Is it not climate science that should
speak to matters of climate change, technically speaking?
Climate science must handle climate
change. Climate science ought to deal with climate change.
It is climate science, among the
sciences, that ought to be best equipped to speak to issues relating to climate
change.
Climate science is the tool man has
raised to tackle the complexities of climate in technical terms.
Environmentalism puts emotion into the
technicalities generated by climate science through environmental movements and
their activities on the ground.
Are other forces trying to hijack the
climate change fight? If yes, what are these other forces?
But then what is climate science?
CLIMATE SCIENCE
What does climate science stand for?
From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us
the purpose of climate science and what it is: “Climate science investigates the structure and dynamics of
earth’s climate system. It seeks to understand how global, regional and local
climates are maintained as well as the processes by which they change over
time. In doing so, it employs observations and theory from a variety of
domains, including meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry and more.
These resources also inform the development of computer models of the climate
system, which are a mainstay of climate research today. This entry provides an
overview of some of the core concepts and practices of contemporary climate
science as well as philosophical work that engages with them. The focus is
primarily on epistemological and methodological issues that arise when
producing climate datasets and when constructing, using and evaluating climate
models. Some key questions and findings about anthropogenic climate change are
also discussed.”
To
get a deeper understanding of the purpose of climate science, I quote again
from the same website (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/) the following on the origin and
evolution of climate science: “The field of climate
science emerged in the second half of the twentieth century. Though it is
sometimes also referred to as “climatology”, it differs markedly from the field
of climatology that came before. That climatology, which existed from the
late-nineteenth century (if not earlier), was an inductive science, in many
ways more akin to geography than to physics; it developed systems for
classifying climates based on empirical criteria and, by the mid-twentieth
century, was increasingly focused on the calculation of statistics from weather
observations (Nebeker 1995; Edwards 2010; Weart 2008 [2017, Other Internet
Resources]; Heymann & Achermann forthcoming). Climate science, by contrast,
aims to explain and predict the workings of a global climate
system—encompassing the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice sheets and
more—and it makes extensive use of both theoretical knowledge and mathematical
modeling. In fact, the emergence of climate science is closely linked to the
rise of digital computing, which made it possible to simulate the large-scale
motions of the atmosphere and oceans using fluid dynamical equations that were
otherwise intractable; these motions transport mass, heat, moisture and other
quantities that shape paradigmatic climate variables, such as average surface
temperature and rainfall. Today, complex computer models that represent a wide
range of climate system processes are a mainstay of climate research.
The emergence of
climate science is also linked to the issue of anthropogenic climate change. In
recent decades, growing concern about climate change has brought a substantial
influx of funding for climate research. It is a misconception, however, that
climate science just is the study of anthropogenic climate
change. On the contrary, there has been, and continues to be, a significant
body of research within climate science that addresses fundamental questions
about the workings of the climate system. This includes questions about how
energy flows in the system, about the roles of particular physical processes in
shaping climates, about the interactions that occur among climate system
components, about natural oscillations within the system, about climate system
feedbacks, about the predictability of the climate system, and much more.”
LEFT AND RIGHT
Stanford
Encyclopedia has established that when it comes to matters relating to climate change
climate science is the place to look up to. However, climate change is much
more than climate science! It is beyond climate science!
Climate change is
beyond climate science because it has developed global political dimensions.
Out of the climate
change debate, stealthily and suddenly, a global political polarization has
emerged - Left and Right.
The Left is
associated with ideas such as:
The Right is
associated with ideas such as:
Political
scientists analyze the Left as follows:
- Anarchists
- Communists
- Socialists
- Democratic
- Social democrats
- Left-libertarians
- Progressives
- Social liberals
- Movements for racial equality
- Trade unionism
For the Right political scientists
analyze them as follows:
- Conservatives
- Right-libertarians
- Neoconservatives
- Imperialists
- Monarchists
- Fascists
- Reactionaries
- Traditionalists
POLARIZATION
Entry of the Left
and the Right into the climate change debate brought with it a polarization. What
accounts for this polarization along political lines over something that ought
to be technically a climate science matter, and for environmental movements?
Patrick T. Brown, an Associate Professor in the
Department of Meteorology and Climate Science at San Jose State University,
California, in an article published on 30th July, 2019 in Quillette,
and titled “Empiricism and Dogma: Why Left and Right Can’t Agree on Climate
Change” answers that question thus:
“Rather than thinking about the political divide on
global warming as the result of dogma versus logic, a better explanation is
that people tend to embrace conclusions—scientific or otherwise—that support
themes, ideologies, and narratives that are preexisting components
of their worldview. It just so happens
that the themes, ideologies, and narratives associated with human-caused global
warming and its proposed solutions align well with the political
predispositions of the Left and create tension with those of the Right.
