Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
LEARNING FROM THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE
CHANGE SCIENCE
As the previous paragraph intimated, 'Climate-gate' and 'Glacier-gate' reveal
graphically a plethora of important issues pertaining to the content and
effects of scientific representations of nature in the twenty-first-century
world. Before I try to itemise these issues why don't you have a go by
completing the study task below?
Study Task:
Much scientific research has no
direct
bearing on our lives and
we are scarcely aware of it because it seems irrelevant (see the residents
of Kissidougou). However, climate science is one of several examples of
research that indirectly stands to affect virtually everyone on the planet (or
at least very large numbers of people). Other examples are biomedical sci-
ence (discussed in
Chapter 4)
, biotechnological research, epidemiology, the
science of risk calculation, conservation biology and research into energy
technologies. Think a little about the major characteristics shared by these
otherwise different kinds of scientific endeavours from the perspective of
an ordinary person. Compare them with the high-profile but fundamental
(non-applied) science involved in the Hadron Large Particle Collider. What,
in your view, do they have in common once you look past their specialised
discourses, techniques and findings? Equally, are there any major divisions
that cross-cut them?
What do the two affairs tell us about the most publicly prominent areas
of contemporary science? First, climate science is addressed to 'the public',
civil society and their political representatives in the
widest possible sense
.This
is for the obvious reason that its subject matter is global in scale. What's
more, it's not a 'pure science' that's only designed to satisfy our curiosity.
This is for the equally obvious reason that, depending on the degree of
change ahead, global warming is likely to be consequential for most people
(though we don't know the fine details of quite how). The implication is
that climate scientists are 'representatives' in a very grand way: they speak
of changes said to be germane to most, even
all
, of humanity. Though few
other scientists do this, there are, nonetheless, other contemporary sciences
that seek to make claims on very large numbers of people - the new human
genetics discussed in
Chapter 4
being a prime example. Second, climate
science, like all science, is normally inscrutable to outsiders. The training,
techniques and judgements required to represent past, present and future
climatic trends are free from external inspection or regulation. This is no
different to other esoteric areas of science, of course. But it means that,
from a public perspective, there's a need for assurance that the science is
of a very high quality. In practice, this usually resolves to the question: are
scientists adhering to their own professional norms?
