Let me see. How do I say this without seeming, or being, a fool?
For a while now, I have been deeply uncomfortable with the talk surrounding global warming. It’s not that I think that global warming is untrue. It’s not that I would prefer to die of thirst on Morningside Island, surrounded by New Manhattan Bay. I am extremely afraid of the proposed warmed globe future, and I do not want it to happen. My discomfort is caused by the conversation, by the “knowledge”. Just like other “knowledges”, “truths”, the ‘fact’ of global warming has become, for many, a known thing. And yet most people I have spoken with are not scientists, and have not read the relevant literature (And neither have I, really. I have read some, but not nearly enough, probably).
Most people are parroting. I have heard many parrots in my life, and they cause me no end of frustration. I have been a parrot, and I probably still am, in certain ways, but my goal is now always to find my own words.
Global warming is not, of course, the only concept about which parrots parrot. They parrot about morality, about schools, about financial matters, about democracy, about religion, about philosophy. There is no end to it. When I read Bruno Latour’s thoughts on Science and on the Cave, global warming, atomic theory, and Newtonian physics and its “gravity” are the first things that come to mind. I am deeply wary of things we offhandedly say that we “know”.
To be flippant about the possibility of a warmed world is to be a fool. I hope very much that I DO NOT give the impression of flippancy in that regard. I am simply uncomfortable and upset when those who do not know say that they know.
The import of the notion of global warming is huge, and obviously is both terrible and could (will?) have effects for which we must plan, must strategize. Clearly we will be addressing this issue in the context of class 4010. But if we are also inquiring in class 4010 into the nature of “public” narrative, then it seems reasonable to criticize yet another example of a story that is told that people believe (even if it happens to be a true story!). Even if it is pragmatic to have people believe that global warming is happening (because, presumably, they will DO something about it–perhaps…), is it good to tell a noble lie?
And really, how pragmatic is the noble lie? For example, I believe that it is good to live simply. I am deeply suspicious of “growth” (a suspicion mentioned, and argued against, in the Bottom Billion) as a public good. I believe we can and should live with less. Christmas (and Hanukkah perhaps, although I am only a novice) is many things, most importantly a festival of sun-return (which can be interpreted religiously, which I respect, if you like). It is also the most wasteful, heavily advertised, “growth” moment of the year. It is an eternal boon for manufacturers. Geisel himself was the Grinch. He was dealing with himself in that story. I reuse my plastic bags. I don’t use paper towels. I only wear natural fibers. I think odd-shaped vegetables are the best ones. Local farms forever…
But I didn’t need to believe in global warming in order to be this way. I believe these things because of other narratives, other ways I have had of learning during my life. Why do we need this story? Why do so many believe without having examined? And why do I choose global warming of all things to serve as the center of this type of questioning? Is it because I am just too afraid of the possiblity of its truth? Or is there something essential about the story/theory that brings up these deeper questions?
(BTW I hope that I don’t give the impression that me not using paper towels is going to save millions and millions from hunger and death.)
E.Scrubb.Design
Perelandran
Photo Gallery
rocannon (this blog)
2 Comments
I share your discomfort about the climate change narrative. I wonder how you feel specifically in response to Pachauri’s lecture on the subject, though; I found it interesting because he doesn’t appear to be trying to be interesting or alarmist at all. This man is NOT just parroting; he’s an authority on the topic, he’s the real deal. And his presentation is about as dry and non-narrative as can be (I recognize that this is just another TYPE of narrative and all, but it doesn’t seem like an example of the ignorant sort of alarmist spouting that you dislike). So where does this kind of discourse belong? Is there a place for it? Perhaps we don’t “need” stories like this to motivate people to change their behaviors when other stories will do just as well, but if the science (with a small ‘s’) in Pachauri’s story is sound, perhaps that is its own justification.
Oh certainly, I do not think the man is parroting. Def not. However, his graphs, while ‘clear’, are clearly produced for a non-scientific audience, an audience that “cannot” be very critical of the graphs, because to do so would require greater skill and knowledge. I found many of the charts vague, or at the least, unbacked up by more technical stuff. Obviously, that is normal in a lecture in a given amount of time…
I very much appreciated his tone. His ‘alarmism’ is powerful, but quiet. I do believe he is trying to sound the alarm, just in his own way, which is a good way. I much prefer it to more metaphorically correct alarmism:)
It’s so difficult to know where the discourse belongs because it is ‘scientific discourse’ and therefore, must be analyzed by ‘scientists’ to be well analyzed. It is the transition from the scientists to the policymaker/actors that is the problem. How do the ‘actors’ make their decisions? It cannot be knowledge/skill. It must be a certain decision about who they believe, which scientists, or in this case the ‘majority of scientists’. So many say it is one way. We must therefore believe them…because we don’t have the expertise to actually decide for ourselves. Specialization…trusting peer review…
William Harvey was widely discredited and mocked for arguing against the vast majority of ‘scientists’ that the blood system was circulatory in nature, rather than emanating from the ‘center’ and out through the pores, as theorized by Aristotle and Galen. Copernicus and Galileo thought that Kepler was wrong about eccentricity, as did many others (in both cases, blood and physics, there was a desire for a ‘center’. just a side note because I find it interesting).
Of course William Harvey was engaging in vivisection and therefore had a bit of an image problem, and we aren’t just talking about Biology in the case of climate change, but Apocalypse, or at the very least, climate wars and crises.