In the following set of blogs, I will try to outline four major challenges to the democratization of the decision making process that, in my view, are needed to address the challenges that anthropogenic changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere will pose (see the previous two blogs). These challenges are: climate change and the nature of science; science “hatred”; we are not prophets; and NIMBYism. I’ll outline each briefly:
Climate Change, the Nature of Science and What Impacts and Constitutes the “Physical World”
Climate change is a scientific issue. Merriam-Webster defines science (among other definitions) as “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” and “such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”. Encyclopedia Britannica defines science as “any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws”.
I can argue with both definitions but especially with the Britannica statement that science involves a “pursuit of knowledge covering general truths…” I subscribe to the Popperian definition of the scientific method that is based on refutability and denies the existence of “general truths.” A theory is “true” until it is refuted by observations; if it cannot be refuted – it is not science. I will get back to the refutability issue shortly. Right now, I want to focus on the part common to both definitions – science is a “system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”.
As was mentioned in previous blogs, I was born in 1939. The approximate world population at that time was 2.3 billion people. In October 2011, we reached the 7 billion population milestone. During my lifetime, almost 5 billion friends were added to my earth family – and I am still kicking. My expanded family is not only considerably bigger, but also considerably richer in the aggregate. These developments are changing the nature of the part of the physical world that we live in. We are now an important part of the physical world on planet earth. I will quantify this further in future blogs, but when we try to investigate global phenomena such as climate change, we have to include “us” in the system that we investigate. In medical or legal terms, this process is called self-diagnosis or self-defense. A common saying is that a lawyer that serves as his own legal adviser has a fool for a client. The same holds true for a doctor that tries to treat himself when a serious medical issue is involved. Doctors and lawyers have the option to hire somebody else. The global human population doesn’t have these options. We haven’t yet identified an exoplanet that can help.
“Hatred of Science”
Many of us say we “hate” science and students that take my courses, which are identified as science courses, tell me with great pride that they “despise” math. Most of us either don’t want to or can not afford to study science. Yet now, we have only two choices: we must either learn science in order to knowledgeably participate in decisions that will revolve around climate change or quietly suffer the consequences of governmental and other decision making that is centered on scientific issues that affect our daily life.
We Are Not Prophets
The Popperian scientific method is based on refutability. We develop a hypothesis and/or theory based on everything that we know, and we should be able to test the theory based on predictions for observations that we haven’t yet made. If the tests fail, we change the theory. This amounts to prediction of future results. Since we are part of the system, failure might mean closing the window that allows us to survive. The science we’re talking about here is more like medicine – we have to make a rational diagnosis about the changes that take place in the physical world, but if our predictions might result in a harmful impact, we will need to act. On this scale, actions to restore equilibrium must become part of the science that we practice.
NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard)
Climate Change is a global, collective phenomenon that all of us contribute to and that, sooner or later, will affect us all. There’s no “backyard” that we can try to protect or hide in. The required remedies are global. Non-participants tend to freeze the global response and potentially put everybody in danger.
All of these challenges have a single common denominator; all of them can be – and must be – addressed through the educational system. This is an enormous task and it is global and not simply confined to schools. In later blogs, I will elaborate on possible networks that can be used and the available time to do that. It will take a few generations (my definition of the “End of Now” in my book is within the lifetime of my grandchildren).
The Tombstone of Aharon Avigdor Tomkiewicz in Wysokie Mazowieckie, Poland
I had a recent, very personal, “End of Now” experience. I have just returned from a trip to Poland where I visited the village of Wysokie Mazowieckie, situated between Warsaw and Bialystok. Before WWII, about 70% of the population was Jewish. The village was burned by the Nazis and most of the people were murdered, yet, about six years ago, a young local history teacher uncovered one of the two Jewish cemeteries. He had his students clear the place and find whatever tombstones they could. The most prominent tombstone found, that now stands erect in the middle of the cemetery and is shown here, is that of Aharon-Avigdor Tomkiewicz, my great-grandfather, who was a shop keeper in the town and died in 1913 – about 100 years ago. This was my historic “End of Now.” A great deal has happened since then and a great deal can happen going forward – but we will have to work on it.
The four challenges belong together because public decisions often demand certainty from a process that is built around testing, revision, and limits. Treating science as a method for examining the physical world helps explain why uncertainty is not the same as ignorance or inaction. Democratic debate still has to weigh competing local costs and values, including NIMBY concerns, but it benefits when participants distinguish evidence from prediction and disagreement from hostility. Clearer discussion of those distinctions could make climate choices more accountable and less dependent on slogans.
Treating climate change as a scientific issue does not remove public judgment; it clarifies what kind of judgment is needed. The four challenges described here show why debate can become unproductive when scientific uncertainty is mistaken for an absence of evidence, or when predictions are treated as promises. A useful next step is to distinguish well-tested findings about the physical world from choices about priorities, costs, and local impacts. That distinction gives science its proper role while leaving democratic decisions open to transparent discussion.
The distinction between scientific knowledge and prophecy is especially important in public climate decisions. Evidence about the physical world can establish mechanisms, ranges, and risks through testing, but it cannot remove uncertainty or decide which trade-offs a community should accept. That gap helps explain why science skepticism and NIMBYism can become entangled: people may reject a conclusion when they hear it as a demand rather than as evidence. A more democratic discussion would make the uncertainty, local costs, and available alternatives explicit while still treating the underlying science as a shared evidentiary baseline. This makes decision-making more accountable without asking science to do work it cannot do.
Framing climate change as a scientific issue is useful, but the four challenges also show why public decisions cannot be reduced to a forecast. Science can clarify what is observed, how claims are tested, and where uncertainty remains; it cannot by itself settle conflicts over local costs, fairness, or acceptable risk. Treating uncertainty as a reason to dismiss evidence confuses the limits of prediction with the value of disciplined inquiry. A clearer distinction between scientific findings and the choices communities make from them could make discussions of NIMBYism and distrust more productive.
Treating climate change as a scientific issue does not remove the need for democratic judgment; it clarifies which parts of a discussion are evidence questions and which are value choices. The distinction matters when confronting science hostility, uncertainty about future outcomes, and local resistance to proposed action. A better public process can state what has been tested, identify the limits of prediction, and then invite people to debate trade-offs openly. That kind of translation may reduce the tendency to frame disagreement as a rejection of science itself.
The distinction between scientific knowledge and prophecy is especially important in climate discussions. Science can test explanations about the physical world, yet decisions still have to be made under uncertainty rather than with perfect forecasts. Naming NIMBYism alongside hostility toward science also helps show that disagreement is not purely technical; it involves local costs, trust, and political responsibility. That framing invites a more honest discussion of what evidence can establish and what citizens must still choose.
Framing climate change as a scientific issue also clarifies why democratic decisions can feel difficult: public choices still have to work with tested knowledge about the physical world, even when that knowledge cannot provide prophecy or eliminate local concerns. The four challenges are connected rather than separate. Distrust of science can make uncertainty look like incompetence, while NIMBYism can turn a shared problem into a dispute over who bears immediate costs. Keeping the evidence visible may help discussions distinguish legitimate trade-offs from rejection of the underlying problem.
Pingback: Conflicts and Navigation | ClimateChangeFork
Pingback: Tackling Environmental Justice: Sovereign State against the Individual. | ClimateChangeFork
Pingback: From a Competition for Doing Nothing to a Competition for Doing Our Best: From NIMBY to the Olympics. | ClimateChangeFork
Pingback: Dislike of Science – Who is to blame and what is being done about it? | ClimateChangeFork
Hatred of science – how right you are. Very little progress has been made on that front in decades…needs to change