TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

Did we have too much science?

Published 23rd September 2009 - 12 comments - 1710 views -

Many observers have made the point that the early environmentalist movement was more romantic than interested in science's hard facts. I think academical science was somtimes even despised, as a part of mainstream society. Nothing could be less true about the climate change movement of today. The discussion is ripe with quotations of the latest findings of melting ices,deforestation, growing deserts and shrinking deserts. Let me quote some sentences of wikipedia's article on Carbon Dioxide in the earth's atmosphere: "As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 100 ppmv (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv.[1][2] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3-9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. My guess is that several readers have forgotten what ppmv actually meant after reading three sentences.

This is obviously a pedagogic problem for anyone who wants to raise awareness about climate change - maybe the distanced scientific language is one reason for luke warm interest in the question. The message is not "sticky" as a PR professional would say. But I see another problem with stressing science's role too much - and I think that we might have forgotten something that the early environmentalists knew - that science does not give us the whole truth.

Climate change is global issue, in any sense of the word. I can not come up with any issue that is not related to the climate in one way or another. There is a CO2 footprint behind the T-shirt I wear, behind the computer I write this on and the tea that I drink. Behind the cup I drink it in, and the shoes of the man who made it. And that's just the start. In Madagascar, political instability increased illegal exploitation of rain forests - a case where we can establish a simple relationship between human politics, deforestation and more CO2 in the atmosphere. In addition we have myriads of indirect relationships, like if I use my t-shirt half a year longer than planned, and in that lower Swedish consumption marginally, which in turn lowers Chinese production and thus lowers the CO2-production. But maybe that makes China poorer, and slows down chinese investments in clean technologies... And will my example encourage other's to follow, or will my sweaty t-shirt scare my neighbours into consuming more?

Virtually everything we do affect the climate in the end. Sometimes we can predict more or less how, sometimes we have no idea. A scientific knowledge about climate change would require a knowledge about everything - which would make it something else than science. You might have noticed it - a scientific text about the role of women in the roman household is always better science, and often more readable, than a text about the history of the world. The second type of books always end up being the opinions of its author, and if you like the text or not ususally depends on if you agree with these opinions.

If you have written your own scientific paper you also know this - the key to writing a good paper is to asking one single question, that can be answered in one single sentence when necessary. "What was the size of Greenland's glaciers in 1980 and what is their size today" - this question could be answered by science. Christians, liberals, anarchists and anyone that can read would possibly agree. They would most likely agree, if the science is done properly. "How would life on earth be with a 2 degrees warmer atmosphere" - this question would demand a different answer.

One could possibly argue, that with time and hard labour, after thousands of focused scientific studies, we will reach the answer to the second question. But quite frankly that seems naive, and has done so at least since Nietzsche's days. The thing that makes the second question unfit for a scientific answer is that two persons will never agree what "life" actually means. Such questions will ultimately only be answered by our subjective experiences. These experiences will be subjectively interpreted and understood, not as facts, but as narratives. meanwhile, we are more or less stumbling in the dark. It is scaring in deed, because nothing can guarantee that we do the right thing. We know that we will fail, and we are bound to live with it. I think Camus would agree with me on this point.

The early environmentalist were closer than us to mystical and religious thinking, and made innovative use of older traditions. I think one can draw a straight line from Ruskin, Tolstoj and Gandhi to organised pacifism and from there to environmentalists in the sixties. A keyword in this school of thinking is holism - the notion that everything is interconnected. Another central notion is that parts of reality lie beyond logical reasoning, but is nonetheless real. I think few people in the climate debate would deny this, but I sometimes think we have forgotten it - because it is not, and will never be, a part of science.

Category: Climate Science, | Tags: environmentalism, philosophy,



Comments

Frank Schnittger on 23rd September 2009:

If you want the HTML to render properly, go back to the text editor, cut all the content, click the small HTML button on the right, and paste all the content into HTML window.  Click update.  That should solve the problem.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 23rd September 2009:

Thanks Frank, I learned it the hard way wink

Frank Schnittger on 23rd September 2009:

Did we have too much science? - TH!NK ABOUT IT

“How would life on earth be with a 2 degrees warmer atmosphere”

Just testing does html render in comments!

