As the great German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer noted, science, like all fields, is interpretation. This is not to relativize or minimize its importance, but simply to note the truism that no one–not even the most conscientious or disinterested scientist–is capable of giving a “God’s-eye view of things.” Even the scientist brings his/her own presuppositions, expectations and paradigms to bear in their research. Thus, we should not be completely and totally surprised that the issue of climate change is subject to debate within scientific communities, and has largely been politicised inside and outside those circles. One of my side pursuits is scientific theory and the philosophy of science, and what I’ve discovered from the incongruous works of Thomas Kuhn, Mary Midgley, Richard Dawkins, Edmund Husserl and Karl Popper is that science is anything but a purely objective discipline, and that very often the “numbers” are subject to a scientist’s bias and preconceived expectations.
We should not, therefore, expect a total consensus from any single branch in science, be it on the question of Darwinism (there are many Darwins!), Einsteinian physics or string theory. What I find often in the climate change debate is an over-politicizing of the discordant voices echoing the halls of scientific inquiry. The problem as I see it is that uncritical pundits recast climate change into political categories. Environmental concern over climate change, the story goes, smacks of liberal tree-hugging sentiment. Skepticism over climate change, the same fable continues, reeks of corporate titanism and conservative, free market stumping. To whatever degree these stereotypes reflect actual ideologies among a minority, a thinking person ought not to succumb to the temptation to think of climate change in terms of the political make-up. This is especially true for Catholics, whose popes have set an example of balance and critical perspective on the topic (I am referring, of course, to recent statements from Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI).
This is why I am saddened by the lack of reason and dilettante scientism exhibited by some Catholic bloggers who comment frequently on climate change from a completely skeptical viewpoint. This skepticism seems to me to be rooted not in any real desire to understand science and, more relevantly, climatology, but rather in some ill-conceived political grandstanding that exploits any article or scientist that objects to the notion of a human effect on climate change. Such anti-intellectualism is pandemic (I am often guilty of ignoring the negative evidence that challenges my preconceived, pre-critical positions). But one of the marks, I think, of honest intellectual inquiry is the willingness to really spend time studying a question before the drive for arrogant grandiloquence gets the best of us.
For example, I found one Catholic blogger, who frequently posts on climate change, exhibits no qualities of serious intellectual pursuit yet cannot curb his desire to speak out against the notion that humans are having an impact on climate change. What this blogger posts casts doubt on the reality of climate change, and yet nothing he posts gives any fair look at the thousands of scientists who are convinced that climate change is a reality and that humans have an impact on it. Yet, he never hesitates to call upon the pundit, politician or non-specialist who casts concern for climate change as a vast left-wing, big government conspiracy. The marshaling of support from other uncritical commentators, the accumulation of biased information that supports his position and the ignoring of negative evidence that obliterates his claims are all symptoms of that crippling intellectual condition known as dogmatic denial. In sum, he aligns himself with whomever he already agrees and then relies upon these individuals to think for him. Anyone who uses the straw man term “man-made global warming,” as he frequently does, deserves little attention in this important debate.
Each and every time the pope speaks of the moral obligation of environmental concern, the phenomenon of climate change, and the recent moves by the Vatican to become eco-friendly, this blogger contrives verbose posts aimed at softening the pope’s words so as to bring them into conformity with his own naive perspective. Why the defensiveness in the face of the pope’s clear concern for human effects on climate change? Why the need to bend over backwards in order to twist the pope’s message into precisely what it is not saying? And for goodness sake, why Pat Buchanan as our authority (that’s like calling on Al Gore to be your witness for the opposite view!)?
And why do I pick on this chap? Simply put, he offers us an example of the dogmatic denial that harms intellectual and moral enquiry. I presume, but cannot prove, that his rejection of what is becoming minimally a majority (not total!) consensus in the scientific community is his allegiance to his current political persuasion. Just a hunch. I cannot think of any other reason that he posts so one-sidely on an issue that deserves much more careful, panoramic enquiry. Whatever may be the underlying issue, it is disappointing and disheartening to see such dogmatic denial from a Catholic.
In any case, my point in this post is not to jam down everyone’s throat some doomsday portent of imminent natural disaster. Those of us who are concerned over the human impact on the natural phenomenon of climate change, like John Paul II and Benedict XVI, refuse to politicise the findings and the theories. There is no need to have a political agenda in order to raise awareness, concern and action. I hope that we will eventually see less political bias and amateur commentary, and a greater willingness to listen to and, if convinced, defer to scientific authorities greater than ourselves. Especially, I hope to find this among Catholics whose own leaders are greatly concerned over the responsibility humans have for care of the environment. This includes climate change.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In