the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Jul 2022
Brief Communication: Climate science as a social process – history, climatic determinism, CUDOS und post-normality
Abstract. Since ages, the topic of climate – in the sense of “usual weather” – has in the western tradition attracted attention as a possible explanatory factor. Climate, and its purported impact on society, is an integrated element in western thinking and perception.
In this lecture, the history of ideas about the climatic impact on humans and society, and the emergence of the ideology of climatic determinism are sketched. This ideology favored the perception of westerners being superior to the people in the rest of the world, giving legitimacy to colonialism.
In modern time, when natural sciences instituted self-critical processes (repeatability, falsification) and norms (CUDOS @Merton), the traditional host for climate issues, namely geography, lost its grip, and physics took over. This led to a more systematic, critical, and rigorous approach of building and testing hypotheses and concepts. This gain in methodical rigor, however, went along with the loss of understanding that climate is hardly a key explanatory factor for societal differences and developments. Consequently, the large segments of the field tacitly and unknowingly began reviving the abandoned concept of climatic determinism. Climate science finds itself in a “post-normal” condition, which leads to a frequent dominance of political utility over methodical rigor.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(460 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(460 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Richard Rosen, 14 Jul 2022
I have several initial points to make at this time:
1. The article is poorly written. At the very least it needs some reorganization and a good editing. The abstract should summarize the article which is does not do well now.
2. The article covers too many points/issues too briefly, such as its few sentences dealing with the "scientific method". There is the same problem with the discussion of post-normal science, which is an important concept widely written about by others. These are old issues that need to be omitted or discussed in more detail.
3. There is no conclusion at the end, so it leaves the reader hanging. A clear conclusion is needed to pull all the author's key points together. A conclusion also need to summarize what is new in this article.
4. Of course, doing climate science is a social process just like any field of science. What's new here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hans von Storch, 06 Nov 2022
This comment has no substance, and could be written about any manuscript, by just replacing a few words. No need to respond in any detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hans von Storch, 06 Nov 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2022
I find this a slightly difficult paper to review. I have suggested major corrections, but it would be useful to have a bit more context as to why the article was requested. The subject matter is not new and has been written about by several people, notably Mike Hulme, Sheila Jasanoff, David Livingstone, Matthias Heymann and the author himself. The content is therefore not new. This isn’t in itself necessarily a problem, as the author implies that the editors specifically asked him to submit this journal for a reader based in non-linear dynamics. I can certainly see a useful re-writing of this relatively well-trodden path for an audience with this training, but I don’t necessarily see that here.
At the very least the piece requires a re-write as there are several editorial issues. I’ve made a few specific questions below. More significantly, the conclusions seem to fade away. I was expecting from the abstract an argument along the lines of Hulme’s 2011 paper on climate reductionism, i.e. that the politicisation of science and scientisation of politics has meant that determinism has appeared again, perhaps because scientists are now claiming legitimacy to speak about climate-related issues that do not match their ‘CUDO’ training. However, this argument isn’t specifically made, and the argument instead comes to quite an abrupt end.
Some minor points:
Line 46 – it would be good to add a little more detail about ‘the catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialisms’ and how this related to climatology. It would perhaps also be useful to explain why the Second World War was the apex of this thinking. This also isn’t really explained when it comes around again in the narrative, around line 95.
Line 113 – should be 2021
Line 117 – the narrative takes quite a shift here, from a historical account to a discussion of epistemology in climate science. At the very least this needs to be signposted
Lines 148-158 – can you add references here (e.g. for the ‘gap model’)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
I add a paragraph to the caveat-statement:
“The material presented in this paper, as well as the conclusions, are not new. Instead, it is a compact compilation of what the author, as a natural scientist, has learned in the past 30 years. The paper does not claim to cover the wealth of discussions in social science studies, but insists that two key issues, the reanimation of climatic determinism and the post-normal character of contemporary climate sciences, have been identified in cooperation involving the author. One could rightly argue that the claim of climate science being a social process is a trivial assertion – but among many natural scientists and in the public discourse, which treats scientific knowledge claims as “truth”, climate science is usually not perceived as such. Thus, it makes sense, in particular in a journal aiming at physical scientists, to make this trivial assertion.”
