Adams’ Levels of Climate Awareness6 min read

One of my favorite iconoclasts, Dilbert creator Scott Adams, has created another nice hierarchy. Where are you on your climate alarm journey?

1. Trust the Experts

This is the lowest level of understanding. Whenever you see 99% agreement on things with multiple variables , regular model updates and discoveries, and/or public contention, this is more an indication of money and political power, not science.

In real science, confidence regarding complex systems is never 99%. Even Newton’s laws of motion did not explain all phenomenon, despite their wide application. Those who recognized the small problems eventually discovered whole new realms of physics.

For example, we just discovered that the ocean absorbs much more CO2 than we thought. Were temperature predictions correct before that? Were there no counter-indications when our models have been shown to be missing particular considerations or counter-indications? We better look into the details for ourselves.

2. Research the Proponent’s Arguments

Many of us first watch the proponent arguments, and are often convinced. However, this one-sided, highly selected data and arguments lead to what’s known as The Documentary Effect. We are totally convinced before we hear counter arguments. As scriptures record:

The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17)

Don’t hang out here or you’re still uninformed.

3. Research the Skeptic’s Arguments

As soon as we give serious consideration, rather than arrogant dismissal, to the counter arguments, we are progressing intellectually, and are closer to the truth. However, at this stage, we are still vulnerable to the Documentary Effect. Until we can synthesize the arguments we’ve heard, understand them, and evaluate them side by side, we may just end up being informed but undecided, having not done the intellectual work to become informed and thoughtful.

4. Understand Both Sides

Having listed to the pro and con arguments, we may think we’ve done our homework. But we have not. The next level is to listen to the debunks that each side gives against their opponents, AND the debunks of the debunks! Then, we need to summarize and demonstrate that we clearly and objectively understand both sides, even if we disagree.

For example, can you list three or more reasons why our measurements of global temperature might be wrong? Pause before reading on.

They might include:

1. Malfunctioning Equipment: Some weather stations rely on outdated or poorly maintained thermometers, which can lead to inaccurate temperature data ¹. This has been reported and is especially true for stations in remote areas may not receive frequent maintenance or checks, which increases the likelihood of errors in the temperature readings ².
2. Paint Fading on Thermometer Enclosures: Thermometers housed in white-painted enclosures may experience inaccuracies as the paint fades over time. The fading paint can lead to increased absorption of heat, causing erroneous temperature readings ³.
3. Data Averaging: When thermometers malfunction, their data is often averaged with nearby stations to fill gaps. This can obscure inaccuracies when broken equipment consistently gives faulty readings ⁴.
4. Historical Inconsistencies: Past data, based on poorly maintained equipment, sometimes show discrepancies. These inconsistencies may affect the long-term accuracy of global temperature records ⁵.
5. Geographically Unmonitored Regions: Many regions, especially remote areas like the poles or deep ocean, have limited or no temperature measurements, which creates gaps in global temperature monitoring. This lack of coverage can skew our understanding of global temperature trends ⁶.

Once you can articulate the challenges to both positions, you are in a position to honestly and more accurately decide what you think about the issue at hand. And it would be dumb to claim you are 99% sure at this point. But there is one more level of maturing perspective.

5. All Data and Models are Fake

All data is selectively curated, and all models are based on chosen assumptions. When data is deemed significant, it is determined by its potential to greatly impact us, leading to economic, emotional, or existential gains or losses. Once data reaches this level of importance, powerful forces intervene to manage how it is interpreted and communicated.

We must question the accuracy, integrity, and motivations behind the data and models that influence public discourse and decision-making. Certain choices affect funding, popularity, and other desires of those in power.

Consider history, for example. Do you believe that the view you have been presented of, say, the Crusades, is accurate? Does it matter who is telling the history? As it is correctly observed, “history is written by the victors.”

In the case of controversial, complex, and important claims like climate change, you can be sure there are those in power curating what we see and do not. 99% agreement is not based on science, but politics. And now you know to mistrust consensus claims on MOST complex and controversial issues.