Most complex problems are “wicked”
problems. That is, the etiology of these problems is complex, not simple,
involving multiple and layered interactions between different causal factors.
For example, poverty is a wicked problem – there are a range of causal factors
and layers of issues associated with why poverty exists and why it manifests
itself in the way that it does. The solution to poverty is also complex – just giving
people a living wage helps, but doesn't deal with all aspects of poverty.
Climate change is a wicked problem. We are
unsure of all aspects of cause, the interaction between causal factors and what
constitutes an impact of climate change versus natural variability. For example, the role of water vapour,
clouds, sun, CO2 and other factors are not fully understood and we have no
really robust model of climate which has true predictive power.
Many like to think that problems like
poverty, hunger, climate change are not wicked but “tame” problems which we
fully understand and which have known causes and effects. Indeed, the whole narrative
that “C02 is the primary cause of contemporary climate change” is a convenient,
tame narrative since it enables solutions to be proposed which are (in theory
at least) “do-able”. The inconvenient truth is that we do not fully understand
climate change dynamics and that we are unsure of what causes what when it
comes to impacts. We are pretty sure, for example, that extreme weather events
are not due to climate change (at least according to the peer reviewed evidence
and the IPCC).
The idea of “tame” problems depends on a
very strange notion of “consensus science” and the marketing of the idea that “the
scientific community is aligned”. In the case of climate science it is
abundantly clear that this is not the case. No amount of name calling and labeling
can disguise the fact that senior figures in the appropriate disciplines do not
subscribe to the tame view of climate change. It is also clear that there has
been process corruptions in the way in which science is both gathered and
presented, especially by the media.
This is the topic discussed on what I
regard to be by far the best blog to read about climate change – that managed
by Judith Curry and known as Climate,
etc. Judith is a climatologist,
a scientist in search for truth, is not funded by fossil fuels and is a
genuine scientist of the Popper school (with a deep understanding of the social
construction of evidence and scientific practice). But her search is for truth
and understanding, not influence and funding. She is a Professor at Georgia
Tech. She is also passionate about not
just evidence, but the philosophy of science.
I strongly recommend you spend time
exploring Judith’s mindful and insightful blog.
1 comment:
You have already converted me to Curry's blog that, like yours, swims against the tide of 'scientific consensus'. Bur I still see that infinite exponential trajectories of the growth of human impacts of many types is a 'no brainer' impossibility on a finite planet's natural spheres (geo-, atmo-, cryo-, litho, hydro-). Nevertheless, I have made a link on my own website to your dissenting voice on climate science at http://case4all.info/?page_id=712
Post a Comment