Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change: Science, Technology, and Society Is the Earth warming at an overly alarming rate? To what extent do human.

Global Climate Change

Global Climate Change: Science, Technology, and Society

• Is the Earth warming at an overly alarming rate?• To what extent do human social systems affect

the rate of global warming?• Are rapid changes necessary to avoid

catastrophic geological conditions?

By addressing these questions, which seemingly are unrelated to social problems, we can learn how sociology becomes involved in the intersection of science, technology, and human systems.


Recall our definition of a social problem:•the cause is social,•the problem seriously harms a large number of persons in the society,•the problem threatens the well-being of society,•the problem is wrong and must be changed.


What if there is considerable disagreement within a society about the extent to which any of these conditions is true?

If strong disagreements exist regarding any of these four criteria of a social problem, then society might suffer a more macro-level social problem:1.society might be too slow in bringing about needed changes,2.the quality of discourse about the problem might in itself create social problems.


Therefore, sociology becomes intrinsically involved in addressing the intersection of science, technology, and society to the extent that it seeks to:

•reduce the amount of time involved in gaining adoption of mainly beneficial new technologies (i.e., a huge debate in itself: See SOC 415),

•improve the quality of public discourse regarding the definition of social problems.


This lecture addresses primarily the second question—regarding the quality of public discourse about a potential social problem.

A previous lecture provided a brief summary of sociological work on gaining the adoption of new technologies (i.e., Adoption and Diffusion).


We will discuss the quality of public discourse about potential social problems within the context of debates about global climate change.

Consider the following points of debate regarding global climate change.

Global Warming

Global Warming: Myths and Facts

Source: Environmental Defense

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

Global Warming

MYTH: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.

Global Warming

MYTH: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.

FACT: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.

Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money.

Global Warming

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth.

Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures.

Global Warming

MYTH: Global warming and extra CO2 will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.

FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.

Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase.

Global Warming

MYTH: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests.

Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming.

Global Warming

MYTH: We can adapt to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before.

FACT: Although humans as a whole have survived the vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts.

The current warming of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren. We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution.

Climate has changed in the past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological infrastructure.

Global Warming

MYTH: Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking.

FACT: In most parts of the world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.

Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods.

Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend.

Global Warming

MYTH: Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have confidence in climate projections decades from now?

FACT: Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as climate is different from weather.

Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate.

Global Warming

MYTH: As the ozone hole shrinks, global warming will no longer be a problem.

FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two different problems.

The ozone hole is a thinning of the stratosphere's ozone layer, which is roughly 9 to 31 miles above the earth's surface. The depletion of the ozone is due to man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A thinner ozone layer lets more harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation to reach the earth's surface.

Global warming, on the other hand, is the increase in the earth's average temperature due to the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities.


The preceding slides presented some points of view as “myths” and other points of view as “facts.”

Obviously, sociology cannot weigh in on this debate. The veracity of “myths” and “facts” about global climate change must be addressed with the physical sciences.

Sociologists can, however, address the debate itself.


First, sociologists must address the need for societies to change in response to changing environmental conditions.

If the perspective of Environmental Defense is correct, then society needs to move rapidly to institute corrective measures. We addressed this issue in a previous lecture.


Second, sociologists must address the quality of public discourse regarding potential social problems.

•Abrasive and disrespectful public discourse can create problems in itself.

•Poor quality discourse can affect the ability of society to make rational decisions.

We will address the topic of science communication and the quality of public discourse.


What happens when scientists want to convey complex and potentially controversial information to the public?

The “paradox of science” is that if scientists say nothing, then the public wants to know more. If scientists seek to explain their findings, then they are blamed for being biased.


Also, because all science if flawed, and because all technology is flawed, then when scientists report findings they are required to report “limitations” or flaws.

Then, because negative information always carries disproportionate weight in influencing initial opinions, then science communication unavoidably creates public controversy!


Given this dilemma, scientists can pursue one of seven approaches to communicating with the public:1.Say nothing (“just get the numbers right”).2.Tell them the numbers (no explanation).3.Explain the numbers.4.Explain negligible risk.5.Cost-Benefit analysis.6.Listen to concerns, but rely upon expert opinion.7.Partner with the public.


The rationality of public decision making.

Formal rationality (means to an end).Thick rational choice (utilitarian goal).Thin rational choice (social goal).Bounded rationality (lack of complete knowledge).

Substantive rationality (expression of values in themselves).


Question:

To the extent that the public relies upon substantive rationality, to what extent should democratic governments rely upon public opinion in forming technology-related policies?

The precautionary principle (i.e., risk no harm) and public policy.


Studies in anthropology and political science conducted originally under the title “Cultural Theory” and more recently within the “Culture Cognition Project” have identified two key dimensions of people’s affiliation with society: grid and group.


Grid refers to the way in which people associate social and environmental harms to transgressions of societal norms. “We are in trouble because we have not followed the rules.”

Group refers the way in which people associate social and environmental harms with inefficiencies in societal norms. “We are in trouble because we have the wrong rules.”


The extent to which a person conforms with grid and group help define their approach to addressing social problems.

•High grid, high group: hierarchy/traditionalism.• “We have the right rules and all we need to

do is follow them.”•High grid, low group: fatalism.

• “We have the right rules, but we cannot or will not follow them.”


The extent to which a person conforms with grid and group help define their approach to addressing social problems.

•Low grid, high group: collectivism/egalitarianism.• “We need to improve the rules and follow

them.”•Low grid, low group: individualism.

• “We do not need a lot of rules and it is best to encourage individual freedoms.”


Culture theory can help policy experts identify sources of conflict (i.e., “culture wars”) and potential solutions to conflict.

Potential solutions rely upon the ability of policy experts to “bridge” conflicting value-orientations.

Examples:•Global pollution controls.•Agricultural production priorities.

Global Climate Change. Global Climate Change: Science, Technology, and Society Is the Earth warming at an overly alarming rate? To what extent do human.

Documents

global warming global

science of global warming

global climate change

global warming myth

rate of global warming

basic facts of global

wellbeing of society

intersection of science