Here’s a post full of complexity and controversy. So NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) recently released it’s Arctic “Report Card” and a little video that is embedded below. You can also read some analysis by Revkin here. Watching this video can elicit many reactions from: recognizing the situation, seeing the problems and fear, looking optimistically and embracing change, denial, mistrust etc. Also, this is put up by scientists backed by the US government: can I trust it, is it politically loaded?
This brings us to the question of the relationship of politics, media and science, which has received some interesting commentary recently. In a recent post “Nature’s Muddled Views on Science and the Media” Roger Pielke Jr. challenges Nature magazine’s view of a purist form of science and rather recognizes that science happens amidst a political (I will add cultural too) reality. Against Nature’s position, the suggestion is that the scientific community should stop trying to control the conversation which in this case is the ‘pro-climate change’ community trying to restrict those they disagree with. Fundamentally, science alone won’t ‘deliver’ in a complex case such as climate change, and many other perspectives are needed to approach and resolve this complex situation.