contributed photo believe it or not? · 2017-06-29 · believe it or not? new tool helps size up...

Learn about environmental issues, their effect on your community and actions for your involvement.

Reconnect with your environmentSP19371

Check out these websitesto learn more

www.agu.org/www.nsf.gov/www.education.noaa.gov/www.seagrant.psu.edu/extension/

climatechange.htm

What are your sources for information about climate change? Whichdoes the best job of including peer-reviewed data andexperts who have done recentresearch in the field of climatescience? Is that researchposted? Can you tell whereeach source gets its funding?

Considering the risksassociated with climatechange, do you think ourgovernment is doing enough?Send your thoughts toaxm40@psu.edu.

CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

JrPLEWA members discuss issues related to pharmaceutical andpersonal care products with State Rep. Pat Harkins.

CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

Instead of asking whether climate change is happening, shouldn’t we be asking: Is it worth taking action in case the climate scientists’projections of increasing floods, droughts, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification and habitat destruction are true?

Scientists must convince anoverwhelming majority of theirpeers in order to advance theirtheories.

There is no debate among 97percentofclimatescientistswhohave been studying and doingregular research and painstak-ingly piecing together the caseforclimatechangeoverdecades.They’ve questioned and testedtheir data and conclusions andthose of their colleagues againand again.

Wouldn’tyouagreethat97per-cent is an overwhelming major-ity?

Yet many policy makers anda large segment of the publicmistakenly perceive there is adebate among scientists. Thosewho deny climate change offerverylittlescientificproofthathasbeenreviewedbytheoverallsci-entificcommunity.Instead,thesegroups insist that climate scien-tists prove beyond any reason-able doubt that climate changeposesanimminentdangerbeforewe take action as a society.

Thisislikesayingweshouldn’tbuycarinsuranceunlessthereisabsolute proof that we will be in-volved in an accident.

There are uncertainties in cli-mate projections, and possibleoutcomes range from benign tocatastrophic, but doing nothingputs all life at unnecessary risk.

Don’tyouthinkit’s timetotakea fresh look at how you deal withthe science of climate change?

Instead of asking whether cli-mate change is beyond doubt,Greg Craven, a high school phys-ics and chemistry teacher in Or-egon, thinks we ask: Is it worthdoing anything about climatechange in case it’s true?

Craven,whobecameaYouTubesensation because his videosabout climate change attractedalmost 10 million viewers, takesa refreshingly different take onclimatechange.Hisstudentssug-gestedthetitleforhisvideo,“TheMostTerrifyingVideoYou’llEverSee.”Thevideoledtoabookandmore videos to provide rebuttalsto pretty well all the argumentsclimate-change deniers use toavoid dealing with the situation.

His book, “What’s the WorstThat Could Happen? A RationalResponse to the Climate ChangeDebate,” and videos don’t focuson what to think about globalwarming, but how to think aboutit. Craven shows how to end the

debate despite the uncertain-ties by thinking rationally andcriticallyandbyusingastandardlogic tool — the decision grid. It’sactually a simple risk-manage-ment tool.

Afterbeingchallengedtothinkinsomedetailaboutyourcurrentopinion on global warming, doyou think it’s a hoax? The biggestthreat in human history? Or areyousomewhereinthemiddlebutinclinedmoretowardonesideorthe other?

The first assumption Cravenasks readers to make is that noone can predict with absolutecertaintywhatthephysicalworldwillorwillnotdoandthatallrea-sonablepeopleshouldbeabletoadmit that here’s a chance theymight have a mistaken under-standing.Thereforetwopossibili-ties exist: global warming is trueor it’s false.

Because the physical world isunaffected by our beliefs but in-stead reacts only to our actions,Craven changes the questionfrom “Who should I believe?” to“What should I do?”

Thedecisiongridtakesoutthediscourse, and replaces it with afew scenarios. The simple trueor false outcomes give you thepower to answer this questionby considering: What’s the worstthat could happen?

Here are the scenarios:1. We take significant action

nowandclimatechangeiseithera) false; b) true.

2. We don’t take significant ac-tion now and climate change iseither a) false; b) true.

Pick 1a: We spent the money,made laws but we acted need-lessly.

Pick 1b: We didn’t spend themoneyorincreaseregulationandwe lucked out — human-causedclimate change turned out to befalse.

Pick 2a: We spent the moneyand increased regulation but itwas worth it; we averted disaster.

Pick 2b: We didn’t take actionand because the climate scien-tists were right, we end up withdestructionof lifeandtheplanetas we know it.

This simplified version makesmore sense when you actuallylook at the grid, which makes thepoint that it’s not about absoluterightandwrong;instead,it’smoreabouthowmuchyou’rewillingtorisk.

Craven believes that becauseclimatescienceissocomplexit’simpossibleforlaypeople(includ-inghimself)toreachindependentconclusionsaboutit.Hethereforealsoleadsreadersthroughconfir-mationbias,andintroduceswhathe calls the “credibility spec-trum” to focus on the integrity ofinformation sources.

Forinstance,tojudgecredibil-ityandsources,askthisquestion:

“If you have a broken leg, you’dgo see a doctor and not an insur-ance salesman, right?” After all,where’s the wisdom in ignoringthedataandadvicefromclimateexperts, in favor of argumentsfrom a science fiction writer,politician,newscasterorweatherforecaster,orfromanyonewhoisnot a climate-change expert?