Thus, one may indeed wonder if the essay is suitable for a scientific journal. Having had doubts, I had asked the editor if I really should try to write down my presentation, but I was encouraged to do so. On the other hand, if the editor decides now that it Is unsuitable, I would not object.
The suggestion of the reviewer to add a discussion about Hulme’s 2011 paper may make perfect sense but am not convinced that this is a valid argument. Indeed, as stressed in the caveat there are many aspects, brought forward in the literature, which I have not covered or even touched. I am afraid that I must live with that. May I suggest to the reviewer that she will prepare her own manuscript, covering this aspect?
The “catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialism” is not related to climate science, but racial determinism is related to climate determinism, and colonialism was the first political mission of climatology. The sentence reads now: “After the catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialisms, with the end of World War II, climate determinism lost its reputation, and the significance of geography and its approaches declined.”
The observation what constitutes scientific statements, have been moved from line 117 to the introductory section, which is now “Introduction: Climate as a natural and social object”.
Two references are added, on the “knowledge gap model” and on the “knowledge market”.
The article was edited throughout to improve readability, but without significant changes in content.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Aug 2022
This paper touches upon relevant topics. An analysis of the modern shift in climate science towards more quantitative/deterministic/predictive endeavours is nowadays more important than ever. This is especially so in light of the hostility that developing and promising qualitative approaches, such as the storyline approach, have received. Also, the paper illustrates early incipient aspects of climate justice, especially in terms of colonialist attitudes, which require revision for tackling the challenges we face today. The text is also clear and easy to follow.
Having said this, the overall point – that climate science is a social endeavour – seems a platitude by now. In this sense, it seems to me that this contribution may play fruitful pedagogical or communication roles. But if intended as an “original” contribution, it does not seem to have much of an original claim to make. In addition, the scope of the paper is, on my estimation, too broad, both in terms of its theoretical framework and the subjects. In terms of its theoretical framework, it is unclear to me how much of a contribution to the argument is the introduction of the concepts of post-normal science and CUDOS. This is especially troubling because the concepts are employed very lightly, used to advance a point in the argument but not critically analysed. And, in terms of the subjects, the paper goes from colonialism to climate denialism, over centuries of global human history. This kind of ambition may not even be suitable for a book or series of books.
I would recommend going deeper into specific aspects touched upon in the paper. For example, specific historical episodes could be analysed in more detail and used as case studies to illustrate the embodying changes in our perceptions of climate. It is clear that the author has vast knowledge on these subjects, especially in terms of the references used. The recommendation is for the author to channel this knowledge in lines of argument that are pursued in depth.
Specific points:
- I would change the title. As it is proven by a comment above, it leads to think that this is the contribution of the paper, namely, to show that climate science is social. It seems that the aim of the paper is to show specific ways in which the social dynamics of climate science have reflected in changes in practices.
- The author writes in the abstract: “the topic of climate – in the sense of “usual weather” - has in the western tradition attracted attention as a possible explanatory factor”. Possible explanatory factor of what? This becomes clearer in the main text but should be made explicit in the abstract too.
- It is not obvious to me that Humboldt’s definition of climate illustrates the quantitative drive of modern approaches to climate (L.39). More explicitly, there is no mention to quantities, calculations, predictions, or something of sorts.
TYPOS
L.26: i.e.., = i.e.,
L.46: 1098 = 1898
L.73: Ellsworth Huntington drew… = Ellsworth Huntington, who drew…
L.81: Ghe = The
L.106: signific ant = significant
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
The reviewer is entirely right: the claim of climate science being a social process is indeed trivial – in social science milieus. The paper is NOT presenting any new ideas and evidence. It is a short essay aimed at natural scientists who all too often make claims about presenting “truth” as opposed to the correct understanding of “for the time being best explanations”.
