> Details

Hulme, Mike

(STILL) DISAGREEING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE: WHICH WAY FORWARD? : with Mike Hulme, “(Still) Disagreeing about Climate Change: Which Way Forward?”; Annick de Witt, “Climate Change and the Clash of Worldviews: An Exploration of How to Move Forward in a Polarized Debate”; Lisa Stenmark, “Storytelling and Wicked Problems: Myths of the Absolute and Climate Change”; Jonathan Moo, “Climate Change and the Apocalyptic Imagination: Science, Faith, and Ecological Responsibility”; and Mary Evelyn Tucker, “Can Science and Religion Respond to Climate Change?”

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: (STILL) DISAGREEING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE: WHICH WAY FORWARD? : with Mike Hulme, “(Still) Disagreeing about Climate Change: Which Way Forward?”; Annick de Witt, “Climate Change and the Clash of Worldviews: An Exploration of How to Move Forward in a Polarized Debate”; Lisa Stenmark, “Storytelling and Wicked Problems: Myths of the Absolute and Climate Change”; Jonathan Moo, “Climate Change and the Apocalyptic Imagination: Science, Faith, and Ecological Responsibility”; and Mary Evelyn Tucker, “Can Science and Religion Respond to Climate Change?”
  • Contributor: Hulme, Mike
  • imprint: Open Library of the Humanities, 2015
  • Published in: Zygon®
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1111/zygo.12212
  • ISSN: 0591-2385; 1467-9744
  • Keywords: Religious studies ; Education ; Cultural Studies
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Why does climate change continue to be a forceful idea which divides people? What does this tell us about science, about culture, and about the future? Despite disagreement, how might the idea of climate change nevertheless be used creatively? In this essay I develop my investigation of these questions using four lines of argument. First, the future risks associated with human‐caused climate change are severely underdetermined by science. Scientific predictions of future climates are poorly constrained; even more so the consequences of such climates for evolving human socio‐technological and natural ecosystems. Second, I argue that to act politically in the world, people have to pass judgments on the facts of science; facts do not speak for themselves. Third, because these judgments are different, the strategic goals of policy interventions developed in response to risks associated with future climate change are inevitably multiple and conflicting. Finally, reconciling and achieving diverse goals requires political contestation. “Moving forward” on climate change then becomes a task of investing in the discursive and procedural preconditions for an agonistic politics to work constructively, to enable ways of implementing policies when people disagree.</jats:p>
  • Access State: Open Access