Climate change is an issue that is gaining more and
more public attention, due to the implications that it brings. However, there
are two contrasting sides, one stating that climate change is real and manmade,
while the other side states that either it is not happening, or it is not
manmade, caused by nature. This falls into the natural sciences area of
knowledge, with inductive and deductive reasoning being employed. It should be
noted that a majority of scientists and scientific institutions believe (after
looking at all the evidence they have found) climate change is real and
it is caused by greenhouse gasses from human activity. However, utilising the scientific
method to uncover evidence and information on climate change has its own
difficulties. Because the weather is constantly changing, and there are so many
different factors and variables that effect it, it is hard to get repeatable
results, since it is not laboratory conditions. Instead scientists can employ
what can be described as a form of historical knowledge, based in science, by
looking for markers of past climate on Earth. For example, scientists use ice
cores from glaciers to study global climate as it happened millions of years
ago, up to now. Climate change deniers claim that human greenhouse gas
emissions are too little to actually make a difference, and any climate change
is actually being caused by natural fluctuations, such as those from the Sun’s
heat and ocean currents. This conflict highlight a potential flaw in the
scientific method, in that it is hard to undisputedly measure nature, as there
are so many uncontrolled variables involved. Improvements in measuring technology
could in the future allow for a more perfect utilisation of the scientific
method, with less uncertainty. As of now, however, climate change, in terms of
doing research and measurements, poses some difficulties to the Sciences area
of knowledge, and this the climate change deniers use to the benefit of their
own viewpoint on the issue.
Emotions as a WOK (way
of knowing) could also be considered a factor involved in this issue,
especially on the political side of it. This is such an important issue, since
the long-term effects will affect everyone due to things such as rising sea
level and ‘extremification’ of the weather (natural disasters and more
‘once-in-a-life-time’ events happen), that it has become a major issue
politically. As such, greater emphasis has been placed on emotion, due to
politics often appealing to the emotions of voters. ‘Green’ people and others
concerned with the environment, see the potential chaos and destruction Climate
Change could cause (i.e. mass extinction of various species, many world cities
underwater, climate refugees) and have a sense of urgency in making sure it
doesn’t happen. Now, it should be noted that emotion as a way of knowing does
not comment on whether or not things are rational, so just because ‘green’ people
have an emotional ‘push’ to prevent this problem doesn’t mean it is or isn’t a
good or rational thing to do. For climate change deniers there is also an
emotional-based appeal. If you are an IB Language and Literature student, this
word will be familiar: ‘Nostalgia’. Now, what does nostalgia have to do with
climate change denial? Well, part of TOK is figuring out the reasoning for why
we do certain things, and I think that this is one of the reasons involved with
climate change denial, at least in members of the general public. As was seen
in the most recent US elections, there are many jobs that would go away as a
result of being environmentally friendly, especially coal mining, as an
example. Some towns entirely revolve around the local mine and would pretty
much be nothing without that industry. To suggest policies that damage/destroy
certain industries is akin to some people to destroying their way of life; a
path that may have been passed down from generation to generation, and is
almost like a family heirloom to them. There’s a lot at stake for the people
this applies to. That’s not to say it is the only reason or even the main
reason for climate change, but I think it could be a possible one.
Overall, there are a
lot of WOKs and AOKs involved in this issue, and despite the scientific consensus
on it, there is still a debate on the issue, which can attributed to multiple
different reasonings.
