The climate debate has become philosophical rather than scientific

The climate debate has become philosophical rather than scientific

Advertise scientific or technical decisions and choices about climate that are in fact policies that make them unchallengeable. Article by Sergio Giraldo

A study that appeared in 2021 in the scientific reports of the magazine natures (“Computer-aided classification of conflicting claims about climate change’, written by Travis Cowan, Constantine Bousales, John Cooke, and Mirjam O. Nanko) ranked the claims against the climate change narrative. Through extensive use of computers, the researchers prowled the web to collect the arguments of those who did not align with the official narrative, and then created a ranking of the subjects that made the case. It is embraced by those who, with their various nuances, declare themselves skeptical.

The occasion of this study is instructive, because it should be clear by now that the climate change debate has left the realm of science and immediately become political or even philosophical.

The five arguments for the counter

arguments against narrative (Claims) into five major categories: 1) Global warming does not exist. 2) emissions from human activities do not cause global warming; 3) climate effects are not a problem; 4) the proposed solutions will not work; 5) Science and climatology are not reliable. It’s an old dialectical game: proposing one’s thesis in the key to salvation automatically places those who don’t fit in with it in a fence of negativity complete with a “none” sign. It is the mechanisms of compliance, that drive those who do not adhere to the margins, down an inexorable path. deminutiocapitis.

Instrumental use of the term “purge”

For each of the five categories there are different subcategories (about thirty) and detailed topics (about fifty). The interesting thing is that the authors of the paper put all the opposite arguments in one bag and called it disinformation, thus automatically ascribe themselves the title of guardians of truth, even for topics that have nothing to do with science. The debate over what is science and what is truth is complex, but we’ve already seen what happens when science is used as a blunt tool. The classification devised by computers uses the cloak of science to proclaim misinformation that everything is in Claim 4, i.e. the proposed solutions, which is instead the political argument par excellence. Publicizing scientific or technical decisions and choices that are in fact political serves to make them unquestionable, incontestable, and fundamentally authoritarian. It’s the new version of TINA in green outfit (There are no alternatives), paving the way for the eclipse of democracy and the receding of freedom. It is no coincidence, in fact, that the authors of this paper are professors of political science and communications, not climate scientists. But science, which is not and cannot be a source of law, in itself has no voice, and it is scientists who speak of it. Controversy on scientific ground should be conducted by those who practice science, not by preachers, who abound instead. The result is that the dogmatic use of science leads to the paradoxical result of reinforcing anti-science beliefs.

See also  Are peanuts good for you? What the science says: crazy

field of choices, “What do we do?” , is and must remain a politician, open to all opinions, and decisions must be made democratically. There can be no irrevocable mortgage of science on people’s lives. There is an indispensable line from Piave that must be firmly defended: Science says “how,” but we must be the ones to say “what.”

Proposals of environmental experts on drought

Let’s take an example. Until a few weeks ago, debate about how to deal with droughts raged in Italy. An effective response is to build industrial storage tanks and basins, as well as work on pipelines and canals to eliminate losses. It’s a solution to work: investing to add security. On the other hand, what does Greenpeace say, among other things, in a statement dated March 22? This: “Reducing upstream water consumption in agriculture, making the use of land and water a priority for the production of food intended for direct human consumption rather than the feed chain or biofuel production. Reducing the demand for feed in the upstream stages, gradually reducing the number of animals raised and adopting measures To encourage the adoption of primarily plant-based diets.”

The ecological and scientific answer, i.e. the subtraction: To treat water scarcity, it is necessary to dispense with meat and become a vegetarian. All the solutions proposed by green fanatics are directed towards reduction and impoverishment: reduce, if not eliminate, the consumption of meat, perhaps relying on synthetic proteins made in a laboratory or, why not, on protein flour obtained from insects. Fewer cars, fewer planes, i.e. fewer flights, and therefore less freedom of movement. If someone supports a different thesis, fearing restrictions on personal freedom, they spread misinformation, according to the study created by the researchers.

See also  Science, Antarctica can take stress and damage

The truth about energy that is classified as misinformation

between Claims That according to those who provide disinformation, there are also statements that are true in themselves: energy costs will increase (this is true), the security of the energy system will be less than it is currently (this is true), and China emits much more (this is true) Fossil fuels are cheap (that’s right), green technologies damage the environment (that’s right). According to French and Chinese pace, the disinformation also claims that nuclear power may be a good alternative solution.

Environmentalists vs. Human

In the classification developed by algorithms that scour the web for scary ideas contradictory One essential missing element: humanity. There is no place for man in this declared jihad not against climate change, but against humans. After all, just look at the projections of world population in one of the recent reports by the Club of Rome, which clearly states that green policies will only be able to succeed in the future in the presence of a strong demographic. drop. From 1972 the date of publication of the famous report growth limits (The limits of evolution), that Malthusianism is waiting for its chance. Now the one idea that camouflages itself with science is ready to collaborate.

Here, if this is the future, keep it and let’s live.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *