CONTRIBUTED PHOTO Believe it or not? · 2017-06-29 · Believe it or not? New tool helps size up...
1
Learn about environmental issues, their effect on your community and actions for your involvement. Reconnect with your environment SP19371 Check out these websites to 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? Which does the best job of including peer-reviewed data and experts who have done recent research in the field of climate science? Is that research posted? Can you tell where each source gets its funding? Considering the risks associated with climate change, do you think our government is doing enough? Send your thoughts to [email protected]. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO JrPLEWA members discuss issues related to pharmaceutical and personal 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 an overwhelming majority of their peers in order to advance their theories. There is no debate among 97 percent of climate scientists who have been studying and doing regular research and painstak- ingly piecing together the case for climate change over decades. They’ve questioned and tested their data and conclusions and those of their colleagues again and again. Wouldn’t you agree that 97 per- cent is an overwhelming major- ity? Yet many policy makers and a large segment of the public mistakenly perceive there is a debate among scientists. Those who deny climate change offer very little scientific proof that has been reviewed by the overall sci- entific community. Instead, these groups insist that climate scien- tists prove beyond any reason- able doubt that climate change poses an imminent danger before we take action as a society. This is like saying we shouldn’t buy car insurance unless there is absolute proof that we will be in- volved in an accident. There are uncertainties in cli- mate projections, and possible outcomes range from benign to catastrophic, but doing nothing puts all life at unnecessary risk. Don’t you think it’s time to take a fresh look at how you deal with the 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 worth doing anything about climate change in case it’s true? Craven,whobecameaYouTube sensation because his videos about climate change attracted almost 10 million viewers, takes a refreshingly different take on climate change. His students sug- gested the title for his video, “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” The video led to a book and more videos to provide rebuttals to pretty well all the arguments climate-change deniers use to avoid dealing with the situation. His book, “What’s the Worst That Could Happen? A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate,” and videos don’t focus on what to think about global warming, but how to think about it. Craven shows how to end the debate despite the uncertain- ties by thinking rationally and critically and by using a standard logic tool — the decision grid. It’s actually a simple risk-manage- ment tool. After being challenged to think in some detail about your current opinion on global warming, do you think it’s a hoax? The biggest threat in human history? Or are you somewhere in the middle but inclined more toward one side or the other? The first assumption Craven asks readers to make is that no one can predict with absolute certainty what the physical world will or will not do and that all rea- sonable people should be able to admit that here’s a chance they might have a mistaken under- standing. Therefore two possibili- ties exist: global warming is true or it’s false. Because the physical world is unaffected by our beliefs but in- stead reacts only to our actions, Craven changes the question from “Who should I believe?” to “What should I do?” The decision grid takes out the discourse, and replaces it with a few scenarios. The simple true or false outcomes give you the power to answer this question by considering: What’s the worst that could happen? Here are the scenarios: 1. We take significant action now and climate change is either a) false; b) true. 2. We don’t take significant ac- tion now and climate change is either a) false; b) true. Pick 1a: We spent the money, made laws but we acted need- lessly. Pick 1b: We didn’t spend the money or increase regulation and we lucked out — human-caused climate change turned out to be false. Pick 2a: We spent the money and increased regulation but it was worth it; we averted disaster. Pick 2b: We didn’t take action and because the climate scien- tists were right, we end up with destruction of life and the planet as we know it. This simplified version makes more sense when you actually look at the grid, which makes the point that it’s not about absolute right and wrong; instead, it’s more about how much you’re willing to risk. Craven believes that because climate science is so complex it’s impossible for lay people (includ- ing himself) to reach independent conclusions about it. He therefore also leads readers through confir- mation bias, and introduces what he calls the “credibility spec- trum” to focus on the integrity of information sources. For instance, to judge credibil- ity and sources, ask this question: “If you have a broken leg, you’d go see a doctor and not an insur- ance salesman, right?” After all, where’s the wisdom in ignoring the data and advice from climate experts, in favor of arguments from a science fiction writer, politician, newscaster or weather forecaster, or from anyone who is not a climate-change expert? This tool and a heightened awareness of your own built-in biases can enable you to decide which information is worth keep- ing from the enormous array of sources on the Internet. It also helpsyouevaluatetheechocham- ber and which of their “experts” are really climate experts. The real question, Craven ar- gues, isn’t about right and wrong, true and false, but about looking at what the most credible sources are saying and, from that, decid- ing on the best bet or most wise course of action. So which mistake would you rather risk: taking action even though three percent of climate scientists deny climate change? Or would you rather not take ac- tion and possibly experience the upheaval that 97 percent of cli- mate scientists warn us about? ANNA MCCARTNEY, a communications and education specialist for Pennsylvania Sea Grant, can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]. Believe it or not? New tool helps size up climate-change debate By ANNA MCCARTNEY Contributing writer While we are drowning in a sea of climate-change information, the first step to becoming an in- formed citizen is having a healthy skepticism and an awareness of how easily we can be misled. It’s not a passive activity, but one that requires checking out claims before believing them. You also have to understand the telltale signs of propaganda and know to do basic fact-checking. Highlight the qualifications and merits of scholars on oppos- ing sides of an issue. If you don’t know anything about the “ex- pert,” how can you decide if the argument is credible? Contradictions should defi- nitely be taken seriously when those making them can support their views with sound research they have conducted. Knowing how long the person has worked in the field, how many related research papers he or she has authored, and how many times the work has been cited by other scientists is extremely helpful. Peer-reviewed scientific work and articles that have gone through a bruising process of critique by experts in the field are the only ones that get pub- lished by a reputable journal. Give more weight to journals like Science, Nature, The Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Science, or Physical Review Let- ters. They generally don’t publish articles unless they believe they mark a significant breakthrough in their field, Furthermore they don’t want to retract articles that could ruin their reputation. Forget about climate change for a moment. Ask skeptic and believer alike if by developing alternative energy sources, we still don’t get enormous benefits. Any ulterior motives will become transparent when they answer these questions. What’s not to like about cleaner air, soil and water? And what’s wrong with preparing for a time when we simply run out of fossil fuels? Quantity and quality of media coverage and online resources are no small matters, since they affect public perceptions about the seriousness of the risks. Shouldn’t they divulge when their chosen experts are paid by industries involved with fossil fuel? Shouldn’t they be required to share the qualifications of their “experts?” Finally, finding common ground so skeptics and believers stop demonizing each other can only help us solve the problems associated with a growing popu- lation, dwindling resources and irreparable harm to soil, air, wa- ter and wildlife. For more about compar- ing credentials, visit: www. canada.com/news/Study+que stions+credentials+climate+c hange+skeptics/3183069/story. html#ixzz1CS2LuD26. ANNA MCCARTNEY, a communications and education specialist for Pennsylvania Sea Grant, can be reached by e-mail at [email protected]. Check facts, expertise on climate change By ANNA MCCARTNEY Contributing writer What: Visit the Tom Ridge Environmental Center between now and March 25 and receive a chance to win a guided tour of the Presque Isle Lighthouse on May 29. Cost: No fees; participants must be 16 and older to enter. When: 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily For more information, contact: Stacey Marendt at 217-9638 What: Outside the Window pre-school program for kids ages 3 to 5 with an accompanying adult can explore the natural world with books, 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 Garden Where: At the Tom Ridge Environmental Center and other Presque Isle locations (dress for outdoor activities) Cost: $3 per child per class; registration required For 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 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg or read his book to learn more about his simple risk management decision grid. When we met with State Rep. Pat Harkins, we had a wonderful meeting where we talked about environmental issues. From the meeting, we took new knowledge about the political side of the en- vironment. We discussed an im- portant pharmaceutical bill, and how we can help get it passed. Chloe Boughton|Meadville Area Middle School, Grade 8, JrPLEWA/Earth Action On Sunday, Jan. 16, students in Jr. PLEWA met with State Rep. Pat Harkins, of Erie, D-1st Dist., to learn about the Pennsylvania pharmaceutical bill the Pennsyl- vania House is working on. Rep. Harkins revealed how to put an opinion and idea into the bill. This bill will require pharmacies to take back unused medicine. Jr. PLEWA is currently working on an Earth Action Pharmaceuti- cal and Personal Care Products project to promote the passage of a state pharmaceutical bill and to educate the community on how prescription and personal care products (PPCPs) affect the en- vironment. The students plan to meet with other legislators in the next few months. Lauren Pierson|Collegiate Academy, 10th grade, JrPLEWA/Earth Action Students ask Pa. lawmaker about pharmaceutical bill Tuesday, February 1, 2011 | Erie Times-News | GoErie.com | 3D
Transcript of 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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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 [email protected].
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