The opening caveat has been expanding, making this aspect explicit: The material presented in this paper, as well as the conclusions, are not new. Instead, it is a compact compilation of what the author, as a natural scientist, has learned in the past 30 years. The paper does not claim to cover the wealth of discussions in social science studies, but insists that two key issues, the reanimation of climatic determinism and the post-normal character of contemporary climate sciences, have been identified in cooperations involving the author. One could rightly argue that the claim of climate science being a social process is a trivial assertion – but among many natural scientists and in the public discourse, which treats scientific knowledge claims as “truth”, climate science is usually not perceived as such. Thus, it makes sense, in particular in a journal aiming at physical scientists, to make this trivial assertion.
I welcome the suggestion to go deeper into specific aspects, but I am unable to do so in a reasonable time, but the forthcoming anthology with Nico Stehr will hopefully be an opportunity to go into further detail.
The title – yes, but how? Please let me have a suggestion.
“Explanatory factor” in the abstract – has been qualified.
Humboldt was part of the geographical tradition of climate science, but he was an “early quantitative geographer”, who worked with numbers (quantities) but not with equations. Also Huntington worked with quantities, even with correlations and the like, but not with a dynamic understanding of the system.
Thanks for pointing our writing errors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC3
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Aug 2022
Review of "Brief communication: Climate science as a social process -- history, climatic determinism, CUDOS and post-normality".
Climate science is not straightforward to define. The author traces its history, mentioning its use at the service of racial ideologies, its entry in the scope of physics where, according to the author, it has been transformed and policed by the adoption of modern scientific norms. Climate science is then touched by the post-normal revolution, with, using the author's terms: science being "de-scientized" and politized, while policymaking being "de-politicized" and "scientized".
These four pages touch thus on many, many issues: history of science, climate determinism, science-policy interface, science public interface, scientific norms, social construction of sciences, dilemmas. With so many subjects, each of which the object of specific research involving scientists in STEM and human sciences, the tone is necessarily editorial, and, arguably, a bit forced at places. The cautionary advice about the risks of scientific research drifting from "mathematical rigor" to "political utility" is legitimate. However, with only three of the articles listed in the bibliography (excluding self-citations) postdating 2000, the reader might be left to think that research about values (and their management) in climate science (Winsberg, Lloyd, Jebeile), climate change communication (Russill, Dahan, Guillemot, Hulme), emergence and influence of earth system sciences and their political imprint (Dutreuil) --- to cite only but a very few actors active in these domains -- has not taken place over the last 20 years. The COVID pandemics has also boosted research and forums about the policy-expert interface. It results that many claims in this editorial may appear reasonable at first, but fail being fully convincing or useful, lacking a more solid bibliographic basis and specific concluding recommendations.
Among problematic points:
- according to the author, climate science inherited modern scientific norms when it entered the domain of physics. This statement seem to ignore that geography, as a discipline, also evolved and adopted modern scientific norms. As a general rule, I found geographical sciences to be connoted pretty negatively in this essay. Why, for example, would the "re-entry" of geographical sciences (l. 54) imply a tacit determinism ?
- who "climate scientists" are is not defined, so that the sentence "climate scientists transgress regularly into policy-prescribing" is not given much substance. Several high-impact articles about climate change, Earth governance, mitigation, and "tipping points" have been first-authored by scientists who would not describe themselves as "climate scientists", but perhaps rather as "Earth system scientists". In any case, the generalisation seems dangerous, not complying with good practice in history of sciences, and perhaps counterproductive.
- It is claimed that the output of science "is considered determining political needs" (l. 55). Which science, and which needs are we talking about ?
- Of course climate science is embedded in a social construction, and the norm of "disinterestedness" is unavoidably challenged by the fact experts in climate change are likely to feel personally concerned about climate change. They would be concerned in a different and more intimate way than, perhaps, a cosmologist is concerned by the fate of a black hole. Many climate scientists are concerned and "interested" in their research by the very fact that they live on Earth and may feel anger, fear, empathy when studying the causes, mechanisms and consequences of climate change. Put differently, the Mertonian norm of disinterestedness is challenged by a morale imperative imposed on climate scientists, which emerges from the responsibility of detaining useful knowledge in a changing world. Again, the author is making a valid point by stressing the risks generated by this "post-normal" context. Yes, non-epistemic values enter the production and communication of climate science. However, it is not clear here what is the author proposal to cope with this situation. Non-epistemic values cannot be suppressed and therefore not ignored. Constructive proposal should provide mechanisms to manage them, which may require innovative practices.As noted by other reviewers, the paper needs some editorial work (misprints, citations, unclear sentences) but these will be more effectively addressed after the main comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
Also in this case, I tend to agree with the general critique of the reviewer. It is a brief essay, and it could contain many more details and specific arguments. But, this essay is a summary of a body of knowledge, written in the tradition of physical sciences, which asks for a compact presentation – with guidance where to find deepening material. As such, I would accept a verdict of rejection without complaint.
The reviewer complains that the work of a number of scholars has not been considered. This is true; instead, I have limited myself to the small group of social sciences scholars, who dared to submerge into the culture of the Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie, to see, how climate science is done. Nowadays, after the Nobel Prize in Physics, that this workshop of Klaus Hasselmann was indeed one of the few driving climate science centers.
The reviewer’s assertion that geography is connoted negatively in the article is correct. Geography has contributed little to the progress of understanding how the system climate functions, and could have been much more proactive to bring in genuinely social sciences aspects (such as the role of cultural constructions) into the climate debate. When the reviewer asks why a re-entry of geography would imply a tacit determinism, then she/he has misread the text. Such a causal implication has not been made and is not intended.
The transgression of some climate scientists into policy-prescribing is obvious for anybody reading consuming mass media. In particular during times of COPs.
“Determining political needs” is reformulated to “determining needed political measures”.
The last point, what my “proposal to cope with this situation” would be, is well taken. I have no proposal apart of accepting it as it is but having in mind the possible implications. The sentence “That the scientific progress is conditioned by social dynamics, that it is in a post-normal phase, is nothing “bad”, but should be kept in mind, when scientists communicate with society.” is added.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Richard Rosen, 14 Jul 2022
I have several initial points to make at this time:
1. The article is poorly written. At the very least it needs some reorganization and a good editing. The abstract should summarize the article which is does not do well now.
2. The article covers too many points/issues too briefly, such as its few sentences dealing with the "scientific method". There is the same problem with the discussion of post-normal science, which is an important concept widely written about by others. These are old issues that need to be omitted or discussed in more detail.
3. There is no conclusion at the end, so it leaves the reader hanging. A clear conclusion is needed to pull all the author's key points together. A conclusion also need to summarize what is new in this article.
4. Of course, doing climate science is a social process just like any field of science. What's new here?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hans von Storch, 06 Nov 2022
This comment has no substance, and could be written about any manuscript, by just replacing a few words. No need to respond in any detail.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Hans von Storch, 06 Nov 2022
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2022
I find this a slightly difficult paper to review. I have suggested major corrections, but it would be useful to have a bit more context as to why the article was requested. The subject matter is not new and has been written about by several people, notably Mike Hulme, Sheila Jasanoff, David Livingstone, Matthias Heymann and the author himself. The content is therefore not new. This isn’t in itself necessarily a problem, as the author implies that the editors specifically asked him to submit this journal for a reader based in non-linear dynamics. I can certainly see a useful re-writing of this relatively well-trodden path for an audience with this training, but I don’t necessarily see that here.
