Dilemma: For decades, scientists have been warning us that pollutants released into the air are causing rapid warming of the earth that is resulting in major environmental changes. They argue that this rapid warming of the planet is already increasing fires, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. Virtually all scientists agree that carbon dioxide and methane emissions are the cause of global warming, but they do not agree about the best way to slow global warming.
Some scientists believe that the best way to slow global warming is to reduce greenhouse gasses by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Others agree about the importance of reducing greenhouse gasses, but believe that the best way to reduce them is to capture and store them. A third group thinks that geoengineering is the answer. They argue for large-scale efforts to manage environmental processes, such as seeding clouds or sending sun-shields into space.
1. How would you go about gathering the information you would need to form an opinion on a problem like this one? What sources would you consider? Why?
Before I attempt to find any information, I think it is crucial to understand the issue and parameters of the problem. In this dilemma, all the scientists agree on a few basic things. They all agree that carbon dioxide and methane emissions cause global warming. However, the scientists go in slightly different directions regarding the best methods to slow global warming. The scientists debate the impact of three potential solutions; reducing fossil fuels, capturing and storing existing atmospheric greenhouse gasses, and large-scale geoengineering projects to reduce the warming effect of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. My first step, to form my own opinion, would be to compile sources that address the issue from all angles. I would want to consider the opinions of all existing constituents. I would also attempt to find various resources coming from different locations.
First, I would identify the critical scientific journals related to climate science and atmospheric sciences. Scientific/peer-reviewed journals focused on these specific sciences would provide important background information backed by empirical evidence. This issue is primarily based on science, so a well-rounded collection of critical articles will be necessary to understand the issue.
The next place I would look for information is government agencies. While reports from government agencies will also provide many sources backed up with empirical evidence, it is crucial to look for information connecting climate science with existing political, economic, and social structures. In the United States, I would look at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). If I only source information from the United States, one of the most significant contributors to fossil fuels, there is a good chance I would not see the whole picture. A private report is released every year called the Climate Change Performance Index Report or CCPI, which assesses 57 countries and the European Union on their climate change performance. In the 2020 and 2021 reports, the United States is ranked last in climate protection performance. I would also investigate publications out of countries like Sweden or the UK, which are the top two ranking countries according to the 2021 CCPI report. I would also look for information published out of countries that disproportionately experience the impacts of climate change. These countries may advertise different information than countries whose majority way of life is invested in fossil fuel emissions.
If I only used information from scientific journals and government agencies, I would still limit my information pool. Scientific journals and government agencies do a great job of providing empirical evidence for issues in climate change. Unfortunately, these entities often struggle to include cultural values, individual values, and information on larger systems. Therefore, it is vital to look for information from other sources to get a well-rounded view. I would investigate sources that address how fossil fuels, renewable energies, methods for capturing/storing greenhouse gasses, and potential geoengineering methods might interact with current economic, cultural, and social structures. This information will be a little more challenging to find and assess its credibility. I would consider applicable podcasts, news articles, documentaries, etc. While these sources will pose credibility issues, they also provide insight into individual and cultural values that scientific journals often discount.
To find information that helps connect these science-based issues to larger systems, I would look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and individual adaptation reports. The IPCC is a conference that happens every year and does an excellent job of relating climate sciences to broader systems. The conference invites climate scientists, ecologists, economists, politicians and promotes conversations that include perspectives across these varied viewpoints. Reports out of the IPCC would provide a systemic view of climate issues. I would also look for adaptation reports out of individual countries. These reports address cultural considerations that are often left out of climate sciences.
2. How would you go about evaluating the quality of information you obtain from different sources? Why?
Assessing the credibility of sources is an essential process that can provide much insight into motivations for each source and thus the issue itself. To ensure each source is credible and not misleading, I will conduct a three-part assessment for every source of information. The first assessment will happen while I am reading the source. I will look for any leading language. The second assessment will require me to check the citations of the source I am checking. Finally, I will assess investments and constituents that may motivate a source to present information in one direction. Some pieces of information will be much easier to evaluate the quality. For example, sources that come from peer-reviewed journals and government agencies in some ways will be straightforward to assess. If the journal or organization is reputable within the broader scientific community, there is a good chance its publications will be credible. To double-check the quality of these sources, I will do outside research to see if the source is controversial for any reason. I will also check to see if the source has been cited in any other pieces of information.
