Transcript Regionalkonferenz der Metropolregion Hamburg

Science and ethics of climate
scientists
Hans von Storch
Institute of Coastal Research, GKSS Research Center Geesthacht
clisap-Center of Excellence, Klimacampus, University of Hamburg
Germany
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 1
Who is this?
Hans von Storch
(born 1949)
Director of Institute for Coastal
Research, GKSS Research Center,
near Hamburg,
Professor at the Meteorological
Institute of Hamburg University
Works also with social and
cultural scientists.
Raised in Germany, thus probably
strongly influenced by
German culture.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 2
Science and scientists
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 3
What is the role of science in society?
• Think-tank for providing solutions to social,
technological and political problems. As such
subordinated to current political agenda and
societal value-setting,
or
• Cultural achievement of rationally
understanding complex phenomena,
independent of “Zeitgeist”.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 4
What is the role of science in society?
In both cases science is a meaningful social
institutions which provides a service to society.
It can provide this service
sustainably
or non-sustainably, as all social practices.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 5
Sustainability in science means …
… a conduct which can be extended into the future without
consuming its basis for utility, which consists of
• trustworthiness
• competence
• independence Consuming its basis for utility means takes place
• by disregarding its limits of competence, and
• by honoring special (hidden) interests (ideological,
political, economic)
• by overconfidence and downplaying of uncertainties.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 6
A typology of scientists
(interacting with the public):
• the pure scientists
• the arbiter
• the advocate
• the honest broker
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 7
Climate Science
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 8
Constructions, post-normal
• Climate change is a „constructed“ issue. People do not really
experience „man made climate change“.
• One construction is scientific, i.e. an „objective“ analysis of
observations and interpretation by theories.
• The other construction is cultural, in particular maintained
and transformed by the public media.
• Climate science is in a “post-normal phase”, i.e., no longer
driven mostly by curiosity but driven by its argumentative
utility in a political struggle, while at the same time ridden
by substantial uncertainties.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 9
Two different construction of „climate change“ –
scientific and cultural – which is more powerful?
Cultural: „Klimakatastrophe“
Temperature
Scientific: man-made change is
real, can be mitigated to some
extent but not completely avoided
Lund and Stockholm
Storms
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 10
The scientific construction
• Climate is changing on time scales of decades and centuries.
• Presently climate is changing mainly because of elevated
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
• This change is best detectable in temperature and related
quantities, and will become visible during this century also in
other variables, in particular related to the water cycle.
• Climate change has an impact on social life and ecosystem
functioning.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 11
Possible Reponses to
Anthropogenic Climate Change
In the interacting environment-and-society system, we have two
classes of options for response:
• trying to avoid man-made changes („mitigation“) – this has
different dimensions, namely avoiding elevated levels of GHG
concentrations by reduced emissions; by intensified sinks; by geoengineering the global albedo, or regional and local conditions.
• adapting to man-made changes („adaptations“) of climate.
In principle, limiting the cause of anthropogenic climate change
(i.e., reduction of emissions) is preferable over adaptation, but
complete mitigation seems impossible so that the best strategy is to
mitigate as much as affordable and to minimize negative
consequences by adaptation.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 12
A framework of
how to think
about response
strategies
(Hasselmann, 1990)
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 13
Is scientific knowledge driving the policy process?
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 14
Knowledge market
• The science-policy/public interaction is not an issue of
„knowledge speaks to power“.
• The problem is not that the public is stupid or uneducated.
• 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.
• Science can not be objective but should nevertheless strive to
be so.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 15
Final comment:
science, policy and responsibility
• (Geophysical, ecological) Science should not formulate
policy, but prepare the factual basis for decision makers,
who consider apart of geophysical and ecological facts
also other, in particular normative arguments.
• Climate change is real and mostly caused by human
emissions. Society wants to avoid such a change; thus,
reductions of emissions are needed („mitigation“).
• Any conceivable mitigation policy will not lead to an
ending or even reversal of global warming; thus the
need for adaptation emerges.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 16
Epilog: The service of science
The debate about global warming has rightly become a political debate,
which unfortunately spills over to science – where scientists act as “stealth
advocates” for value-based agendas.
In the course of this process, the authority of science is eroding, as it becomes
difficult to distinguish between scientific analysis from science and advice
from NGOs or other value-driven social actors.
In this model, science adopts the role of auxiliary troops for broader social
movements.
To maintain the service provided by science to society – namely to provide
“cold” knowledge which may help to sort out some aspects in an otherwise
passionate and value-driven decision process – scientists should limit
themselves to assessment of robust scientific knowledge and should avoid
normative statements beyond their expertise. (They may do that if they act
as citizens, of course.)
Politicization damages the social institution “science”.
Cape Town, 27. August 2009
Page 17