At the very least the piece requires a re-write as there are several editorial issues. I’ve made a few specific questions below. More significantly, the conclusions seem to fade away. I was expecting from the abstract an argument along the lines of Hulme’s 2011 paper on climate reductionism, i.e. that the politicisation of science and scientisation of politics has meant that determinism has appeared again, perhaps because scientists are now claiming legitimacy to speak about climate-related issues that do not match their ‘CUDO’ training. However, this argument isn’t specifically made, and the argument instead comes to quite an abrupt end.
Some minor points:
Line 46 – it would be good to add a little more detail about ‘the catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialisms’ and how this related to climatology. It would perhaps also be useful to explain why the Second World War was the apex of this thinking. This also isn’t really explained when it comes around again in the narrative, around line 95.
Line 113 – should be 2021
Line 117 – the narrative takes quite a shift here, from a historical account to a discussion of epistemology in climate science. At the very least this needs to be signposted
Lines 148-158 – can you add references here (e.g. for the ‘gap model’)?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
I add a paragraph to the caveat-statement:
“The material presented in this paper, as well as the conclusions, are not new. Instead, it is a compact compilation of what the author, as a natural scientist, has learned in the past 30 years. The paper does not claim to cover the wealth of discussions in social science studies, but insists that two key issues, the reanimation of climatic determinism and the post-normal character of contemporary climate sciences, have been identified in cooperation involving the author. One could rightly argue that the claim of climate science being a social process is a trivial assertion – but among many natural scientists and in the public discourse, which treats scientific knowledge claims as “truth”, climate science is usually not perceived as such. Thus, it makes sense, in particular in a journal aiming at physical scientists, to make this trivial assertion.”
Thus, one may indeed wonder if the essay is suitable for a scientific journal. Having had doubts, I had asked the editor if I really should try to write down my presentation, but I was encouraged to do so. On the other hand, if the editor decides now that it Is unsuitable, I would not object.
The suggestion of the reviewer to add a discussion about Hulme’s 2011 paper may make perfect sense but am not convinced that this is a valid argument. Indeed, as stressed in the caveat there are many aspects, brought forward in the literature, which I have not covered or even touched. I am afraid that I must live with that. May I suggest to the reviewer that she will prepare her own manuscript, covering this aspect?
The “catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialism” is not related to climate science, but racial determinism is related to climate determinism, and colonialism was the first political mission of climatology. The sentence reads now: “After the catastrophe of racial determinism and colonialisms, with the end of World War II, climate determinism lost its reputation, and the significance of geography and its approaches declined.”
The observation what constitutes scientific statements, have been moved from line 117 to the introductory section, which is now “Introduction: Climate as a natural and social object”.
Two references are added, on the “knowledge gap model” and on the “knowledge market”.
The article was edited throughout to improve readability, but without significant changes in content.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Aug 2022
This paper touches upon relevant topics. An analysis of the modern shift in climate science towards more quantitative/deterministic/predictive endeavours is nowadays more important than ever. This is especially so in light of the hostility that developing and promising qualitative approaches, such as the storyline approach, have received. Also, the paper illustrates early incipient aspects of climate justice, especially in terms of colonialist attitudes, which require revision for tackling the challenges we face today. The text is also clear and easy to follow.
Having said this, the overall point – that climate science is a social endeavour – seems a platitude by now. In this sense, it seems to me that this contribution may play fruitful pedagogical or communication roles. But if intended as an “original” contribution, it does not seem to have much of an original claim to make. In addition, the scope of the paper is, on my estimation, too broad, both in terms of its theoretical framework and the subjects. In terms of its theoretical framework, it is unclear to me how much of a contribution to the argument is the introduction of the concepts of post-normal science and CUDOS. This is especially troubling because the concepts are employed very lightly, used to advance a point in the argument but not critically analysed. And, in terms of the subjects, the paper goes from colonialism to climate denialism, over centuries of global human history. This kind of ambition may not even be suitable for a book or series of books.
I would recommend going deeper into specific aspects touched upon in the paper. For example, specific historical episodes could be analysed in more detail and used as case studies to illustrate the embodying changes in our perceptions of climate. It is clear that the author has vast knowledge on these subjects, especially in terms of the references used. The recommendation is for the author to channel this knowledge in lines of argument that are pursued in depth.
Specific points:
- I would change the title. As it is proven by a comment above, it leads to think that this is the contribution of the paper, namely, to show that climate science is social. It seems that the aim of the paper is to show specific ways in which the social dynamics of climate science have reflected in changes in practices.
- The author writes in the abstract: “the topic of climate – in the sense of “usual weather” - has in the western tradition attracted attention as a possible explanatory factor”. Possible explanatory factor of what? This becomes clearer in the main text but should be made explicit in the abstract too.
- It is not obvious to me that Humboldt’s definition of climate illustrates the quantitative drive of modern approaches to climate (L.39). More explicitly, there is no mention to quantities, calculations, predictions, or something of sorts.
TYPOS
L.26: i.e.., = i.e.,
L.46: 1098 = 1898
L.73: Ellsworth Huntington drew… = Ellsworth Huntington, who drew…
L.81: Ghe = The
L.106: signific ant = significant
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
The reviewer is entirely right: the claim of climate science being a social process is indeed trivial – in social science milieus. The paper is NOT presenting any new ideas and evidence. It is a short essay aimed at natural scientists who all too often make claims about presenting “truth” as opposed to the correct understanding of “for the time being best explanations”.
The opening caveat has been expanding, making this aspect explicit: The material presented in this paper, as well as the conclusions, are not new. Instead, it is a compact compilation of what the author, as a natural scientist, has learned in the past 30 years. The paper does not claim to cover the wealth of discussions in social science studies, but insists that two key issues, the reanimation of climatic determinism and the post-normal character of contemporary climate sciences, have been identified in cooperations involving the author. One could rightly argue that the claim of climate science being a social process is a trivial assertion – but among many natural scientists and in the public discourse, which treats scientific knowledge claims as “truth”, climate science is usually not perceived as such. Thus, it makes sense, in particular in a journal aiming at physical scientists, to make this trivial assertion.
I welcome the suggestion to go deeper into specific aspects, but I am unable to do so in a reasonable time, but the forthcoming anthology with Nico Stehr will hopefully be an opportunity to go into further detail.
The title – yes, but how? Please let me have a suggestion.
“Explanatory factor” in the abstract – has been qualified.
Humboldt was part of the geographical tradition of climate science, but he was an “early quantitative geographer”, who worked with numbers (quantities) but not with equations. Also Huntington worked with quantities, even with correlations and the like, but not with a dynamic understanding of the system.
Thanks for pointing our writing errors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC3
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-577', Anonymous Referee #3, 29 Aug 2022
Review of "Brief communication: Climate science as a social process -- history, climatic determinism, CUDOS and post-normality".
Climate science is not straightforward to define. The author traces its history, mentioning its use at the service of racial ideologies, its entry in the scope of physics where, according to the author, it has been transformed and policed by the adoption of modern scientific norms. Climate science is then touched by the post-normal revolution, with, using the author's terms: science being "de-scientized" and politized, while policymaking being "de-politicized" and "scientized".
These four pages touch thus on many, many issues: history of science, climate determinism, science-policy interface, science public interface, scientific norms, social construction of sciences, dilemmas. With so many subjects, each of which the object of specific research involving scientists in STEM and human sciences, the tone is necessarily editorial, and, arguably, a bit forced at places. The cautionary advice about the risks of scientific research drifting from "mathematical rigor" to "political utility" is legitimate. However, with only three of the articles listed in the bibliography (excluding self-citations) postdating 2000, the reader might be left to think that research about values (and their management) in climate science (Winsberg, Lloyd, Jebeile), climate change communication (Russill, Dahan, Guillemot, Hulme), emergence and influence of earth system sciences and their political imprint (Dutreuil) --- to cite only but a very few actors active in these domains -- has not taken place over the last 20 years. The COVID pandemics has also boosted research and forums about the policy-expert interface. It results that many claims in this editorial may appear reasonable at first, but fail being fully convincing or useful, lacking a more solid bibliographic basis and specific concluding recommendations.
