Transcript EPP hearing on "Key Issues in Post

Klimadialog –
Herausforderung Skeptiker und
andere Wissensansprüche
Hans von Storch
Institut für Küstenforschung, Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht
und
KlimaCampus, Hamburg
ExtremWetterKongress 2011, 12 April 2011, Hamburg
Competition of knowledge claims
policies
mitigation, adaptation costs
„Linear model“: Consolidated knowledge
(consensus) leads to policy.
Depoliticization of politics.
Explaining global
mean surface air temperature
Only natural
factors
Additional ly manmade factors
„observations“
IPCC 2007
Scenarios, not predictions
Bray, 2010
Increasing level of consensus among scientists concerning the
matters (manifestation) that climate change is underway and
that it is likely a result of anthropogenic influences (attribution)
USA-sample
USA-sample
New statistics derived in April 2011!
50
Umfrage von Beate Ratter, GKSS
Fehler: +/- 4%
Küste 2008
Hamburg 2008
Hamburg 2009
Hamburg 2010
40
%
30
20
10
0
sehr groß
groß
weniger groß
nicht gegeben
Die Bedrohung durch den Klimawandel halten wir für ...
November 2009
March 2010
Two different construction of „climate change“ – scientific
and cultural – which is more powerful?
Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“
Scientific: man-made change is real,
can be mitigated to some extent but
not completely avoided
Lund and Stockholm
Storms
Examples: media-reporting
Wissenschaftler beraten die Öffentlichkeit
Examples: media-reporting
Competition of knowledge claims
Postnormal
science
Jerry Ravetz, Silvio
Funtovicz, 1986 and earlier
State of science, when facts
uncertain, values in dispute,
stakes high and decisions
urgent.
In this state, science is not
done for reasons for
curiosity but is asked for as
support for preconceived
value-based agendas.
Knowledge market
• The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of the
linear model of „knowledge speaks to power“.
• The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated.
• Science has failed to respond to legitimate public questions
and has instead requested. “Trust us, we are scientists”.
• The problem is that the scientific knowledge is confronted on
the „explanation marked“ with other forms of knowledge
(pre-scientific, outdated; traditional, morphed by different
interests). Scientific knowledge does not necessarily “win” this
competition.
• The social process „science“ is influenced by these other
knowledge forms.
Which alternative knowledge claims?
- skeptics
- political interests (e.g., deniers, alarmists)
- climatic determinism
- religion
- others
Need of cultural sciences for scientific analysis of „climate“
Skeptics
•
•
•
•
Who are they?
What are skeptics skeptic about?
How did they become skeptics?
Non-representative survey on
Klimazwiebel-blog done by Rob Maris
with the help of Peter Heller
Skeptics
• There are highly visible personalities, which are unwilling to engage in
an open dialogue, but are guided by preconceived politically based
motifs.
• On the other hand, there is a broad groundswell of skeptical attitudes
among highly educated people, who
- are irritated to see scientists drawing political conclusions, and
- find themselves (and their questions) not taken seriously.
• Debate takes place in the blogosphere.
• Phenomenon does not disappear, neither by “educating” nor by
insulting.
• For overcoming the impasse, a dialogue needs to be established.
• Also restraint on the side of the “oversellers” (alarmists) needed.
• More research needed on the social phenomena of oversellers and
skeptics.
Schellnhuber on 2 deg goal
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that human civilization will collapse if the
temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius?
Schellnhuber: Of course the world won't end if temperatures go up by 2.01
degrees, let alone end suddenly. From today's scientific perspective, we could
possibly live with a warming of two to three degrees.
SPIEGEL: Why then have you, as one of the creators of the two-degree target,
imposed such a magical limit to which all countries must slavishly adhere?
Schellnhuber: Politicians like to have clear targets, and a simple number is easier
to handle than a complex temperature range. Besides, it was important to
introduce a quantitative orientation in the first place, which the 1992
Framework Convention on Climate Change managed to elegantly wangle its
way out of. And let's be honest: Even if we aim for the two-degree target,
we'll end up somewhat higher. Whenever there's a speed limit, most drivers
tend to go a little faster.
Spiegel online, 08/17/2010
Distribution of
civilizations in early
20th century
(expert map)
“Man lives in
balance with his
climate”
Climatically determined
„energy“ of people
The crisis of climate science is not about the key
scientific construct (man-made greenhouse gas
emissions change climate towards warmer conditions)
but a crisis of the trust into the societal institution
“climate science”.
Climate science has been unprepared with the
challenges of post-normality, in particular to deal with
the ongoing politicization of its utility and actors, and
the scientization (de-politicization) of politics.
Climate science needs to deal with skeptics and
alarmists, most of whom are neither stupid or evil nor
bought by special interests.