New Voice

Reading a science blog isn’t always the most comforting of past times. Many hours are subjected to the ignominy of bumbling theories and negative exposition. This is not to say, though, that such time is lost on the reader. Often the indulgent wording, and overly dramatic use of the exclamation point, embellish facts that are required reading; that are necessary points made to the ongoing debate. Regardless of whether that debate is climate change or the use of animals in drug testing, for instance. I have read recently a number of blogs that appear to have sprung up in an endeavour to reach the public on matters of pro or anti global warming merits. Their infusion in the debate is attributable to their opposition to the ‘other sides’ series of points, or blatant misrepresentation of certain facts. When reading some of these I was reminded continuously of a certain referendum that is currently in debate here in Ireland; and the ongoing difficulty for each side to approach the topic in a positive fashion. The thing is there is a consistent battle to reach the public and only finite room to make an impression. And in the absence of sufficient time, negative (and hence alarming) suggestions appear to receive greater attention.

Therein lies the crux. What is true of a relatively short debate on the direction of a country is the same of a long standing, and often bitter, debate on the direction of a planet. People say that time is of the essence in any endeavour at halting planet warming, and certainly this seems to be the case. Time, and the myriad political impediments to prompt and comprehensive action, are of equal importance if the necessary changes are to be delivered. But surely the public must be involved in the process; that they must be aligned to the path that is taken, especially when it is in their interests and requires from them significant changes in lifestyle. Any debate that takes place cannot be contained within a vacuum. But how to keep that from a series of polemic pieces or shocking angry explosions of fear is a difficulty that almost eclipses the consignment of the debate to scientific journals and the ubiquitous blogosphere. Certainly, it is not all bad: the modern day news cycle caters for concise, deliberative discussion, in a certain measure. To my mind best show-cased (in Ireland anyway) through the medium of radio.

However, it is not enough; not nearly enough for the level of change that is being envisaged. More focus is necessary. More time should be apportioned in the media to a discussion that is not national, political or otherwise local. It is an issue which is international, social and profound in a way that little else could every conceivably be. Except maybe war. But then changes to the climate are inherently a form of warfare. A war of attrition in which the natural cycle of the planet, utilised to maintain its order, is disrupted by an external and opposing force. This is one view of course. The savaging that this thesis has received in the past is symptomatic of the level of anger available to people when they disagree with science. It almost (though not entirely) bears comparison to the ire of creationists at their lack of support in amending the school syllabus in the United States to give equal coverage to the theory of creation as the theory of evolution. But that is an aside. Going forward it will be interesting to see how significant a place the debate on climate change takes in the course of things, and whether the negativity subsides, in light of the seriousness of the subject. You know when something is at least partially infused in the system when Hollywood starts to make movies about its more dramatic conclusions. But if a few more original prime time documentaries were aired, I think the public might be served better in this pivotal debate on our future.