The definitional distinction between the political Right and the
political Left originated during the French Revolution, and relates most
fundamentally to the desirability and perceived validity of social hierarchies.
Those on the Right see hierarchies as natural, meritocratic, and justified,
while those on the Left see hierarchies primarily as a product of chance and
exploitation. A secondary distinction, at least contemporarily in the West, is
that those on the Right tend to emphasize individualism at the expense of
collectivism and those on the Left prefer the reverse.” (https://quillette.com/2019/07/30/empiricism-and-dogma-why-left-and-right-cant-agree-on-climate-change/)
Patrick T. Brown has here given us the root cause of the
different positions taken by the Left and Right on the climate change issue. He
traces it all the way back to the French Revolution and describes them as
“preexisting components of their worldview”.
Patrick T. Brown proceeds to compare and align these preexisting
components with aspects of the global warming narrative: “There are several
aspects of the contemporary global warming narrative that align well with an
anti-hierarchy, collectivist worldview. This makes the issue gratifying to the
sensibilities of the Left and offensive to the sensibilities of the Right.
The most fundamental of these themes is the degree to which
humanity itself can be placed at the top of the hierarchy of life on the
planet. Those on the Right are more likely to privilege the interests of
humanity over the interests of other species or the “interests” of the planet
as a whole (to the degree that there is such a thing). On the other hand, those
on the Left are more likely to emphasize a kind of pan-species egalitarianism
and care for our shared environment, even if that means implementing policies
that run counter to humans’ short-term interests.”
Regarding upsurge in
Left interest in the climate change matter, Adam Tooze, a history professor and
director of the European Institute at Colombia University, assigns some reasons
in an article titled “How Climate Change Has Supercharged the Left” dated
January 15, 2020: “The climate emergency is stirring radical politics across the world as a new
spirit of environmental radicalism energizes left-wing politics. Most notably,
the left wings of both the Democratic Party in the United States and the Labour
Party in the United Kingdom have committed themselves to programs known as the
Green New Deal. Across Europe, the Greens now rival right-wing populists in
their political energy.
For the established
environmental movement, this surge in attention has come as something of a
shock. The original green movement of the 1960s and 1970s had strong radical
elements in its social and economic vision. But for much of the 1990s and
2000s, “Big Green” went mainstream. When it came to climate change, government
regulation and investment were unfashionable. Market-based solutions focused on
emissions trading and carbon pricing were the flavor du jour. Global climate
negotiations became a giant diplomatic roadshow.” (https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/15/climate-socialism-supercharged-left-green-new-deal/)
But then how did the Left launch itself to the climate change
pad. Adam Tooze who I have just quoted has this to say: “The left’s reoccupation of environmentalism is no accident. It is driven by the urgency of
anti-capitalist protest in the wake of the financial crisis and the protest
movement against the lopsided austerity that followed. It is energized by the
extraordinary escalation of the climate crisis, as was made clear by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2018. A left-wing critique
of capitalism and urgent climate activism are linked as never before.”
CONCLUSION
Climate change, an issue that should, and ought to be technically
handled by climate science, and environmentalism, is being manipulated by the
Left and Right for self-interest. Adam Tooze says: “The climate emergency is
stirring radical politics across the world as a new spirit of environmental
radicalism energizes left-wing politics.” Regarding the Right, Patrick T. Brown
says: “The most fundamental of these themes is the degree to which humanity
itself can be placed at the top of the hierarchy of life on the planet. Those
on the Right are more likely to privilege the interests of humanity over the
interests of other species or the “interests” of the planet as a whole (to the
degree that there is such a thing)”. The word themes in Patrick T. Brown’s
statement is referring to the preexisting components of the worldview of the
Right.
To what end is the position taken by the Left in the climate
change issue? One idea that is associated with the Left is internationalism. Is
the end of the position taken by the Left then international dominance? The
same question is being posed to the Right: To what end is the position taken by
the Right in the climate change issue? The Right place the interest of man
above all others on planet Earth, in keeping with their hierarchy philosophy, hence
capitalism, exploitation, profit and pleasure for man, to the detriment of the
others in the natural environment (for that matter planet Earth itself?). What
is man without the natural environment? This philosophy upsets the balance
required to keep the natural environment intact, and sustainably intact for
posterity.
The road of the Left and the road of the Right are not leading
to the destination of redemption for a planet in climate change crisis. The
tendency of the Left is to see the Right as the main opponent and thereby missing
the point, and the tendency of the Right is to see the Left as the main
opponent and thereby missing the point.
The point is to make planet Earth habitable for all its
inhabitants, individually, and as a whole!
When species upon species are being lost, planet Earth cannot be
said to be habitable as such, whether through natural causes or/and manmade
causes.
Comments
Post a Comment