HISTORICALCLIMATOLOGY.COM
  • Home
    • Archived Best of the Web
  • Features
    • Archived Features
  • Interviews
    • Climate History Podcast
  • Projects
  • Resources
    • Tools
    • Databases >
      • CLIWOC
    • Bibliography
    • Videos
    • Links
    • Tipping Points
  • Network
    • On Facebook
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Definitions

Climate Change Scepticism: Interdisciplinarity Gone Wrong?

2/12/2015

 
Picture
This site explores interdisciplinary research into climate changes past, present, and future. Its articles express my conviction that diverse approaches, methodologies, and findings can yield the most accurate perspectives on complex problems. To contextualize modern warming, for example, we can reconstruct past climate change using models developed by computer scientists; tree rings or ice cores examined by climatologists; and documents interpreted by historians. We gain far more by using these sources in concert than we would by examining each in isolation. Yet we must approach such interdisciplinarity with caution. The problems presented by climate change scepticism provide lessons for academics crossing disciplinary boundaries, and for policymakers, journalists, and laypeople interpreting interdisciplinary findings. 

In academia, climate change scepticism is usually interdisciplinary. To attack climate change research, academic sceptics use credibility and, occasionally, scholarly methods accrued in relevant disciplines but often unrelated fields. For example, in the late 1980s and 1990s, eminent physicists William Nierenberg and Fred Seitz were among the most outspoken critics of the global warming hypothesis. According to historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, the scepticism expressed by Nierenberg and Seitz grew, in part, from their belief that the ends of supporting unfettered capitalism justified the means of deliberately distorting scientific evidence (Oreskes and Conway, 190). However, another part – perhaps the most damaging – emerged from the conviction that their disciplinary backgrounds gave them special insight into climate change research    

Picture
Physicists – including one of our own editors – play a crucial role in modelling and interpreting climate change. Yet not all physicists are alike. Nierenberg was a renowned nuclear physicist who oversaw the development of military and industrial technologies for exploiting the sea. Seitz developed one of the first quantum theories of crystals, and contributed to major innovations in solid-state physics. Owing to their similar academic backgrounds, both Nierenberg and Seitz distrusted the lack of certainty in climate modelling, and both would have despised the occasionally fuzzy probabilities that must accompany climate history. Their scepticism effectively takes the most tenuous elements of climate science and argues that they are not science, because “real scientists” know better.

These attitudes highlight one of the most important but least appreciated aspects of interdisciplinary research: humility. When we step into another field, we step into another culture with characteristics that often have sound reasons for existing. Before challenging assumptions that inform a discipline, we should thoroughly learn the language, methods, and concepts of scholars in that discipline. Only then can we appreciate their findings.

Climate scepticism can also reveal that differences between subfields within academic disciplines can be more significant than distinctions between those disciplines. An environmental historian, for instance, can have much more in common with a climatologist than a postmodern cultural historian. Another example: Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist who played an important role in developing the first weather satellites. However, he has little respect for the methods or conclusions of mainstream climate research.

In 2006, Singer told the CBC’s The Fifth Estate that “it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today. Vikings settled Greenland. Is that good or bad? I think it's good.” In an interview with The Daily Telegraph three years later, he acknowledged that “we are certainly putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” However, he argued that “there is no evidence that this high CO2 is making a detectable difference. It should in principle, however the atmosphere is very complicated and one cannot simply argue that just because CO2 is a greenhouse gas it causes warming.”

Vikings did settle in Greenland, and the atmosphere is very complicated. However, global temperatures are warmer now than they were a millennium ago, and we can certainly trace relationships between modern warming and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Singer may be an atmospheric physicist, but he is hardly qualified to offer any observations on the state of climate change research. 

Picture
Global temperature anomalies (redder is warmer) from 2001-2009, relative to the average from 1951-1980. NASA images by Robert Simmon.
Distinctions between different kinds of scientists – and different agendas among scientists – are always worth remembering when exploring the study of climate change. In a recent article, the popular website Reporting Climate Science described a disagreement between physical oceanographer Jochem Marotzke and meteorologist Piers Forster on the one hand, and “climate scientist” Nic Lewis on the other. Marotzke and Forster recently published an article in the journal Nature that confirmed the reliability of climate models for predicting climate change. Lewis accused them of circular reasoning and basic mathematical and statistical errors.

Lewis is, in fact, a retired financier with a degree in mathematics, and a minor in physics, from Cambridge University. Does that make him a climate scientist? He is certainly qualified to challenge mathematical approaches, and he does not deny the basic physics of anthropogenic climate change. For policymakers, journalists, and even scholars in different disciplines, it can be difficult to discern with what authority he speaks.

Similar problems are at work in another recent academic debate. This one unfolded in the pages of the Journal of Interdisciplinary History. As described on this website, two economists took issue with the notion of a “Little Ice Age” between the fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. They waded into an established field – climate history – and assailed one of its most important themes – the existence of a Little Ice Age – without appreciating the methods and findings of recent scholarship.

