Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Suzuki on Katrina

By

A reader of this weblog sent in the following link to a column by David Suzuki published in Canadian newspapers:

…Katrina, it seems, was just a convenient excuse to get the same tired “Global warming isn’t happening, and if it is it has nothing to do with anything people are doing,” message out to the masses. The charitable among us might call that being opportunistic. The cynical would call it ambulance chasing.

…To demand absolute proof in science before acting on a threat is to ask the impossible. It’s not just anti-scientific; it’s anti-science.

The piece is at:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly09090501.asp .

He raises some important issues.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  2. jennifer says

    He doesn’t say the hypothesis is necessarily true.
    I wonder whether the German-stuff was reported in Canada?

  3. Ender says

    rog and jennifer – He is saying exactly what all people have been saying that Katrina was not caused by global warming and to say that it was is ridiculous.

    And no scientists are NOT saying that proof is not needed for a hypothesis to be true. The hypothesis is that increased CO2 in the atmoshphere will cause warming. By and large that is increasingly shown to be true. A futher conjecture is that this warming will cause climate change. There will only be absolute proof of this when and if it happens. People that assess risk correctly are saying that even though climate change is not proven it would be wise to take out some insurance by trying to limit the possible cause of climate change – CO2 emissions.

    I have house insurance for both fire and theft. Although there are lots of houses in my suburb and I only have less that 1% chance of the house either burning down or being burgled I still pay hundreds of dollars in insurance as I am sure that you do too.

    No-one has proven human induced climate change and no-one can. No-one is suggesting that it is proven or that we do not need proof to say that it is true. We are simply saying that there is sufficient evidence from qualified people to suggest that it might be true. The consequences of climate change are so drastic to our fragile society that any rational person by now would be doing something to mitigate this risk. You only have to look at New Orleans to see what a first world county is reduced to in the face of a climatic event.

  4. Phillip Done says

    Hypotheses may or may not be true – they can be tested – if they get tested a lot and come up with the goods they may become a theory or law.

    But anthropogenic climate change is different – we have no replicate planet Earth to experiment with. We don’t have 30-200 years to wait and see.

    We only have some partial data, computer models, and established physical theory – our knowledge of the atmosphere and oceans is incomplete. We have chaos to contend with and a wide range os possible future emission scenarios.

    Difficult problem for humanity to grapple with …

    But get it wrong one way we’ll waste a lot of money and look silly. Get it wrong the other way and we may all suffer hitherto experienced extremes of climate. We may be able to tech our way out of changes. We may not.

    You won’t get absolute proof on climate change. Suzuki’s point.

    You have to weigh up the evidence – the warnings – the predictions – and decide to act, wait, or ignore it totally.

    The global atmosphere doesn’t recognise the economy, nation states or ideologies. It is merely an inherent product of its physics. It will do what it does.

    You have to peer into the aspects of your own belief or disbelief and ask why you’re so sure one way or the other.

    There are uncertainties.

    So you have to ask youself “do you feel lucky …?”

  5. rog says

    Ender Suzuki is not clear he did say,

    1. that his argument that those responding to claims that Katrina was caused by GW are responding to claims that were not made (wrong)

    2. that no one has said Katrina was caused by GW (wrong)

    3. that lack of data make models/studies inconclusive (right)

    4. that GW is a non-issue (wrong)

    5. Urged leaders to act on the threat of GW (leaders are acting on the threat)

    6. that no one disagreed with the general scientific consensus on climate change (?)

    7. that a recent analysis of scientific papers found that 50 per cent of them are probably wrong. (?)

    Like Manuel, *I know nussing*

  6. Phil Done says

    It’s not possible to say if Katrina had a global warming component or not … might have … might not have..

    OK Rog – this 50% of papers are “probably” wrong – says who ?

  8. rog says

    *OK Rog – this 50% of papers are “probably” wrong – says who ?*

    David Suzuki – and he also said that to “insist on “proof” flies in the face of the way science actually works”

  9. Phil Done says

    On the latter point first – this why normally peace loving Ender and I might have to retrieve our guns from the IRA stash that we put aside after the Howard ban…. (just in case of course) 🙂

    I mean it’s enough to make one lose one’s normally harmonious approach to community living.

    SUZUKI ACTUALLY SAID “To demand absolute proof in science before acting on a threat is to ask the impossible. It’s not just anti-scientific; it’s anti-science.” AND IT IS IN A WIDER CONTEXT EVEN THAN MY CUT – HE did not say have ZERO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

    Rog – if you keep that up we’re gonna have to get somewhat critical.

    Jen has done the same in her editorial – you guys could work for 60 Minutes. You’ve got the knack. You’ll be recycling the old Stephen Schneider misquote soon.

    I can see the ol’ evidence approach sinking in the sea of hypocrisy.

    Now look you’ve got me all flustered…

    On the 50% papers – Suzuki is quoting Ioannidis or New Scientist if he was lazy

    http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10%2E1371%2Fjournal%2Epmed%2E0020124

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915&feedId=online-news_rss20

    And there you go Jen – the topic (above) for an entire thread – it’s a whopper – you guys can have a whole right wing cynics convention inside that paper !

  10. rog says

    Phil, I dont have to defend what David Suzuki said, why do you?

    If you feel it necessary to threaten violence as an argument well so be it.

  11. Phil Done says

    Violence ? me ? – there was a smiley included – joking … humour
    You don’t have to defend D Suzuki – you can selectively quote him out of context …

  12. Ender says

    rog – sorry I did not understand your last post after mine. Sorry it came through as noise – can you clarify?

    The company I work for sponsored a lecture by David Suzuki that I was priveledged to attend. He is an inspiration.

  13. F Sitter says

    Phil Done’s response to The Dutch Ban Free-Range Chooks was good for a laugh and thought provoking.

    Global Warming vrs Avian flu

    Why is one more tangible then the other?
    Since the domestication of live stock humans have probably been prone to transferable diseases as well as the risk of having a major part of their food source removed. Through the population growth/economy of scale the frequency and consequences are higher. Technology has provided us with the ability to identify these trends and try to interpret them.

    Humans have always been subjected to flooding, draughts and all the other issues associated with Global Warming. Again through population growth the consequences are higher. Again technology is playing its part in trying to determine the trends particularly if the frequency has increased (through an acceleration of climate change).

    Could you argue that the Avian flu pandemic is more tangible as the current technology/methodology/perception is more comfortable with a rate of change over a shorter time scale then Global Warming?