Climate Change: A Question of Expediency or Ideology?

Most scientists are of the opinion that climate change is a matter of empirical evidence, rather than belief. They essentially see themselves operating in a very different realm from politicians, and certainly from political theorists. Their role, as they see it, is to provide the evidence. The evidence then forms the backdrop from which policy may be pursued. In other words, the reality frames the action rather than the other way around.

Of course from the perspective of an empiricist this is perfectly correct, but problems arise when we take science out of the private realm of research and place it in a public context where it will be scrutinised by people with very different perspectives on the world, and very different views about the role of government. At this point, vested interests, cultural beliefs, and social attitudes seemingly become as important as an ability to grasp the science itself. In this situation, is it still expedient for proponents for action on climate change to continue to press their argument on the basis of evidence alone? David Corner, writing in the Guardian a few weeks ago, suggested that whilst it may not be the most logical way to tackle scepticism about climate change, we should nonetheless frame the debate in terms of "belief" rather than empiricism.

Corner presents his own evidence for this opinion by citing a number of studies, including his own, that reveal the existence of "biased assimilation" when it comes to questions of climate change. Simply put, one is more or less likely to attribute persuasiveness to evidence depending on your already pre-formed belief about climate change. If you do not believe in climate change initially, exposure to overwhelming evidence is unlikely to change your mind.

Because of this phenomenon, Corner suggests, we should not and cannot look to science to solve a problem that is in fact social in nature:

"It follows that the answer to overcoming climate change scepticism is to stop reiterating the science, and start engaging with what climate change scepticism is really about - competing visions of how people see the world, and what they want the future to look like."

The work of Corner and his colleagues does highlight some very important aspects of climate scepticism, and illustrates further the power that cultural attitudes hold over our interpretation of the world. However, I would challenge his conclusion that those who have acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change should re-frame the debate to accommodate those who remain unconvinced.

For a start, I do not believe it to be helpful or prudent to frame a question that is essentially one of expediency in terms of belief or non-belief. Drawing ideological dividing lines is a sure fire way to conflict, and united action is our best hope of successfully challenging the growing threat of environmental disaster.

In my opinion, it is far more productive to acknowledge that the severity of the threat faced implies that no ideology or political belief can benefit from inaction on climate change. A true Conservative must recognise that action will help to protect traditional institutions, rather than undermine them, and that wide-scale pollution is in fact a serious violation of property rights and something to be fought. A true Libertarian likewise must acknowledge that freedom and liberty are not best served by potentially impoverishing a good proportion of the world's population. Belief does not have to be undermined by climate science, it can be reinforced. The best way to challenge false belief is not by postulating in terms of rival beliefs, but by denying the viability of holding a belief when strong evidence suggests its contrary to be true.

The question remains, however, of how one goes about persuading people of the reality of global warming without recourse to empirical evidence which will not be of persuasive value. My answer is that climate change provides a perfect example of an instance in which ideology in general is shown to be obstructive. That is, when it exists without basis in actuality. Indeed, the existence of climate change forces us to re-examine some of our basic political presuppositions about the role of society, the shape of the economy, and the power of the state, but unless we do this with reference to the world as it exists around us then we will always be in conflict with reality.

We have been confronted with the stark realisation that our political principles are flawed, and many things often taken for eternal truths are in fact historical anomaly. Faith in an unencumbered free market, belief in a small state, acceptance of economic growth as an absolute good. All of these positions are expressions of political circumstance, not ultimate values, and they are expressions that must now be re-evaluated in the face of new developments. I would not frame a debate about expediency in terms of belief, because belief itself is a product of expediency.

That is a key lesson that we can draw from this scenario. Quite simply, it is neither desirable nor beneficial to attempt to seperate reason from faith (or vice versa).