On CBC’s As It Happens, Phil Plait, an astronomer and science writer, called Donald Trump’s plans to cut NASA’s climate change research “a horrible, horrible plan that will spell nothing but trouble for people in the coming years” (source). Trump’s advisor, Robert Walker, doesn’t agree that climatologists have reached consensus on the cause of climate change (source) while others report and studies do in fact prove that such a consensus already exists. But how do we convince the public that this is true and who can speak the truth to those who are listening?
The following excerpt is from Speaking Power to Truth edited by Michael Keren and Richard Hawkins—a small book that discusses the challenges to truth and knowledge in what is now being called the “post-truth world.” Keren and Hawkins search for truth and democracy in millions of online comments and in the hundreds of statements by public intellectuals. In a recent interview, Keren and Hawkins pointed out that “the unopposed rise of American fascism that we are witnessing is proof that the old media has abdicated any relationship it might ever have had with the truth, and that the new media never had it in the first place.” So where do we find trustworthy speakers and how can we guarantee that they are speaking the truth?
David Suzuki, one of Canada’s “most trusted Canadians,” is a public intellectual who frequently participates in conversations about global warming. As a public intellectual, Suzuki is granted authority on certain matters by the public, but, in this excerpt from Speaking Power to Truth, Boaz Miller asks whether Suzuki is using his role to its full capacity?
“Politicians Who Reject Science Are Not Fit to Lead”
In 2006, CBC viewers ranked David Suzuki (born 1936) as fifth among the “top ten greatest Canadians,” and, in 2011, he was voted “most trusted Canadian” by Reader’s Digest Canada for the third time in a row (Braganza 2011). Suzuki, now professor emeritus of genetics at the University of British Columbia, has authored more than fifty books. In 1974, he started the popular CBC Radio science program Quirks & Quarks, which he hosted until 1979. Since then, he has been the host of the popular television show The Nature of Things, which is aired in more than forty nations, and he has been involved in numerous other radio and television programs as well.
In recent years, Suzuki has been actively involved in issues surrounding global warning. In 1990, he co-founded the David Suzuki Foundation, one of the major aims of which is to fight global warning, both through public education and by sponsoring initiatives relating to carbon print reduction. His activism has also made him a controversial figure. Many Internet sites are devoted to debunking his image and refuting his claims.
When one reads the numerous pages about global warming on the David Suzuki Foundation website, the message is clear: the scientific evidence for the occurrence of anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming; more or less complete scientific consensus exists on the subject; major catastrophes will occur in the near future if we do not act to prevent global warming; it is still possible to act, but the window of opportunity is closing; the public is vastly misinformed about global warming thanks to a few fringe scientists, the media, various right-wing Internet sites that contain fringe science, conservative politicians, and industrialists; the public cannot distinguish reliable, that is, science-based, information from misinformation (Suzuki and Moola 2008; Suzuki and Moola 2011; David Suzuki Foundation n.d.).
Suzuki is very critical of climate skeptics, in particular politicians who refuse to accept the science and act on it, declaring that politicians who reject science are not fit to lead (Suzuki and Moola 2011). He has even called on students to try to find legal ways to jail politicians who ignore science, alluding to former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, whose government backed away from the previous government’s commitment to implementing the Kyoto protocol (Babbage 2008). He regards climate-change skepticism in the United States as part of an organized attack on science, which includes Republican politicians and religiously motivated creationists. He worries that Canada is going down the same path, but he finds some comfort in the fact that 80 percent of Canadians believe the science underlying the theory of climate change, as opposed to only 58 percent of Americans (Suzuki and Moola 2011).
What are the reasons, according to Suzuki, to trust current climate-change science? Suzuki stresses the existence of a wide agreement in the scientific community, which was been achieved by a process of peer review and critical dialogue among experts who abide by scientific method. Suzuki puts special emphasis on the fact that the scientific consensus is socially diverse and includes scientists from many countries:
The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. (David Suzuki Foundation n.d.)
While he acknowledges that science is not perfect, Suzuki believes that it is the best and most reliable means to gain knowledge of nature. He also regards consensus as the aim of scientific inquiry and views the social-epistemic process that results in a consensus as the best means for achieving knowledge:
Science provides the best information about the world around us. Of course, it isn’t a perfect system. Scientific conclusions are often tentative, and can only become more solid after more debate, more research, and more observation. The process can take years. And scientists, being human, also have their own biases and points of view that can influence the way they ask questions and interpret data. But in the arena of open scientific debate, over time, consensus can generally be achieved regarding the best possible understanding of an issue. Scientific consensus does not mean we will always get the right answer. But if I were to bet on an issue, I’d put my money on scientific consensus over an observer’s hunch, a politician’s opinion, or a business leader’s tip. (Suzuki and Moola 2008) […]
Excerpt from “‘Trust Me—I’m a Public Intellectual”: Margaret Atwood’s and David Suzuki’s Social Epistemologies of Climate Science” by Boaz Miller in Speaking Power to Truth.
To read Boaz Miller’s analysis of Margaret Atwood, please visit the Speaking Power to Truth page and download Chapter 5: “‘Trust Me—I’m a Public Intellectual’: Margaret Atwood’s and David Suzuki’s Social Epistemologies of Climate Science” for free.
References
Babbage, Sarah. 2008. “Jail Politicians Who Ignore Science: Suzuki.” The McGill Daily. 4 February.
Braganza, Chantal. 2011. “Most Trusted Canadians—3rd Annual Trust Poll Results.” Reader’s Digest Canada, 5 May. http://www.readersdigest.ca/magazine/most-trusted-canadians-3rd-annual-trust-poll-results.
David Suzuki Foundation. n.d. “Climate Change Deniers.” http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/.
Suzuki, David, and Faisal Moola. 2008. “Selective Information Overload.” Science Matters, 23 March. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2008/03/selective-information-overload/.
———. 2011. “Politicians Who Reject Science Are Not Fit to Lead.” Science Matters, 3 March. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/science-matters/2011/03/politicians-who-reject-science-are-not-fit-to-lead/.
