“Climate change is not an opinion, science is not an opinion”

The recent period has highlighted the difficulty of sharing scientific data. What does this translate?

Pierre Lina The French judgment on the flag is contradictory. Scientific discoveries interest them, and even fascinate them. At the same time, the lack of confidence in science is evident. The Covid-19 pandemic has clearly reinforced this. This gave to see a science in the making, a science that has not yet built a solid, and which can not say: this is what works. This science is in the process of becoming a topic of conversation. We watched the frequencies, live ego battles, some say white, others say black, without knowing who to believe. This has led to the misconception that science is an opinion. This has also made the knowledge validation process invisible. The whole thing creates mistrust.

Did the same phenomenon happen with climatology, which has long faced doubts about the reality of global warming?

Pierre Lina put forward the foundational essay on the issue of greenhouse gases by Charney in a 1979 report. He already described what was analyzed more precisely over the next forty years. Naturally, what he was saying triggered the need to verify it. The IPCC has been doing this since its inception in 1988. But what was a hunch has become solid knowledge. Climate change is not an opinion. Science in general is not an opinion. It is a laborious, collegial and sometimes hesitant construct, consisting of putting forward hypotheses and taking the time necessary to verify them. This construction makes it possible to establish the truth. Not the truth, the science is not dogmatic, but the truth, that is, solid elements that can be relied upon. When we board a plane, we trust fluid mechanics, the resistance of materials… This trust is based on the fact that when data is seriously generated, it appears as the truth. The same is true of climate: it is just as important as the fact that an airplane is flying.

See also  This stunning close-up of the Grand Canyon gives us goosebumps

Discussions remain live about what changes need to be made to deal with it…

The science of Pierre Lina is, nowadays, a major source of transformation in our societies. This is particularly the case with climate change. What it teaches us calls for making choices that affect our lifestyles, our consumption and our mobility. However, this transformation and the speed with which it is called for concern. However, these choices are no longer the responsibility of producing steel: they belong to the realm of morals, practice, action, values ​​and justice. Is it right or unfair, human or inhuman to do this or that act? Science does not have to say whether it will choose between an explosion in the number of climate refugees or preserving the profits of such and such a company. Vaccination against Covid likewise puts us face to face with crucial choices. This, for example, advocated the World Health Organization to use global vaccine capabilities to support poor countries rather than provide a third dose or to immunize children in rich countries. It all comes back to moral questioning. It questions values ​​that are themselves sources of political and economic choices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *