More Science May Not Be The Climate Change Answer

The battle between those scientists who believe in climate change and those who deny it continues to rage. Al Gore recently hosted an around-the-clock web broadcast entitled “24 Hours of Climate Reality.” A “map of climate change denial” was recently published in the New York Times detailing ideological and economics links in “the denial machine.” Deniers are unconvinced and see a vast liberal conspiracy built on shoddy science.

I am a climate change believer. I see it as one of the Pillar Trends that has the power to reshape our world and the way we live. However, I must ask: is the war for truth one that can be won?

In my latest paper, I explore the epistemology of climate change science. My conclusion is that more physical science is likely not the answer.  One must turn to the social sciences to better understand how we learn and come to hold the beliefs that we consider to be the “truth.”

I invite you to download the PDF: ClimateChangeSciencecc and leave your comments here.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Eric, I agree. 

    Further, I believe that we’re missing a cohesive ‘frame’ for attaching ourselves–as individuals, organizations, institutions, corporations, countries–to the big, interconnected picture of how sustainability (which wraps around climate change) works. There’s plenty of ‘it’ working out there, but it’s very complex and easy to get lost, seemingly overwhelmed by the denial. Whether one’s an activist, business leader, policymaker, scientist, investor, educator–we are all engaged in a web of doing good, pushing the ball up the hill. It’s a map-able web. Potentially both a tool for navigation and back-of-the-mind visualization and framing, if embraced in simplified form. It may be my peculiar bias as a business/science/geography/communications/arts oriented person, but I can see the possibilities. 

    Larry Grob

%d bloggers like this: