Discuss why consilience is more important than consensus in understanding the science underpinning our knowledge of climate change.
Consilience plays a more important role than consensus in our understanding of climate change (CC) science for two interrelated reasons. First, there are different definitions of consensus. Second, scientific consensus is predicated upon consilience.
The different understandings of consensus
Climate debates often put forward the statement that 97% of climate scientists agree that the world is warming due to anthropogenic causes and this level of agreement is known as consensus (Howard, 2014). However, the different understandings of consensus can open many cans of worms in the inquiry of CC science.
…show more content…
It is ‘regarded as a mark of knowledge shared by researchers’ (Miller, 2012). Simply put, consilience illustrates climate science as multiple bricks that make up the wall of a solid house or pieces of a complex jigsaw fitting into place. However, in society and politics, consensus often imply ‘majority opinion or concurrence’ (Howard, 2014). This basis for understanding consensus gives public the impression that CC science is valid only because of the ‘sheer number of scientists’ (ibid), as though science is conducted by poll. This impression is the very notion that Shermer (2015) is arguing against.
The different interpretations of consensus by different stakeholders challenges the validity of CC science. And on top of that, there are people who are ‘suspicious of consensus as a knowledge indicator’ (Miller, 2012). Hence, the question is not whether consensus is a mark of knowledge but on what conditions (ibid). The answer to that is consilience and it is the very thing that ground us in understanding the science underpinning our knowledge of
In the article “Climate of Complete Certainty” by Bret Stephens, he argues upon the topic that politicians exaggerate scientific certitude to benefit themselves. Stephens uses Clinton’s campaign loss and the climatic debate as illustrations to show that scientific fact doesn’t always give the defining factor of gains or losses. As stated by Stephens, Brexit showed the Clinton campaign that the populist tide causes a major surprise factor when determining the end result. With this example in mind, Stephens conveys that the end result strayed away from absolute certainty. Another instance in which scientific certitude is altered is within the topic of climate change.
Many people’s opinions are influenced by political leaders and their beliefs, which can have a negative effect on science’s efforts. Mere word changes have shown to make a difference in people’s willingness to pay for taxes that they don’t necessarily support or are even aware of. The use of storytelling has shown to be a powerful means in communicating science to the public as well. Although education and science understanding are not directly correlated with the acceptance of climate science, there is evidence that shows that a brief explanation of greenhouse effects “enhance acceptance across the political spectrum”. Researching source credibility has also boosted the political acceptance of certain scientific information.
Lindzen begins his piece by asserting that there isn't, and never will be, static, unchanging climates on planets with fluid envelopes. Throughout this article, he ponders why there has been an increase in alarm over climate change in the past few years. At the beginning of the article, he states that the increase in alarm is because the public has become scientifically illiterate, which, in turn, makes them more susceptible to being taken advantage of by people of higher status. He continues on by saying that the panic over climate change is falsely placed and that the climate is and has constantly been changing over time. He gives supportive examples of this through climate changing events that have occurred throughout the centuries. Also, according to Lindzen, findings on climate change are problematic because they are based on computer models. He claims that the data conflicts with the models, and that scientists “correct” the data to agree with the models, which points to some level of corruption in climate science. Although Lindzen does give reasons that he believes climate change may be over exaggerated, he keeps going back to another reason. Throughout the article, he ind...
This video successfully uses the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos and logos to support its claims on climate change. The way National Geographic uses ethos, or credibility, for this video is strong and thought out. The main speaker is none other than Bill Nye, who most students grew up watching in elementary school; to learn different aspects of science; and is a very respectable and credible speaker for this topic, of climate change. Nye graduated from Cornell University with a degree in mechanical engineering, then moved to Seattle, Washington to work as an engineer for Boeing and ultimately became a science educator, winning educational awards for his famous program, “Bill Nye the Science Guy”(Biography.com). Nye has extremely credible credentials to be able to speak about this topic of science, who speaks in a serious, concerned and informative manner to grab the attention of the viewer and explain that climate change is a serious affair that needs to be acted upon.
Predicting climate change is less accurate than firing a pistol at long range. The fact is, finding a forecast of our future is just as difficult as explaining the meaning of life. I mean, how can we predict the future climate when meteorologists can’t even predict today’s weather? Scientists have only been keeping exact records of the earth’s surface temperature for only just over a hundred years.# Before accurate readings of the earth had been taken, scientists have only viewed charts and graphs of recent years. Patterns have been formed from these short-term graphs. But how can scientists be sure that their trend is true? What proof do we have anyway?
Climate change has been nothing, but controversial in the last fifty years. Climate change is a change in the average weather of a region or city. Scientists have opted to use the term "climate change" instead of global warming because as the Earth's average temperature changes, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, as well as warm others. There is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on the global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change. Ninety-seven percent of published scientific research concluded that climate change is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity. But what about the three percent that contradicts that?
Spooner, I. (2008). What is climate change? Engaging the public in a critical discussion.. Atlantic Geology , 44, 41-41. Retrieved March 20, 2014, from the Academic Search Complete [EBSCO] database.
