Whenever I have a column to write, I know when I have my geography-major friend (he specializes in environmental hazards and sustainable communities) proofread it that it's probably going to get torn to shreds. After it is published each Friday, I am fairly confident my chemistry-major friend is going to point out what is inaccurate scientifically. I'm also positive that each week my ISE-major friend will be mad he isn't the centerpiece of my column, but that's beside the point.
The problem I continually have is that I look at the environment from a journalistic standpoint. I look at what's in the newspapers, I form an opinion with those data and I write my column each week. I'll admit that science has never been my strong suit, and until recently I figured I could swing by as an environmentalist without really grasping the nuts and bolts of the scientific facts.
While I am deathly afraid of science and math classes and was excited to avoid them during college, I've finally come to the realization that science is the foundation of the environmental movement. John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, derided Al Gore on Tuesday morning's episode of Fox and Friends on Fox News Channel because he said the science doesn't provide evidence that carbon is the culprit behind climate change. He mentioned that environmentalists needed to embrace and listen to science more, which is a statement I can agree with.
Coleman was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York, which ended last Tuesday. The conference was comprised of scientists and professors who are not in total agreement about with the mainstream Al Gorean theories of global warming. Business & Media Institute actually noted that most mainstream news mocked the conference and the skeptics who questioned the consensus about climate change and its causes.
Journalists tend to be stubborn, a character trait that can be both dangerous and rewarding in a field where everyone has a different story to tell and a different set of facts and figures to go with them. We must weed through sources, statistics and articles to find what is accurate and what is not. I think what journalists also need to do is start diving into the difficult theories and try to understand them. Don't just talk to environmental organizations; talk to geologists, chemists and geographers.
The same goes for environmentalists who don't investigate more than news articles as sources for their facts and figures. I am one of those people who find it easier to wade through Grist and other popular Web sites without trying to wade through academic journals and magazines. I look at the political and ethical sides to issues without trying to understand the scientific underbelly of them.
I've made the decision to take a step into the scientific realm, even though it could mean a lot of confusion, a lower GPA and tons of numbers. I'm starting off slow with environmental geography, but I'm working my way up so that I can hold a decent conversation about the environment without turning to stone at the mention of science.
While there needs to be an understanding of both the political and scientific aspects of the environmental movement, I think the political side gets a lot more of the spotlight than the scientists who are expected to invent the renewable fuel sources, the alternative energy sources and chemical compounds for everyday activities like doing laundry that aren't threatening to our health.
This is an example of why you have to take sociology if you're a biology major or physics if you're an art major. To understand everything in this world, you can't simply focus on what comes easily to you and disregard everything else. The world is a complex place, and the more tools you are equipped with to face it, the better.
If the political and scientific sides of the environmental movement would be more united, we could get a lot more done in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability. A communication and an understanding need to be reached to some extent between the two, and right now that isn't happening, and it's detrimental to the goals of both parties.
People are still going to bicker, my column is still going to probably need proofreading and constructive criticism from both my science-loving friends, but I can't deny the intersection between politics and science anymore. I've received far too many e-mails correcting my lack of scientific knowledge to deny that knowing more about science would make me a better writer and environmentalist to the people who take what I write as a columnist to be accurate news. I encourage anyone else guilty of my same crime to make an effort to bridge that divide, too.
Cathy Wilson is a junior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at cw224805@ohiou.edu.
17 Archives
Cathy Wilson
200803077374midsize.jpeg
