What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Are Scientists to Blame for Climate Change Skepticism?

July 8, 2010, 4:41 PM
2888347209_e0826a0296_o
Yesterday a British panel exonerated climate scientists at the center of last year's Climategate scandal. The scientists had been charged with manipulating scientific evidence to support their beliefs in global warming, but Wednesday's panel cleared them of wrongdoing.

Dr. Apostolos Voulgarakis, a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Big Think today that scientists could do more to stem the recent tide of doubt regarding global warming. And yesterday's findings, he said "will not be enough to convince skeptics."

Climate change skepticism is at an all-time high, regardless of yesterday's news. A Gallup poll in March showed that Americans are growing less concerned with global warming, with 48% of those surveyed believing the threat to be "generally exaggerated." This number is up from 30% in 2006. Even in the U.K., support for climate change is on the wane. A recent poll showed 78% percent of people surveyed believed the world's climate to be changing, compared with 91% five years ago. The poll also showed that 40% of Brits viewed the dangers of climate change as "exaggerated." But according to a recent study, this doubt is not shared by the scientific community: 97% of active climate researchers believe that climate change is a real and man-made threat. 

So what will it take to convince climate skeptics? According to Dr. Voulgarakis, it will require serious changes in "the way scientists present things and in the way we advertise our work." Some scientists argue that findings should be presented in ways that make them more easily comprehensible; others argue exactly the opposite. But the most important thing, said Voulgarakis, is that "data must be more open to the public."

"There will always be some flaws in methodology," Voulgarakis said. "That doesn't mean that the science is not credible." If scientists are more transparent about their methods and if the public better understands the arduous processes involved in order to reach a conclusion, the public will be less likely swayed by news like last year's Climategate scandal. "The more we let them know about what we're doing, the better," he said. 

Dr. Voulgarakis added that the media is partly to blame as well. When the Climategate news first broke, it made headlines; now that the uproar has been discredited, the findings are relegated to page 9 of today's Times. "Spicy" stories, he said, would always be more attractive to newspapers. Still, Voulgarakis did not want to shift too much blame onto the media. "The media do their job; I'm not one to judge their mentality," he said. And he reiterated that the onus was on scientists to better present their findings, rather than to rely on the newspapers to do so.

In a recent interview with Big Think, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Norway's Special Envoy on Climate Change to the UN, also discussed climate skepticism, and she placed the blame not on scientists but on special interest groups, drawing parallels between the climate change and tobacco debates:

"A lot of effort has gone in to try to undermine reality," said Brundtland. "A lot of resources, a lot of thinking and a lot of money has gone into trying to influence the world in a negative way. And this is, well we have the same issue with the tobacco companies if we go back -- well it's not over, but at least it became clear to many that the tobacco companies in fact were misbehaving, lying to the U.S. Congress and putting a lot of effort into undermining public health efforts. So, I think we have an aspect of this also with regard to climate change."

For more on the climate change debate and other environmental issues, check out our recent series "Balancing People, Planet and Profit: The Future of Business Sustainability."
 

Are Scientists to Blame for...

Newsletter: Share: