Even as an (very) amateur futurist (you have to start somewhere), you run across information that challenges perceptions - both your own and those you see every day. One of the biggest lessons I've learned through my research/writing is that any lack of objectivity skews your viewpoints on the future. I can and should include my beliefs, values and desires, but too much subjectivity and any forecasts are little more than daydreams or nightmares.

Yesterday, the White House announced a change to Data.gov to include a climate hub to track coastal flooding and sea level change with plans to eventually track "climate-relevant threats, such as to human health, energy infrastructure, and our food supply." This new initiative will include private sector commitments from Intel, Google, Microsoft, MIT and others. The effort offers a portal at http://www.data.gov/climate/ through which data will be made available for public use and contains 83 data sets at launch.

How might this trend into the future? One of the mainstays of the anti-climate changers is that we don't really know if the climate is warming as we haven't been tracking climate data for that long - only temperatures since around 1850 and 40 years of satellite data. Add to this the many artifacts from human dwellings and mining found as glaciers retreat and there is reason for skepticism (just to note, my politics are to seek cleaner fuels and living - even if climate change isn't provable, clean air is always beneficial). Though this new site is built around the idea that climate change is real and there is a national need to incorporate this data into civic planning, the data being collected is still data and can be used by any group to prove/disprove various opinions by uncovering factual information.

I wonder how much greater granularity we can collect on the climate, though there are plans to send autonomous vehicles to track storms, water temperatures and sea life. The real value here is the data sets presented in one location for access by scientists, students, individual data analysis, and use in applications. And while the focus of the site is based around a belief in climate change, there is a real chance it could be disproved. As they say, there are three sides to every story: your side, my side and the truth.

Can this effort disrupt the arguments and find a solution? If so, what efforts can we make to end other political arguments defining the last few decades? Sadly, there are many big-money issues where individual citizens and corporations line up on either side while lining the pockets of the "public servants" who promise to protect or challenge their side of said issue. The value of 'lots of bark and no bite' means a politician can continue to profit from social indecision for years if not decades. Abortion, immigration, nearly every amendment to the Constitution (especially 1, 2, and 4), and the BIG ONE of global warming/climate change are all heavily debated and funded issues raging right now - some here in America and others around the globe. Some of these issues are divided by belief, some by fear, and some by government officials and corporate sharks attempting to maximize their position for career and/or financial gain. Sadly, these issues leave the citizens with a decreasingly effective government and society. The waste of time and money are evident, but we should also remember the loss of opportunity - the things that do not get done as a result.

While Big Data offers both promise and frightening misuse, the more data you compile, the more truths you can reveal. While political groups link abortion with depression or immigrants with rising crime and compare guns with hammers and frigid winters with proof humans are not impacting our climate, their opponents are attempting to prove the opposite. Not that all data usage is accurate, but once the data is in hand, experts can mine it to link actions with outcomes and perhaps prove causality.

Looking into the future, hoping for more doing and less arguing, I have to ask: If you have a strong belief either for or against the reality of climate change/global warming (you don't have to say which), are you open to the idea that new data or information from that data could disprove your view? If the answer is 'no', would you share why you feel this way?