Royal Society of London (RSL) at the end of February 2014 (US NAS and RSL,
2014). The Foreword to that document asserted:
It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans
are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed,
accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice and other
climate-related changes. The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature
of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain.
Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered.
Scientific evidence continues to be gathered around the world, and
assumptions and findings about climate change are continually analysed and
tested. Some areas of active debate and ongoing research include the link
between ocean heat content and the rate of warming, estimates of how much
warming to expect in the future, and the connections between climate change
and extreme weather events . . . [but this] . . . publication makes clear what
is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still
uncertainty.
The initiative for that report was in response to numerous occasions on which
representatives of vested commercial and/or political interests have denigrated claims
about anthropogenic contributions to climate change by exaggerating the uncer -
tainties in the relevant science. Oreskes played an important role tracking such
occasions in US policy debates, not just in relation to climate change but also in
respect of numerous other technological policy controversies. She has docu mented
how:
for two decades, influential Republicans – initially in Congress and . . . in
the White House – in concert with determined allies in private industry
. . . have systematically denied, disparaged, and misrepresented scientific
information on topics relevant to public policy. The list is long: acid rain,
global warming, the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases, the health impacts of excess dietary sugar and fat . . .
the status of endangered species . . . the therapeutic potential of adult stem
cells, and more.
(Oreskes, 2005, p75)
Oreskes and Conway have contributed by documenting some of the ways
in which organizations, and especially corporate interests, have invoked doubts
and substantially exaggerated policy-relevant uncertainties in this domain and
more widely (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). They reviewed numerous examples
of corporate and official responses to evidence that industrial products or practices
may be harmful. Oreskes emphasizes that ‘Some corporations whose revenues might
be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have . . . alleged major
uncertainties in the science’ (Oreskes, 2004).
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 51
2014). The Foreword to that document asserted:
It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans
are changing Earth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed,
accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice and other
climate-related changes. The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature
of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain.
Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered.
Scientific evidence continues to be gathered around the world, and
assumptions and findings about climate change are continually analysed and
tested. Some areas of active debate and ongoing research include the link
between ocean heat content and the rate of warming, estimates of how much
warming to expect in the future, and the connections between climate change
and extreme weather events . . . [but this] . . . publication makes clear what
is well established, where consensus is growing, and where there is still
uncertainty.
The initiative for that report was in response to numerous occasions on which
representatives of vested commercial and/or political interests have denigrated claims
about anthropogenic contributions to climate change by exaggerating the uncer -
tainties in the relevant science. Oreskes played an important role tracking such
occasions in US policy debates, not just in relation to climate change but also in
respect of numerous other technological policy controversies. She has docu mented
how:
for two decades, influential Republicans – initially in Congress and . . . in
the White House – in concert with determined allies in private industry
. . . have systematically denied, disparaged, and misrepresented scientific
information on topics relevant to public policy. The list is long: acid rain,
global warming, the efficacy of condoms in preventing the spread of sexually
transmitted diseases, the health impacts of excess dietary sugar and fat . . .
the status of endangered species . . . the therapeutic potential of adult stem
cells, and more.
(Oreskes, 2005, p75)
Oreskes and Conway have contributed by documenting some of the ways
in which organizations, and especially corporate interests, have invoked doubts
and substantially exaggerated policy-relevant uncertainties in this domain and
more widely (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). They reviewed numerous examples
of corporate and official responses to evidence that industrial products or practices
may be harmful. Oreskes emphasizes that ‘Some corporations whose revenues might
be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have . . . alleged major
uncertainties in the science’ (Oreskes, 2004).
Invoking ‘science’ in green transformations 51