GeoCanada 2000, to be held in Calgary, Alta. from May 29 to June 2, promises to be an unusual event for Canadian geoscientists. It will be the first such summit for an estimated 5,000 earth scientists working in different resource industries across the country, segmented into government, academic and commercial sectors. The goal is to forge a common voice to speak out on national issues such as global warming and the dramatic decline in government funding for the earth sciences.
That goal, quoted from GeoCanada 2000’s quarterly newsletter, is a worthy one. Yet it begs many questions about the independence, integrity and direction of scientific research into environmental issues such as global warming and climate change.
As it stands, public debate on these issues appears to be driven more by junk science and apocalyptic warnings from special interest groups than by independent, unbiased research by qualified experts.
The public is left puzzling over what and who to believe. On the one hand, they hear warnings by environmental groups that climate change caused by human activity is a scientifically accepted phenomenon requiring drastic, emergency action; on the other, they hear business groups argue that draconian cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are a recipe for economic and environmental disaster.
It’s a false dichotomy, of course, because there is not enough real debate about the integrity of the science underlying these opposing views. And no one seems to care, least of all government, which seems to waffle between one view or the other, depending on what day of the week it is and various nebulous factors known only to senior bureaucrats.
Climate change is a complex enough issue without being politicized. How many politicians understand the complexities of the carbon cycle? How many environmentalists know about anything about geological time and the earth’s turbulent history? And where does the public, trapped, as it is, between opposing views and conflicting information, look for credible, independent research untainted by any political agenda?
Canadian geoscientists could provide at least some answers to these questions, assuming they have the will to enter the fray as honest brokers of scientific information. Good science must be encouraged to prevail over the junk science now being churned out by an astonishing array of special interest groups, including some with dubious agendas.
The GeoCanada 2000 newsletter laments the fact that money for scientific research in the resources industries, governments and universities is dwindling under pressure from corporate cost-cutting and government funding reductions. That’s probably true. Yet so little is heard from credible scientific organizations about environmental issues that the public can’t be faulted for not appreciating what geoscientists do.
One notable exception is a recent issue of The Ottawa Citizen, which featured a thought-provoking commentary about alternative energy by eco-scientist David Suzuki. In the same issue, Suzuki’s views were critiqued as oversimplified junk science by Tim Patterson, an associate professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University, and Thomas Harris, who has experience in the mechanical engineering field. The point here is not who is right and who is wrong but rather that credible information was made available to help readers consider the issue more critically.
The latest report by the Geological Survey of Canada includes all sorts of interesting information about research into climate change, metals in the environment and gas hydrates (the second-largest carbon trap after carbonate rocks) in the Arctic. Yet little of this information ever seems to make its way into any public forum. When it comes to environmental issues, organizations such as Greenpeace are more likely to be quoted in national newspapers.
Perhaps if more Canadian geoscientists made it a point to provide quality information to media outlets and the public, they would be valued more for the important role they play.
If they have a light to shine on matters of national importance — and we believe they do — why hide it under a bushel?
Be the first to comment on "A light under a bushel"