For these reasons, global warming stands as one of the most daunting policy issues facing our world today. This is compounded by the debate over the very existence of climate change. While countless sources of empirical evidence testify to the very real presence of climate change the world over, considerable denial of the phenomenon still exists. The argument has been made that evidence about climate change is a gross overstatement, or in some cases, a complete fabrication. Despite the evidence to the contrary, many interest groups with considerable political clout have successfully perpetuated the argument that documented changes in the environment are a product of natural cyclical changes in climate, and are not associated with human activities. However, even the acceptance of this particular brand of reality is no grounds for the disregard of environmental consciousness. Even if one accepts the premise that recent climate change is not resultant of human activity, the rationale behind environmental conservation remains ...
Climate change. The two letter word so feared by scientists, so ignored by the average human being. What is it that makes scientists fear this phrase so much? For the concept of “climate change” has been seen throughout the history of the earths existence. For centuries, our climate has fluctuated through increasing and decreasing amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide and climatic cycles.
Many people dedicate their lives to spread the message about climate change being real. Even though some change in the climate is natural, many events that have happened cannot be explained away by nature. Climate change is causing damage to the world that is completely irreversible. Nasa says, “Most scientists say it 's very likely that most of the warming since the mid-1900s is due to the burning of coal, oil and gas. Burning these fuels is how we produce most of the energy that we use every day” (nasa). The energy that we use daily makes our life easier, but it hurts the earth. Why does the government still allow us to use these things? Science has shown us that sea levels are rising in many parts of the world. Warm weather is causing glaciers to melt which results in the sea level rising. Earth 's average temperature has been rising for the last century in a half; and there has also been a steady rise in ocean temperature since 1969. It is said that climate control is man made and it is dangerous. On the other side of the argument, many people do not believe that climate change is real. They argue that their has not been a big temperature change in almost two decades. They also bring up the point of there not being enough data in the climate history to draw the conclusion of what is happening in the climate now is abnormal. Scientist started to record climate change around the 1800’s which many people believe is not enough data to do a comparison. Another reason some believe that climate change is not real is because of some instances where a scientist predicts a date of a significant climate change never happens. Rinkesh writes, “ For example:- Al Gore predicted that all Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. But, on contrary Arctic ice is up by 50% since 2012” (conserve-energy-future). Many people find that these reasons are why climate change is not
Climate change has been an extremely controversial topic in recent history and continues to create much debate today. Many questions concerning climate change’s origins and its potential affect on the globe are not fully understood and remain unanswered. What is climate change? Is climate change happening? Is it a natural cycle of the world or are there other catalysts involved such as human activity? What proof is there? What data correlations show climate change is accelerated by humans? How serious is climate change and how will it affect the future of our globe? What are we doing to address climate change? Should we really be concerned about climate change? Questions such as these have made climate change a very serious issue in today’s world and created the ideology of climatism. The issue of climate change has affected many different aspects of our lives and the world we live in. Policymaking, human activism, technologies, emission control, global warming, alternative energy sources and many other things have been greatly affected by the mania of climate change. This research report will present climate change in a light of common sense and rationality that will take a grounded discussion of the science behind climate change, global warming, human activity, and how the ideology of climatism has corrupted and driven the actions to combat climate change.
The Earth is currently locked in perpetuating spiral of climate change. While the global climate has unarguably been changing since the dawn of it's manifestation, the once steadied ebb and flow of climate change has become increasingly more unpredictable.The risk of rising sea levels, and drought plaguing the fresh water supply, during the time that flooding and sporadic storm conditions turn once fully inhabited regions into uninhabitable death traps. Climate change catalyzed by human's increased production of carbon dioxide, is more noticeable than ever in our recorded history (United States, 2014 National Climate Assessment). Thankfully however, with the changing weather conditions due to carbon related emissions, the change in public opinion about their personalized influence on climate change is also increasing. Kevin Liptak Jethro Mullen, and Tom Cohen note that In reaction to the most recent governmental report on climate change, even the U.S. government believes that a stronger approach needs to be taken to correct our self-generated cataclysm.
The controversial subject of global warming according to a large amount of scientists is not a prominent concern. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all. If so many scientists believe it is not a concern then why should we think any different? Well, a consensus shows that in reality 97% of all climate scientists agree that global warming is an issue and that it is most likely due to ...
Subpoint A: Not long ago, a documentary film called “An Inconvenient truth” came out in 2006. This film raised international public awareness of climate change and reenergizing the environmental movement. A former U.S Vice president Al Gore campaigned to educate citizens about global warming through a simp...
The earth is a complex system, which continues to evolve and change. Climate change and global warming are currently popular in the political agenda. But what does “climate” really mean? The difference between weather and climate can be conveyed in a single sentence: “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.” Based on research of the geologic record, we know that climate change has happened throughout Earth's history and at present, ever-increasing evidence points to the roles that humans play in altering Earth systems. The Earth and its atmosphere receive heat energy from the sun; the atmospheric heat budget of the Earth depends on the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from the planet; which has been constant over the last few thousand years. However present evidence seems to suggest that the recent increase in temperature has been brought about by pollution of the atmosphere, in particular the release of huge amounts of carbon dioxide, mostly through Anthropogenic Forcing (human activity) and other various internal and external factors. I...