Global Warming: Beyond the Paradigm

In Gregg Easterbrook’s article “Global Warming: Who Loses—And Who Wins?” from the April publication of The Atlantic Monthly, he presents the considerable interconnections between science and everyday life. He writes, “Economic change means winners as well as losers. Huge sums will be made and lost if the global climate changes. Everyone wonders what warming might do to the environment—but what might it do to the global distribution of money and power?”

Easterbrook’s questions are relevant and terrifying, and they lead me to consider the challenges of a changing world in terms of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Sure, it is hard to fight a crisis in thought, and it is difficult to stomach an idealistic revolution, but is it not harder to witness a paradigmatic crisis directly related to reality?

The earth is changing, and depending on who one talks to, the timing of this change is different. What is certain though, is that the environment is in some sort of crisis. I relate it to a paradigmatic crisis in that Kuhn explains the situation by stating, “The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and each other,” (77). Whereas scientists have a choice to accept a theory or reject it in the eyes of current thought, there is no choice in facing global emergency. Because there is no choice involved, a crisis of reality seems to be more dangerous than a crisis of ideology.

However, what is even more dangerous about this crisis of reality is that there is still ideology involved. Certain governmental figures in the United States choose not to address the issue of global warming or they do not recognize its validity. Instead of treating it as an irrefutable crisis needing to be dealt with, they treat it as a paradigmatic crisis. While Kuhn states on page 79 that "there is no such thing as research without counterinstances," it is hard to argue that the glaciers in Greenland are melting. Then again, Kuhn also states that "science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence," (80). Perhaps not enough scientists have united to form a unit of authority on the issue.

To me, who loses and who wins in terms of global warming is not something involving global distribution and power. It involves the substantiation and preservation of life at this point. How can anyone consider the political implications of this factor if the factor has not even been completely addressed? For now, until the government chooses to recognize global warming beyond a paradigmatic crisis, we all lose.



WRITTEN IN REFERENCE TO:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/global-warming
“Global Warming: Who Wins—And Who Loses?”
Gregg Easterbrook
The Atlantic Monthly
April 2007

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas S. Kuhn
Chicago University Press
Chicago, Illinois and London, England
1962, 1970, 1996