The first form of assessment will be very straightforward. While reading each source, I will look for leading language. Examples of leading language could be exaggerating facts, cherry-picking information, or overly persuasive writing styles. If any of these examples are identified, I will remain highly critical of all information presented in the source.
I will do the second credibility assessment by examining the author and the citations used in the source. I will do a brief background check on the authors of each source. I will investigate their credentials to make sure they are qualified to be writing about the topic. I will also check if they have affiliations with groups or organizations that favor one solution. For a source to be considered current, it should have been published within ten years. Online sources should probably be published within 5-7 years. I will then check all the citations used in the source to ensure it is grounded in valid data and arguments.
If scientists are using their experimental research to support their argument, I will thoroughly assess the quality of their methods. Suitable methods have been repeated to test for consistency. Methods should also outline limitations and how the researchers overcame or accounted for such limitations. Different types of experiments will have varying qualifications for suitable methods. I will stay open-minded but assess if the methods outlined make sense for the experiment performed.
The last way I will account for the quality of information is by tracking any investment or individual with motivations or agendas backing the source. This assessment of sources will help me identify which sources act as unbiased information and which act as advertisements. If any source is being distributed with a political, economic, or social agenda, I will be highly critical of the quality of information.
3. How is it possible that experts can come to such different conclusions?
It is helpful to recap where the scientists agree to understand the different conclusions. It is undisputed that we have a problem regarding the presence of carbon dioxide and methane gas in the atmosphere. All the scientists agree that these gases are contributing to global warming. However, the scientists disagree on the best practices to deal with this issue.
The first group of scientists identifies that human activity, specifically fossil fuel usage, creates more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Therefore, these scientists believe the best practice to reduce greenhouse gasses is eliminating fossil fuels. This conclusion identifies the issue with human activity and proposes a change in the activities that caused the problem. The second group of scientists agrees that too many greenhouse gasses exist in the atmosphere. Rather than altering human activity, these scientists believe the best solution is to capture and store greenhouse gasses. These scientists might not think the greenhouse gasses are all directly coming for humans, or they disagree that changing human behavior is a viable solution. Their solution relates more to managing the volume of greenhouse gasses despite how they got into the atmosphere in the first place. The final set of scientists focus less on the concentrations of greenhouse gasses and focus on their impact. The scientists who propose geoengineering projects focus on addressing the adverse impacts greenhouse gasses have rather than their presence.
When we layout precisely where the scientists disagree, it becomes a little easier to understand why different people might come to such different conclusions. Assuming all the scientists are using the same accurate data to draw these conclusions, it is vital to consider the pervasive impact individual psychology has on processing information. There are two mindsets I am familiar with that may motivate people to see information one way or another.
I will first discuss the difference between an individualist or collective mindset. The United States is an exceedingly individualist society. People who grow up in the United States or other individualist societies tend to develop a strong distinction of the self and often value independence over group mentalities. The opposite of an individualist society is a collectivist society. Individuals with a collectivist mindset often value the group's needs over the needs of an individual. Many psychologists have studied just how pervasive these differences can be in the life experiences of individuals. For example, when viewing art, people with individualist mindsets tend to focus on the subject of the art piece. Individuals with a collectivist mindset do better remembering background and context. Now let us think of this in terms of the three proposed solutions. Some of the solutions require more of a collectivist solution. I think one could argue that the first solution (eliminating fossil fuels) might be quickly adopted by people who have faith that individuals will think of the community before an individual's needs. It is also arguable that large-scale geoengineering projects will be carried out by smaller groups and might make more sense to an individualist mindset.