I disagree.  It is a valid scientific question to seek to estimate the effect on glaciers and sea levels of an average 2 degree rise - and thus to identify those islands etc. at risk of flooding.  One could also estimate effects on crop yields and growing patterns.  Not precisely, obviously, but it is a valid scientic exercise to seek evidence and build models that can make those estimates.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 23rd September 2009:

Yes. One could make estimations, with a reasonable degree of certainity about how much sea levels would rise, how much further north in Europe you could grow weat etc. This should be done, and it should be done by science.

But there are limitations. If we try to assess growing patterns globally, we face such a complicated system that it would be practically, if not theoretically, impossible to answer it.

Moreover, even if we have these numbers of sea change and crop yields, they can serve as arguments in a discussion, but not give any real knowledge about how happy or sorry we would be under these circumstances.

Yet I think this question about quality of life can be discussed, even if it can not be done in scientific terms.

In deed the question is present - for example we often mention migrations as one of the problems of climate change. But why this is a problem science can not explain.

Science definitivey has a very important role, but it will not alone lead to political action. I think we need also a discussion of values.

Opa… this makes me sound like some sort of conservative that I am not smile

Frank Schnittger on 23rd September 2009:

Conservatives don’t have a monopoly on values - they just have the wrong ones!  Putting a price on things isn’t the same as truly valuing our environment, just as conservatism isn’t the same as conservation!

hemant anant jain on 23rd September 2009:

“But I see another problem with stressing science’s role too much - and I think that we might have forgotten something that the early environmentalists knew - that science does not give us the whole truth.”

Ultimately it is about common sense. The reality isn’t so complicated. It’s about clean air and water and better life or just ‘life’ in the end, isn’t it?

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 23rd September 2009:

True! It would be horrible if conservatives had a monopoly. But can values be wrong or right?

The distinction between setting a price and valuing is very important. The things that we value the most we don’t sell. Prices vary with supply and demand, but that doesn’t necessarily affect how valuable something is to me.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 23rd September 2009:

@henant What is easy is to know what is wrong or right - that oftens comes down to being honest to yourself. The difficult thing is to do it.

I guess my point is that it is “the heart” and not “the brain” that tells you what is wrong and right, and that science speaks to “the brains” not to “the hearts”. Which is why people keep driving cars, while they worry about climate change… for example.

I think the tcktcktck’s Human Impact stories proves a great example. By putting the question as a moral and social problem, they make it much easier to grasp, at least for me. It is not only good PR - without any moral imperative, we will not move to act.

Conor Slowey on 24th September 2009:

Deciding whether or not it’s better appealing to the head or to the heart can be a hard choice sometimes, and it also depends on the individual. Personally, I tend to favour appealing to the head (because that’s usually the technique that convinces me of an argument), but values need to play a central role as well - you’re right that our choice of the lives we will lead in the future depends on the values we hold and the choices we make because of them today.

So I’d say that the Green movement and those who want to tackle climate change really need to draw on values in their arguments to inspire and convince people to make a difference. The problem is that climate change is a long term threat, and the everyday temptations that people face (as well as choices that reflect good intentions but have bad climate consequences) can overcome the vague worry that people might have about climate change. Since the solutions require high investment and a change in lifestyle (at least the large scale ones), and since the contra side can - and does - try to appeal to narrow self-interest, the environmentalist movement needs to concentrate a lot of energy and focus in ensuring their arguments are backed up with proper science and appeals to the head.

So… that’s a long-winded way of saying that science needs to remain central to the environmentalist cause.

Daniel Nylin Nilsson on 24th September 2009:

@Connor.  Yes. It is all about stiking the right balance between appealing to hearts and minds I think. Values without science, or afraid of science is a useless and dangerous thing. So is science without values.

@Zmij… thanks smile Would you please add a translation to your comments. I am a great fan of Russian language and culture, but don’t read it so well wink

Paul Montariol on 08th December 2009:

With regard to science, I believe very seriously that we cross one complex period and that in 10 years all will be clear.
Not to waste time it is necessary to give an instruction raised to the women (university) and to develop new energies to the rhythm of 3% of growth per annum. (3% on the consumed total.)

This article is archived. Comments are closed.