Science is not even a coherent body of knowledge; in the abstract, it is merely a methodology. As such, to mobilize in defense of science is not even a coherent means of mobilizing around the belief in anthropogenic climate change. The insistence, in fact, that science represents some sort of ahistorical or apolitical truth, fails to understand the methodological nature of scientific inquiry. A method is enacted by actors embedded within historical and political moments, and the raw data provided by this investigation is processed through regimes of power from a given moment.
We can defend the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and more importantly the necessity of addressing it politically, without naive appeals to an absolute scientific truth.
This really matters too.
On the one hand we would not want to endorse naive anti-scientism which allows the reduction of science to power to lead us to an opposition to scientific inquiry. We can simultaneously hold the scientific method as a human accomplishment which results from certain formulations of power/material economic social structures and recognize that scientific inquiry can give historically contingent insights into our relationship to materiality.
Naive scientism fails just as much as naive postmodernity, and we need to strike a balance between the two.
google-site-verification: google666cb51bded58f5a.html