Among problematic points:
- according to the author, climate science inherited modern scientific norms when it entered the domain of physics. This statement seem to ignore that geography, as a discipline, also evolved and adopted modern scientific norms. As a general rule, I found geographical sciences to be connoted pretty negatively in this essay. Why, for example, would the "re-entry" of geographical sciences (l. 54) imply a tacit determinism ?
- who "climate scientists" are is not defined, so that the sentence "climate scientists transgress regularly into policy-prescribing" is not given much substance. Several high-impact articles about climate change, Earth governance, mitigation, and "tipping points" have been first-authored by scientists who would not describe themselves as "climate scientists", but perhaps rather as "Earth system scientists". In any case, the generalisation seems dangerous, not complying with good practice in history of sciences, and perhaps counterproductive.
- It is claimed that the output of science "is considered determining political needs" (l. 55). Which science, and which needs are we talking about ?
- Of course climate science is embedded in a social construction, and the norm of "disinterestedness" is unavoidably challenged by the fact experts in climate change are likely to feel personally concerned about climate change. They would be concerned in a different and more intimate way than, perhaps, a cosmologist is concerned by the fate of a black hole. Many climate scientists are concerned and "interested" in their research by the very fact that they live on Earth and may feel anger, fear, empathy when studying the causes, mechanisms and consequences of climate change. Put differently, the Mertonian norm of disinterestedness is challenged by a morale imperative imposed on climate scientists, which emerges from the responsibility of detaining useful knowledge in a changing world. Again, the author is making a valid point by stressing the risks generated by this "post-normal" context. Yes, non-epistemic values enter the production and communication of climate science. However, it is not clear here what is the author proposal to cope with this situation. Non-epistemic values cannot be suppressed and therefore not ignored. Constructive proposal should provide mechanisms to manage them, which may require innovative practices.As noted by other reviewers, the paper needs some editorial work (misprints, citations, unclear sentences) but these will be more effectively addressed after the main comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
Also in this case, I tend to agree with the general critique of the reviewer. It is a brief essay, and it could contain many more details and specific arguments. But, this essay is a summary of a body of knowledge, written in the tradition of physical sciences, which asks for a compact presentation – with guidance where to find deepening material. As such, I would accept a verdict of rejection without complaint.
The reviewer complains that the work of a number of scholars has not been considered. This is true; instead, I have limited myself to the small group of social sciences scholars, who dared to submerge into the culture of the Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie, to see, how climate science is done. Nowadays, after the Nobel Prize in Physics, that this workshop of Klaus Hasselmann was indeed one of the few driving climate science centers.
The reviewer’s assertion that geography is connoted negatively in the article is correct. Geography has contributed little to the progress of understanding how the system climate functions, and could have been much more proactive to bring in genuinely social sciences aspects (such as the role of cultural constructions) into the climate debate. When the reviewer asks why a re-entry of geography would imply a tacit determinism, then she/he has misread the text. Such a causal implication has not been made and is not intended.
The transgression of some climate scientists into policy-prescribing is obvious for anybody reading consuming mass media. In particular during times of COPs.
“Determining political needs” is reformulated to “determining needed political measures”.
The last point, what my “proposal to cope with this situation” would be, is well taken. I have no proposal apart of accepting it as it is but having in mind the possible implications. The sentence “That the scientific progress is conditioned by social dynamics, that it is in a post-normal phase, is nothing “bad”, but should be kept in mind, when scientists communicate with society.” is added.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-577-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Hans von Storch, 08 Nov 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 386 | 146 | 24 | 556 | 7 | 7 |
- HTML: 386
- PDF: 146
- XML: 24
- Total: 556
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(460 KB) - Metadata XML