Having a growth or fixed mindset is another mindset that can strongly impact how we relate to information. People with a growth mindset often feel more prepared to deal with setbacks and adversity. People with a fixed mindset are more likely to believe they cannot do something when faced with challenges and give up faster. These mindsets might motivate individuals to see a potential solution as viable or not depending on the foreseeable challenges and if they believe it is possible to work through them. I do not wish to say that all the scientists who propose geoengineering as the best solution have an individualist or growth mindset. Instead, these mindsets have proven deep ties to how we form opinions. Therefore, it is imperative to consider how various mindsets could impact scientists' opinions.
It is also important to contextualize how new climate science is. Looking into complex climate systems and how humans interact with these systems is a very recent area of study. Logically, scientists would have different ideas. There are no comparable, historical examples scientists can use to inform the current state of our climate. I find innovation and options for dealing with climate science issues reassuring. It is also essential to identify how complex global warming is. While greenhouse gasses are agreed to be significant contributors to global warming, many other climate scientists would propose even more contributors. Land use and its impact on biodiversity is another factor that many climate scientists would argue can contribute to global warming. If there are other contributors besides greenhouse gasses, it is understandable that solutions solely focused on greenhouse gasses may be incomplete or just part of the necessary actions.
4. Can you be certain that your conclusions are correct? Why or why not?
My short answer to this question is no, I can never be certain my conclusions are correct, but there are ways I can get close to certainty. I view knowledge in four categories. First are the things that I know that I know. Next are the things I know that I do not know. After that, there is a category for items that I do not know that I know. Moreover, the final category is everything I do not know that I do not know. While this language is way too repetitive and, at times, confusing, I find it helpful to remind myself that these four categories exist. The final category (information I do not know that I do not know) prevents me from saying I can be sure of my conclusions. Climate science is very new, and there is always a chance we have not discovered all the critical information to understand climate problems such as global warming thoroughly. However, this is no excuse to avoid solving the issues at hand.
Using integral theory to look at the problem and each solution is the best way to get close to certain that my conclusions are correct. Integral theory requires the observer to view the subject through four perspectives. The first lens is the subjective. This lens focuses on how an individual might experience the problem. For example, I would ask questions about how scientists experience global warming. The next lens is the intersubjective. This area focuses on how cultures and values interact with the subject. It would be helpful to consider how these solutions are viewed by cultures or groups that the scientists are a part of here. Next is the objective lens. This lens is what many people would think of as “hard science” and would include questions about the direct impact of each solution. The final lens to analyze this issue is the inter-objective. This lens focuses on social and systemic dynamics. I would ask questions about how these solutions would interact with existing systems. If my research evaluates the proposed solutions on all four of these lenses, I will be as close as possible to feeling certain about my conclusions.
5. What is it about problems like this one that makes the truth so difficult to find?
A few aspects of this problem make the truth especially hard to come by. First, the answer to this issue lies in the future. As I previously mentioned, climate science is relatively new. There are no historical examples of climate that reflect what is occurring now. The proposed solutions fundamentally solve the same problem but do so with different solutions. It is impossible to conduct isolated experiments to test which solution is the best. However, we can create models and estimates that give us clues into what would happen. While models are not perfect, they can be made highly sophisticated and depict potential outcomes for the proposed solutions. Scientists can use these models to get ideas, but no model is ever completely accurate.
It is also tricky to find the truth because there is truth to each proposed solution. For example, one way to reduce greenhouse gasses is to reduce fossil fuels. Capturing and storing them will also reduce their abundance in the atmosphere. Geoengineering projects also can reduce the impact of greenhouse gasses on global warming. The truth one would be looking for then is which is the best solution. Each scientist would probably define best in a different way. One could consider the best solution to be the one that makes the least changes to our current way of life. One could also consider the best solution to be the one that brings earth back to historical greenhouse gas concentrations. As much as we can begin to understand the personal, cultural, empirical, and systemic factors that influence this issue, we can never really be sure we see the whole problem. Any individual who tries to come up with a solution or even assess the solutions presented will undoubtedly be influenced by their unconscious biases. This problem allows scientists to take some liberties in defining what is best for the world.