkable twist of events yesterday, the Australian public has shown what I perceive to be as the middle finger salute to Abbott’s comical attitude towards anthropogenic climate change.

The Climate Council, launched in the early hours of yesterday morning, consists of the original members from the Climate Commission, however is now an NGO, running off the pro-bono work of the former commissioners, and donations from the public. It has been alive little more than 24 hours, yet the council has received almost  $400 000 from the general public, and has 39 000 likes on facebook. These donations will be directed into continuing to provide communications material to the media and mass public on the scientific evidence and impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

The Climate Council clearly states their independence, apolitical position, and calls upon the general public to support these democratic rights. It can also be said, perhaps, that we can trust the Climate Council as an independent source more now than as the Climate Commission, as we have witnessed with our own eyes the Government’s refusal to have anything to do with them – nothing can be more independent than that.

When I started writing this entry yesterday morning my head was heavy with disappointment, confusion and even embarrassment in how, as demonstrated with the Climate Commission, the new Government has exhibited quite clearly its opinion and stance on anthropogenic climate change. When Abbott won, and his new cabinet announced, my personal view was that climate researchers and activists alike need to just plod on for the next few years. That we should just attempt to put up and deal with anything that’s thrown our way and just hope that we can make it through the next three years relatively unscathed and with as little damage done to us, our credibility, and of course our environment, as we could manage.

Today, however, I sit here finishing this entry with a completely reversed mood. After the events of yesterday I feel quite differently, and am no longer disappointed or embarrassed. Well, no longer disappointed or embarrassed with members of the Australian public, anyway.

If the Liberal's motivation was to, so to say, try and bury the hatchet on the contentious issue that is climate change, then they have been undoubtedly mistaken. Simply removing something from government funding and attempting to silence the communicative channel does not make it go away, or stop it from existing. Moreover, through the overwhelming support that the general public has displayed for the Climate Council, it is obvious that the general public want this independent voice, and, by flexing their democratic rights, have conveyed a crystal clear message that they will not be forced to bury the hatchet too.

If, in one day, 39 000 individuals have shown how strong people power can be, than I am eager to see what the next few years will bring.

0 Comments

Climate science is a REAL science!

9/3/2013

2 Comments

 
Riding off the back of my last post, a typical response from someone who doesn’t accept the science behind anthropogenic ( = human induced) climate change is “I don’t believe in it”. Simple as that.

Um, right, O.K. then.

Climate science is not a religion. Or a belief structure in general. It is the physical and systematic understanding of how the climate system works, based on the primary laws of physics and recorded observations. These observations include how things like temperature, rain, pressure and wind change over different locations through space and time, and how they interact with each other and govern conditions on the surface of the earth. These interactions include the weather we experience every day, the longer-term  climate, and conditions include where certain ecosystems such as rainforests, grasslands, or desserts occur.


A synonym for science is knowledge. So any subject that’s a topic of science (e.g. chemistry, physics, biology and, yes of course, CLIMATE) is based on what we KNOW about how that particular subject behaves and interacts, that is, its characteristics and properties.  Scientists run experiments and gather evidence that go on to form information, on which we base our knowledge. And we don’t use just one experiment or one finding to give us our absolute final concrete answer. No, no, no. We run experiments many, many times so that we have robust, and strong, confident conclusions, which then form our evidence, etc, etc.  


Religion works quite differently. Most religions require you to believe in a higher being/s and spirits, and to do this, you must have sincere and absolute faith. Faith means that you believe no matter what, you don’t need evidence to know that your god/s exist. You utterly believe with your whole heart and mind that your religion is genuine, and prescribes the best overall life philosophy for you to follow.


Religions include at least one higher being, that is responsible for things like the creation of the earth, providing explanations for things we don’t understand, and guidance in the afterlife. This is something science does not have, being based on physical evidence and fact about what we know, and using similar principles and methods to investigate and explain what we don’t know. This doesn't require the existence of a divine being.


Now I must make it quite clear that I am not trying to insult anyone’s faith or religion. I grew up in a Catholic household (the sheer size of my family confirms that) and both my parents had a very strong Christian faith, for which I admire them. It is an amazing ability to believe whole-hardheartedly in something and someone/s that you have not seen with your own eyes or heard with your own ears, and rely on word-of-mouth and ancient literature to build up and confirm that faith. Indeed many scientists (from all subjects) have a strong religious connection. Although I don’t feel that I myself fall into that category (sorry Mum & Dad).


You see, my all-too-logical way of thinking means I struggle with the concept of believing that a great and mighty being that created the Earth in 7 days (amongst other things) . I can maybe take that the book of genesis is a metaphor, but I’ve had many, many arguments with my Dad about this. By being Christian, one believes that the earth was created in just one week, whereas for me, the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (that is, evolution) can’t be ignored.


So where does that leave us with human induced climate change? What evidence do we have that it is a scientific issue, and not a question of faith?


We know carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas under certain conditions, such as those that exist at the top of the layer of the atmosphere that is closest to Earth (the troposphere). It acts as a blanket by trapping some of the energy in this atmospheric layer, as it comes off the surface of the earth. The more carbon dioxide in the air, the thicker the blanket, so to say.


We know that human emissions of carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) have increased since the industrial revolution. The hypothesis based on this scientific knowledge that suggested this would lead to a global temperature increase was given many years ago, and global temperatures have shown a steady increase since our activities have provided the conditions to do so.

 
 Many thousands of model experiments, including but not limited to, those part of the IPCC process have provided the multiple experiments we require to double, triple, quadruple and 1000-times check that this warming definitely is due to increased greenhouse gases, and not just the pot (bad) luck of a single experiment going wrong. We need climate models for our experiments as we only have one actual climate, and we don’t have the luxury of running and re-running thousands of times over just to see what happens.

 
There are many other lines of evidence that are underpinned by known and understood physical scientific laws, not beliefs. All of which deserve a unique, dedicated post. What I’ve just started with here are the basics.


So if you ever catch yourself saying or thinking “I don’t believe in climate change”, stop. This does not make sense. If you ever hear your peers saying this, stop them too. Ask why this is. Is it actually because you don’t understand the science? Because belief doesn't come into it, when we’re talking about scientific fact.

_
2 Comments

    Author

    climate scientist, fascinated by extreme events, but kinda tired by being made out to be a "bad guy". Tend to moonlight as, well, your average human being.

    Archives

    June 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.