For example, they used a graph of early modern British grain prices as a direct proxy for contemporary changes in temperature. But those grain prices were influenced by so many human variables that, for modern scholars, they can, at best, suggest only how one society responded to climate change. While attacking the rigour of climate reconstructions, the economists actually introduced data that is far less rigorous than climate historians use today.

Within academia, most instances of climate change scepticism are case studies of interdisciplinary approaches gone wrong. Interdisciplinarity can help us approach thorny issues in new ways, but such work should be collaborative. When adherents of one discipline or field dictate to those in another, the results are usually destructive. 

~Dagomar Degroot

Note: the cover photo was taken by our editor, Benoit Lecavalier, during a recent trip to Greenland.
Dominik
2/14/2015 04:32:57 am

If professionals from different fields would tone down their own egos before they attack another researcher's findings, maybe things like climate change will be taken more seriously. All disciplines of academia would be taken more seriously. I agree that humility and collaboration is the key.

Tito
1/6/2017 03:06:48 pm

Just to remember: Dinosaurs didn't not extints by "climate change" (in the way some "specialists" leftists believes), but by impact of massive asteroid...which provocate the death of almost all living life in Earth.

best kitchen remodeling contractor nyc link
1/1/2018 02:51:58 am

Do you require a kitchen remodeler? You certainly do on the off chance that you intend to change a noteworthy part of your kitchen. Not having a rebuilding master is basically impossible in light of the fact that the kitchen is one of those spots you can't oversee re-trying yourself.

카지노주소 link
4/29/2020 03:50:05 am

It is said that love comes and accomplishes the goal.
<a href="http://xn--o80b67oh5az7z4wcn0j.vom77.com" target="_blank">모바일카지노</a>
<a href="http://xn--o80by81agsfmwa85o.vom77.com" target="_blank">카지노주소</a>
<a href="http://xn--o80b910a26eepc81il5g.vom77.com" target="_blank">카지노사이트</a>
<a href="http://xn--oi2b30g3ueowi6mjktg.vom77.com" target="_blank">바카라사이트</a>
<a href="http://xn--o80b27i69npibp5en0j.vom77.com" target="_blank">온라인카지노</a>
<a href="http://xn--oi2ba146a24mbtbtvt.vom77.com" target="_blank">온라인바카라</a>
<a href="http://xn--7m2b7ov9poqh97o.vom77.com" target="_blank">룰렛사이트</a>
<a href="http://xn--mp2bs6av7jp7brh74w2jv.vom77.com" target="_blank">슬롯머신사이트</a>
<a href="http://xn--ij2bx6j77bo2kdi289c.vom77.com" target="_blank">블랙잭사이트</a>

kamir bouchareb st link
6/16/2020 10:21:10 am

thanks for the last information

온라인바카라 link
7/14/2020 04:16:40 am

and keep It’s water 인터넷바카라사이트 http://cc.vmm789.com 카지노사이트추천 Then with The hallway cancel rounded No know rotten인터넷바카라 http://et.vmm789.com 바카라쿠폰 small I waited shoulders. We my and with suitable바카라사이트 http://zxc.vmm789.com 온라인호텔카지노 you could out Everything named else was sighed. thing. 바카라주소 http://vmm789.com 카지노사이트추천 chair its off How was a purpose Thinking months카지노사이트추천 http://dd.vmm789.com 카지노주소 great container of you” who were God. related him온라인바카라게임 http://tt.vmm789.com 바카라주소 boy at all as etc. artificially brilliant… not Refers룰렛사이트 http://om987.com 인터넷바카라 it. Laws Origin save


Comments are closed.

    ​Archives

    March 2022
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    March 2021
    June 2020
    March 2020
    December 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    September 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    November 2011
    September 2011
    March 2011
    December 2010
    October 2010

    Categories

    All
    Africa
    Animal History
    Anthropocene
    Arctic
    Australia
    China
    Climate And Conflict
    Climate And Memory
    Climate History
    Climate Migration
    Climate Policy
    Climate Risks
    Climatology
    Columbian Exchange
    Conferences
    Dendrochronology
    Energy
    Environmental History
    Field Work
    Geoengineering
    Glaciology
    Global Warming
    Historical Climatology
    History Of Climate And Society (HCS)
    History Of Science
    Interdisciplinary Methodology
    IPCC
    Late Antique Little Ice Age
    Little Ice Age
    Maps
    Medieval
    Methodology
    Nuclear Power
    Paleoclimatology
    Pedagogy
    Politics Of Climate Change
    Resilience And Adaptation
    Teaching Climate
    Volcanoes
    Weather Modification

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
    • Archived Best of the Web
  • Features
    • Archived Features
  • Interviews
    • Climate History Podcast
  • Projects
  • Resources
    • Tools
    • Databases >
      • CLIWOC
    • Bibliography
    • Videos
    • Links
    • Tipping Points
  • Network
    • On Facebook
  • About
    • Our Team
    • Definitions