The Debate on Climate Has A Message Without a Voice. The embarrassment of Scientific Uncertainty (by Diego Fdez-Sevilla PhD)
Renown scientists will not use their voice to do what is left after so many years of uncertain investment over a scientific topic which, in contrast with the research on cancer, is offering the poorest image science has offered in centuries, Climate.
Among all the messages out there addressing the debate on climate, the only message left comes in one word, sorry.
I am a scientist, with a PhD, publishing my research over Climatic developments, but still just only a whisper among the prominent voices. Looking at the profiles applied to define the big players in the debate on climate, I consider myself a person whom is not slave of its own reputation. And that allows me to be in a position with some flexibility in my activity. So I want to take this opportunity to say what other voices are not saying.
On behalf of my fellow scientists involved in climatic research, and myself, I want to apologise for our incompetence in doing a proper job.
- Personally, if after 4 years of public share with more than 200 analyses published, I have not reached enough evidence to highlight the importance of current developments in our global environment, then I must admit that there must be something that I am not doing right.
- But also, as member of a whole community of scientists performing research over climate, if among all those people, with their combined effort and resources, are not capable of reaching further than the mere fact of exposing each others shames in public, something has been done really wrong.
On behalf of the active scientific community, we should say Sorry, because despite the economic investment and the infrastructures at the disposal of many scientists, we are unable of using the available knowledge to address the important question of what is going on with the climate.
We are aware of the disturbances that the erratic behaviour of the weather patterns is causing to the production system of our society. We acknowledge the relevance that such erratic dynamics is causing to farmers, fisheries, energy production, transport, …
We acknowledge our responsibility as members of the society specifically trained and educated to explicitly fulfil the task of bringing light into those questions upon which rely the well-being of families and their limited capacity to challenge insecurity.
We acknowledge the sensitive challenge that insecurity impose over the most exposed sectors of society due to their restrictions over resources essential for their survival, in contrast with sectors of society which can adapt to just wait while enjoy the wide range of commodities that brings having economic resources.
We scientists apologise for the lack of understanding over the things we do not know, but most of all we want to apologise for the lack of understanding over how to make the most with the things that we know due to our education and training.
We also want to apologise for the lack of skills shown in communicating. The lack of skills which have played against promoting collaboration between scientists, enhancing the potential behind unifying the little that each researcher knows, as well as, by the lack of skills shown in acknowledging the pressure that our own incompetence in doing our job is exerting over the rest of the society.
We acknowledge our misbehaviour obsessing over fights aimed to find ways of evading responsibilities behind our lack of knowledge by just looking into whom or what to blame.
We acknowledge the influence of political interferences and corporate interests over our performance. And we apologise for the impact that such interference is causing over the quality of our work and the image transmitted to the rest of society.
And ultimately, we want to say sorry for the delay taken to face the reality of our own situation, and to step forward saying Sorry.
We will learn from our mistakes. That is actually what we are trained for.