by Sara Baldwin
Just as the debate over climate change was moving from the first steps of the Scientific Method – defining the problem, gathering information and forming a hypothesis – to the latter steps where we interpret data and draw conclusions that begin to lead us toward the actual problem solving, questionable behavior on the behalf of a few prominent figures in the scientific education field has derailed the climate change caboose.
Before hackers retrieved e-mails outing the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, located in the United Kingdom, of having lost data important to completing their climate change research, the world was beginning to recognize global warming as a definite problem and debate more on our planet’s possible future and what our actions should be. However, Fox was the only major news organization to repeatedly report on this topic using rhetoric that made it sound like a giant scandal that debunked “global warming” altogether.1 This is simply just not the case. If raw data vital to global well-being were only backed up in one university in one country in the entire world, there would be plenty more controversy to go around. This same data can be found at several other universities and research centers around the world, including The Global Historical Climatology Network2 and The National Climatic Data Center3, to name a few. This data was lost from one place, therefore weakening the ability to cross-reference and double-check information important in an ongoing debate. It was not, however, forged or faked. It is an undeniable fact that our climate will forever be changing.
In the same way, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth used graphs that started at 200, rather than zero, to hone in on climate change.6 Focusing on the part of the graph that highlights this change makes the problem seem more menacing, yes, but the points on the graph are still valid truths. Data can be manipulated and presented to the public in a way that suits the researcher – in this case making it look more threatening and urgent – but it cannot be changed to make the rise in C02 levels become nonexistent. While many would understandably jump at the chance to deflate a scientific argument that causes everyone in the world to eventually take action in some way or another, it is time to concentrate on accepting the fact that there will more than likely be a change in our world that causes us to modify our behavior. The true debate lies in what that change will be, and how we should act accordingly.
We can not necessarily take effective preventative action, as we can only speculate the precise changes that will take place. In the case of the Maldives, an archipelago averaging four feet above sea level, action may be necessary sooner than in other locations.4 Yet it still makes sense to wait until these levels rise to even a quarter of what would be considered dangerous. If actions would be too rash, an entire people could be forced to abandon the graves of their ancestors and the earth that cultured their people.
Even if we do take action now, it has to be as a global whole. One nation cannot save the planet. It would be pointless to act preventatively without enough participation to make a difference. The Kyoto Protocol, singed in 2001, was meant to be an agreement to act as a whole. Without the participation of developed industrial nations like America and China, such an agreement held little value, and without the agreement of China, America saw no point in signing.5 It is now up to the United Nations to mull over climate change during the Copenhagen Conference and resolve this quandary by December 18, 2009. Literally, we need the strength of a globally united force comprised of many individual nations to come to some sort of conclusion on this issue. If we cannot act together, we may as well not act at all and hold out in hopes of an adaptive solution.
Resources:
1. Koprowski, Gene. "Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say." FOXNews. Web.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/02/global-warming-scandal-makes-scientific-progress-difficult-experts-say.html
2. "1753-1990." Global Historical Climatology Network. 21 Oct. 2008. Web. http://daac.ornl.gov/climate/guides/ghcn.html
3. National Climatic Data Center. Web.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/res40.pl?page=ghcn.html.
4. Schmidle, Nicholas. "Wanted: A New Home for My Country." New York Times [New York] 10 May 2009. Print.
5. Duncan, Emma. "Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen?" The Economist (2008): 103-04. Print.
6. An Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. 2006. Film.