Naomi Oreskes' work as a science historian has pulled back the curtain on a small group of scientists and others who have deliberately worked to obscure the true risks of tobacco smoke, CFCs (remember the ozone hole?), and greenhouse gas emissions. Now, she and co-author Erik Conway have turned to science fiction to spread their message about the urgent need to address climate change. Living Lab had a few questions about that choice.
You recently told the NY Times you think the IPCC should close down the group that reviews the basic climate science. Why? Our knowledge certainly isn’t complete.
I think that the IPCC is sending a mixed message. On the one hand, they say the science is “unequivocal”. On the other, they say we need more reports. I think that the time has come for the scientific community to declare victory, to say unequivocally that the scientific basis for action is established, and to show this by saying that we are now closing down Working Group I to focus our attention on the issues of Working Groups 2 and 3 (impacts, adaptation, and answers). I think that would be a very powerful move. And, of course, I am not saying we shouldn’t continue to do basic science. Of course, we should. But that can continue in universities, research institutes, and government agencies, as it always has done.
Where did the idea for a fictional account of climate change come from?
I had been invited to numerous meetings on “scientific communication,” in which scientists were trying to work out how better to communicate their findings. I started thinking, “Is there another way to communicate the scientific evidence? And is there a way to communicate not just the facts, but what they mean?"
It would seem that extrapolating into the future would make you even more of a target for criticism by those opposed to the idea of human-caused climate change. Why take that risk?
Well, I am already a target so I’m not sure that extrapolation into the future really changes that! But the obvious answer is that I do the work that I think is important and useful, and risk really doesn’t factor into my thinking. I think more in terms of opportunities. Fiction gave us the opportunity to reach new people, and in new ways.
Is there any down side to using fiction to introduce readers to climate science? Could they come away with an inaccurate perception of the reality of climate change?
Not that I can tell, but you’d have to canvass our readers. But remember, very few people are actually reading the IPCC reports, and even fewer are reading peer-reviewed science. So if we can distill the science, and turn it into a readable narrative, then I think we’ve done something good.
Would you consider "The Collapse of Western Civilization" to be a worst-case scenario?
Yes, definitely. In fact, it’s deliberately based on taking the worst case scientific projections, and carrying them out. I think that is fairly clear to anyone who reads it.
Do you see reason to hope or expect a different outcome?
Qui vivra verra.