This tool and a heightenedawareness of your own built-inbiases can enable you to decidewhichinformationisworthkeep-ing from the enormous array ofsources on the Internet. It alsohelpsyouevaluatetheechocham-ber and which of their “experts”are really climate experts.

The real question, Craven ar-gues, isn’taboutrightandwrong,true and false, but about lookingatwhatthemostcrediblesourcesare saying and, from that, decid-ing on the best bet or most wisecourse of action.

So which mistake would yourather risk: taking action eventhough three percent of climatescientists deny climate change?Or would you rather not take ac-tion and possibly experience theupheaval that 97 percent of cli-mate scientists warn us about?

A N N A M C C A R T N E Y, acommunications and educationspecialist for Pennsylvania SeaGrant, can be reached by e-mail ataxm40@psu.edu.

Believe it or not?New tool helps size up climate-change debate

By ANNA MCCARTNEYContributing writer

Whilewearedrowninginaseaof climate-change information,the first step to becoming an in-formedcitizenishavingahealthyskepticism and an awareness ofhow easily we can be misled.

It’s not a passive activity, butone that requires checking outclaims before believing them.You also have to understand thetelltale signs of propaganda andknow to do basic fact-checking.

Highlight the qualificationsand merits of scholars on oppos-ing sides of an issue. If you don’tknow anything about the “ex-pert,” how can you decide if theargument is credible?

Contradictions should defi-nitely be taken seriously whenthose making them can supporttheir views with sound researchthey have conducted. Knowinghow long the person has workedin the field, how many relatedresearch papers he or she hasauthored, and how many timesthe work has been cited by otherscientists is extremely helpful.

Peer-reviewed scientific workand articles that have gonethrough a bruising process ofcritique by experts in the fieldare the only ones that get pub-lished by a reputable journal.GivemoreweighttojournalslikeScience, Nature, The Proceed-ings of the National Academy ofScience, or Physical Review Let-ters.Theygenerallydon’tpublisharticles unless they believe theymark a significant breakthroughin their field, Furthermore they

don’t want to retract articles thatcould ruin their reputation.

Forget about climate changefor a moment. Ask skeptic andbeliever alike if by developingalternative energy sources, westill don’t get enormous benefits.Anyulteriormotiveswillbecometransparent when they answerthese questions.

What’snottolikeaboutcleanerair, soil and water? And what’swrong with preparing for a timewhen we simply run out of fossilfuels?

Quantity and quality of mediacoverage and online resourcesare no small matters, since theyaffect public perceptions aboutthe seriousness of the risks.Shouldn’t they divulge whentheir chosen experts are paid byindustries involved with fossilfuel? Shouldn’t they be requiredtosharethequalificationsoftheir“experts?”

Finally, finding commonground so skeptics and believersstop demonizing each other canonly help us solve the problemsassociated with a growing popu-lation, dwindling resources andirreparable harm to soil, air, wa-ter and wildlife.

For more about compar-ing credentials, visit: www.canada.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptics/3183069/story.html#ixzz1CS2LuD26.

A N N A M C C A R T N E Y, acommunications and educationspecialist for Pennsylvania SeaGrant, can be reached by e-mail ataxm40@psu.edu.

Check facts, expertiseon climate changeBy ANNA MCCARTNEYContributing writer

What: Visit the Tom Ridge Environmental Center between now andMarch 25 and receive a chance to win a guided tour of the PresqueIsle Lighthouse on May 29.Cost: No fees; participants must be 16 and older to enter.When: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. dailyFor more information, contact: Stacey Marendt at 217-9638

What: Outside the Window pre-school program for kids ages 3 to 5with an accompanying adult can explore the natural world withbooks, crafts and outdoor activities.When: 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on the following days: Feb. 12 and 18:Groundhogs, March 12 and 25: Animals Wake Up, April 9: Frogs,May 14: Plant a GardenWhere: At the Tom Ridge Environmental Center and other PresqueIsle locations (dress for outdoor activities)Cost: $3 per child per class; registration requiredFor more information, contact: the Park Office at 833-7424

Learn more

This page brought to you by:

CONTRIBUTED PHOTO

Watch the video that made high school physics and chemistry teach Greg Craven a YouTube sensation athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg or read his book to learn more about his simple riskmanagement decision grid.

When we met with State Rep.PatHarkins,wehadawonderfulmeeting where we talked aboutenvironmental issues. From themeeting,wetooknewknowledgeabout the political side of the en-vironment. We discussed an im-portantpharmaceuticalbill,andhow we can help get it passed.

Chloe Boughton|MeadvilleArea Middle School, Grade 8,

JrPLEWA/Earth Action

On Sunday, Jan. 16, students inJr. PLEWA met with State Rep.Pat Harkins, of Erie, D-1st Dist.,to learn about the PennsylvaniapharmaceuticalbillthePennsyl-

vania House is working on. Rep.Harkins revealed how to put anopinion and idea into the bill.Thisbillwillrequirepharmaciesto take back unused medicine.

Jr.PLEWAiscurrentlyworkingonanEarthActionPharmaceuti-cal and Personal Care Productsprojecttopromotethepassageofastatepharmaceuticalbillandtoeducate the community on howprescription and personal careproducts (PPCPs) affect the en-vironment. The students plan tomeetwithotherlegislatorsinthenext few months.

Lauren Pierson|Collegiate Academy,10th grade, JrPLEWA/Earth Action

Students ask Pa. lawmakerabout pharmaceutical bill

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 | Erie Times-News | GoErie.com | 3D