Our World Futures class in the UH Futures Studies program took a “field trip” to see Dr. S. Fred Singer present his views about anthropogenic global warming, or human-induced global warming. He flatly asserts that there is no evidence for this! In his very engaging talk he openly admitted that his view is a minority one, but that “as a scientist” he suggests that proponents of climate change are using questionable data to support their argument “for” warming and that the best data using satellites shows no evidence for it. He admits that the satellite data is new in that it’s only been available since 1979. It did seem to come down to a case where one should “believe this slide data,” and “don’t believe this slide data.” But nothing to really inspire confidence that either one was “right.”
Taking a step back and reflecting to the content of his argument as a whole, one might use a quick-and-dirty version of Sohail Inayatullah’s Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) to break it down. I have often used his approach to frame discussions of any environmentally-related issue, and routinely come to the same conclusion. One’s values/worldviews tend to be the key deciding factor in which side one ends up believing. CLA suggests that we probe beneath the level of headlines, look at the driving forces, and then look at the values/worldviews that in turn influence what driving forces are legitimized and which are “othered,” (marginalized might be another word to use). At the very deepest level, we look to the myths or archetypes that one subscribes to. In the case of environmentally-related issues, the two myths/archetypes in play are (1) don’t worry, the Earth is a robust system and will balance things out (2) variations of the Gaia Hypothesis, which suggests “worry” is appropriate, since the Earth is like a fragile organism that requires our stewardship (that is, if we as a species, want to survive — the Earth will survive without us).
Most arguments, including this one, tend to sort into which myth and associated values/worldviews one adheres to. Those who believe #1, Earth will take care of itself, te nd to subscribe to Traditional or Modern values, and those who believe #2, a variation of Gaia, tend to subscribe to Postmodern or Integral values. Traditional values assert that it is not man’s place to intervene in these issues, and modern values suggest that progress, growth, and achievement are the priority. Postmodern values suggest a need for the community to participate in issues influencing its future and Integrals take a practical view that suggests we do what can be done to improve issues affecting humankind. As always, keep in mind that these are big generalizations and there are exceptions, but I’ll assert they are largely true.
This highlights the key role of values in how one interprets data. Singer’s presentation brought up the typical arguments one hears in the “against” case and belittles the “for” case. It is nearly impossible to objectively weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion, as the data that is presented in an argument is based on assumptions — underlying values, worldviews, and myths — that influence what data is presented and how it is interpreted.
We teach students to be aware of this connection, and weigh the evidence in light of the assumptions. Know that the arguments are not “value-free” and take that into account when evaluating the evidence. Andy Hines
