Donald Trump, Global Warming, and Public Philosophy of Science

Global warming is at best a controversial contemporary scientific, economic, social, and political issue, at least from the perspective of public media and persona. In other words, it is a wicked problem, which requires public attention and response. Unfortunately, the public’s perspective of the controversy is often (mis)informed through the media and its star persona. Abstract Volume 2, Number 1 Spring 2019 DOI: 10.25335/PPJ.2.1-5


Introduction
Global climate change, with respect to what it is and what is causing it, is a controversial contemporary scientific, economic, social, and political issue, to say the least-at least from the perspective of public media and celebrities. 1It has been called a "wicked" problem, 2 which requires public attention and response.Unfortunately, our understanding of the controversy is often (mis)informed by the media and celebrities.For example, Donald Trump participated vigorously in climate change discussions prior to his presidency.In September 2014, he tweeted, "Great article on so-called climate change, formerly known as global warming." 3 The article he cites was published several days earlier in the New York Post.There,  (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2008).For media coverage of the controversy, see, PBS's NOVA series on climate change and National Geographic's Before the Flood.2. See Frank P. Incropera, Climate Change: A Wicked Problem (New York: Cambridge UP, 2016).3. Global climate change includes not only global warming but also glacial retreat, rising sea levels, and various extreme climatic events; see Timothy Kusky, Climate Change: Shifting Glaciers, Deserts, and Climate Belts (New York: Facts  on File, 2009).For Trump's tweets, see, Dylan Matthews, "Donald Trump Has Tweeted Climate Change Skepticism 115 Times.Here's All of It," Vox, Jun. 1, 2017, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweetsglobal-warming-paris-climate-agreement.
Tom Harris and Bob Carter claim, "There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change." 4Later, in January 2015, Trump tweeted, "It's record cold all over the country and world-where the hell is global warming, we need some fast!" 5 Trump's tweets disclose a fundamental misunderstanding of the natural sciences and their practices, which has serious implications for shaping discussion of global climate change and for understanding climate science, as well as for how to proceed in terms of government policy.
In a review of the literature on global climate change, Philip Kitcher challenged philosophers to contribute to the climate change controversy-particularly in terms of addressing misconceptions concerning climate science and its practice. 6Philosophers-especially philosophers of science-have an opportunity to clarify misconceptions of this science; unfortunately, few have, and when philosophers have contributed they have done so almost exclusively in the professional scientific and philosophical literature. 7Our goal is to respond to Kitcher's challenge by introducing a public philosophy of science that explores the power and limits of climate science and its practice.Specifically, we examine and evaluate the rhetoric associated with the global climate change controversy.To that end, we identify the assumptions surrounding this controversy, especially in terms of global climate modeling.For modeling is the means by which climate scientists not only predict what climate changes to expect in the future but also to ascertain what is causing them and how best to prevent harmful changes, especially through government policies.
As illustrated in Trump's 2014 tweet, the controversy often hinges on whether carbon dioxide emission from human activity is responsible for climate change, especially global warming.Our proposed public philosophy of science can help to clarify, for example, what scientists mean when they claim that evidence supports the statement that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which humans have spewed into the atmosphere during the second-half of the twentieth century, are responsible for current global climate change.Further, we seek to explain why global warming, along with other climate change, is occurring at its present alarming rate.As Trump's 2015 tweet illustrates, a public philosophy of science can also help to clarify why a temporary record cold spell does not necessarily refute the scientific community's consensus explanation for climate change as forecasted or predicted through global climate models and other ob-  In the following section, we define global climate change and how to model it, as well as clarify misconceptions about the assumptions and concepts of climate modeling.For these misconceptions often lead to distorted or biased understandings of climate change.In the third section, we explore how scientists know that global climate change is taking place and how they explain this change, especially through the construction of global climate models.In our conclusion, we discuss how society can exercise its right to insist that government officials enact policies to curb global climate changes like global warming.Finally, by way of introduction, the aim of our public philosophy of science is to incorporate the natural sciences as a social institution into a democratic society so that we can participate meaningfully and representatively in these sciences to address controversies over social, economic, and political issues such as global climate change.Otherwise, the current polarity and extremism over the wicked problem of global climate change could have a harmful impact not only on the environment but also on the flourishing of future generations.

What Is Global Climate Change and How is It Modeled?
Our definition of global climate change takes into consideration a variety of concepts, including scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses; models and their simulations or reproductions of natural events; assumptions and beliefs about what makes up the natural world and how to investigate it; generalizations about natural events that are not limited by the concrete and particular; mathematical equations; and values about how the natural world ought to be investigated. 8We define global climate change as disruptions or fluctuations in the normal patterns of global climate.These disruptions include not only global warming but also other events, such as the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers with the consequent rising of ocean and sea levels, changes in precipitation patterns with some areas receiving more rain with associated flooding and other areas less rain with associated droughts and heat waves, lengthening of frost-free and growing seasons, and increase in frequency   such as assuming average or homogeneous temperature distribution within a given geographic area or cell (Figure 1), we discuss only the assumption of parsimony in terms of its impact upon modeling climate change, as well as upon global climate science and its practice.In addition, we explore various concepts, including uncertainty, complexity, and causation, that are crucial for understanding and addressing problems surrounding the controversy.
In general, a model is a representation of a target system. 10In some contexts, however, representation is not an end in itself.Rather, a model, by representing its target system, can serve a variety of purposes.For this reason, a model must be evaluated primarily on the basis of whether it achieves the purposes for which it was designed.A model's ability to represent its target reliably is valuable only insofar as it helps to achieve the purposes for which the model is made.This applies, especially, to climate models, which are generally designed to inform government policy on anthropogenic (human-driven) climate change. 11To this end, a climate model should be evaluated, primarily, on the basis of whether it can help to make informed decisions on what, if anything, should be done about anthropogenic climate change.
To achieve the end of aiding in policy-formation, climate scientists use models to investigate the conditions that might be responsible for changes in global climate. 12For this reason, climate models are generally designed to be manipulable representations of climate conditions.A good illustration of these types of models are earth system models. 13One of the earlier models was based on "dish-pan" experiments, conducted by David Fultz and colleagues at the University of Chicago, in which a pan was filled with water and rotated.By heating the pan's edge and cooling its center, Fultz and colleagues could mimic global atmospheric and oceanic circulation.However, the dish-pan model was simply too crude or simple, especially in terms of its size or scale, to mimic atmospheric and oceanic circulation realistically.
Given the limitations of many physical models, as illustrated by earth system models, global climate models are hypothetical, and to some extent fictional, in that natural events cannot be represented with absolute accuracy and perfect precision either physically or mathematically.cell's size-the smaller the cell, the greater the model's resolving power.The problem with increasing the resolving power, unfortunately, is that to double it requires an order of magnitude or tenfold increase in computing time.
Besides the model's spatial resolving power, there is also its temporal resolving power, which refers to the duration of time or timestep intervals over which data are collected in the field.A model's temporal resolving power is the outcome of the duration of these timesteps.So, the more frequent, or shorter the time-steps, the greater the resolving power.As true for higher spatial resolving power, greater temporal resolving power also requires longer computing times.
Climate models consist of various mathematical equations based on fundamental physical principles and laws, such as the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. 16 human activities that are responsible for some level of cooling (for example, planting trees), but such activities pale in comparison to the impact of anthropogenic warming, especially greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, assuming parsimony has an impact on climate models in terms of their precision.By intentionally ignoring factors that are not highly significant contributors to climate, a climate model misrepresents its target system.As a consequence, a certain degree of precision in model predictions is sacrificed by assuming parsimony.This results in a dilemma for climate scientists.A climate model that is too parsimonious sacrifices too much in terms of precision, and it ceases to be useful in that regard.On the other hand, a model that is too precise may be too complex to manipulate easily, and it may require too much computing resources.Thus, it ceases to be useful in that regard.The challenge is to find a model that provides a balance between parsimony and precision and that is well-equipped to serve the purposes it was designed to achieve-to help decide what ought to be done regarding human effect on climate.
In the end, climate scientists need to construct models that can account for and simulate climate change accurately so as to provide the necessary guidance for pragmatic action, especially through policy formation. 33For this reason, it is usually acceptable to sacrifice a certain level of precision for the sake of parsimony.

How Do We Know Global Climate is Changing?
We examined in the previous section the nature of global climate models: what they aim to represent, the ends for which they are made, and, roughly, how they achieve those ends. 35In this section, we explore what we can know and learn from these climate models.What do they reveal about the relationship between different factors affecting climate change?Also, what do they not tell us?What are their limitations?Most importantly, we discuss whether Trump's tweets constitute a serious challenge or objection to anthropogenic climate change.
As mentioned above, the earth's climate is a complex system that entails multiple factors. 36lthough climate models are significantly simpler than the natural events and processes they aim to represent, their simplicity makes them easy to use and provides valuable insights regarding how the earth's climate works.However, simplicity comes with a cost.Current climate models can only predict general changes in climate patterns.But, this level of precision does suffice for formulating government policies to control anthropogenic climate change, since it is general long-term patterns that such policies should address.Admittedly, the models cannot be used to predict a week-long cold-spell in the Midwest during January of 2050.But, this is not a problem because climate models need not be that precise in order to help make informed decisions on environmental policy concerning global climate change.
If we are to evaluate the reliability of climate models, we need the right kind of test. 37That is, we need to test it against the phenomena that it is meant to represent.Based on climate observations over the past seventy years, many climate models that take human production of greenhouse gases into consideration are reliable. 38ce a global climate model has been confirmed as reliable, 39 it can serve a variety of purposes.One important purpose is explanatory.It may provide the scientific framework needed to explain variations in climate-particularly in terms of global warming and why it is occurring.For example, sufficient evidence supports the claim that the rise in average global temperature is correlated with an increase in greenhouse gases. 40Climate models use the greenhouse effect to explain the link between greenhouse gases and global temperature. 41 an extension of the explanatory purpose, reliable climate models can also serve predictive purposes.For example, these models can forecast what is likely to happen if greenhouse gasses are produced at the current rate from using fossils fuels. 42The fundamental physical principles incorporated in the models are invariant.So, to the extent that the models are able to hindcast past climate changes, such as global warming, they can be used to forecast future climate changes as well.Again, the climate models do not predict short-term weather events but long-term climate trends.
The models predict such things as the mean temperature of a particular season, the mean precipitation, the likelihood of extreme weather, and so on.They do not predict the temperature of a particular geographical area over a particular weekend.other words, as members of a society, we are actively invested in engaging and even guiding science as it practices its trade of investigating natural events that have an impact on society.Thus, we are involved in the process by which scientists identify the problems that they investigate, the investment of resources to solve those problems, and the best social means by which to implement those solutions.Our role in well-ordered science, according to Kitcher, is not technical in terms of the science itself but rather it pertains to determining what values are important in motivating science.Moreover, he is quick to point out that this is an ideal process but an ideal worthy of pursuit.We agree with Kitcher, especially as it involves addressing the wicked problem of global climate change.

Conclusion
So how do we enter into an "ideal conversation" of "mutual engagement" with one another, in terms of the global climate change controversy?As Kitcher advises, the route to our participation in this conversation is through identifying values that inspire a well-ordered climate science.What, then, are the values upon which this science can be ordered to provide workable solutions and policies to global climate change?What kind of world do we want to live in with respect not only to ourselves but also to the rest of the natural world?Although there are a number of values that can inspire climate science towards investigating problems facing human flourishing, we contend that probably the most important value is sustainability.Global climate change is not just a threat to national security and defense but also to living in a renewable world in which its living and nonliving components can flourish not just in the short run but also in the long run.Unless climate change is addressed both through national and international policy, then even the sustainability of human life may be in jeopardy.what ought to be done in light of the scientific evidence that points the finger at human activity as a significant factor responsible for climate change.To address sufficiently the moral, economic, social, or political issues surrounding climate change also requires a public moral philosophy, a public economic philosophy, a public social philosophy, and a public political philosophy.Philosophers of science can and must work cooperatively with these public philosophies to address the controversy surrounding the wicked problem of climate change.
Finally, as Christopher Long argues, we must be informed of the goals, consequences, competing values, and necessary sacrifices surrounding issues facing society in order to make effective decisions to resolve them. 49To nurture a comprehensive understanding of the controversy surrounding climate change, we contend that all aspects of the controversy, including the moral, economic, social, and political, must eventually be addressed.Only then can we be informed sufficiently to make knowledgeable and effective decisions on how to address global climate change-decisions that lead to a sustainable environment and are conducive to human and global flourishing.
1. See Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010); Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011); Spencer R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming

and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes. Climate scientists use modeling not only to predict these global climate changes but also
how best to prevent them.In the remainder of this section, we explore what constitutes climate models, since a variety of models have been constructed not only to hindcast, or account for past global climate change, but also to forecast, or predict future change.
14What is important, however, is that these models can explain and predict global climate, as well as simulate what-if scenarios.
They can predict, for example, what would happen to our climate if we do not limit our production of greenhouse gasses.In other words, climate scientists construct models to investigate and understand events like global climate change, but these events represent an open system in which elements of that system often interact on a chance or probabilistic basis.Although global climate models are limited, they continue to play a pivotal role, especially as computer simulations or representations, in climate science and in the global climate change controversy.15Asshown in Figure1, global climate models exhibit a three-dimensional spatial structure consisting of specific geographic areas, or cells, with one of the dimensions representing atmosphere and the others representing land and water.The model's spatial resolving power, or smallest unit of measurement, is an outcome of the 14.See Nancy Cartwright, How the Laws of Physics Lie (New York: Oxford UP, 1983); Naomi Oreskes et al, "Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences," Science 263, no.5147 (1994): 641-46.15.See Judith Curry, Climate Models for the Layman (London: The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2017); Andrew Gettelman and Richard B. Rood, Demystifying Climate Models: A Users Guide to Earth Systems Models (New York: Springer, 2016); David J. Neelin, Climate Change and Climate Modeling (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011); David A. Randall et al., "Climate Models and Their Evaluation."InClimateChange 2007: The Physical Science Basis, ed.S.Solomon et al., 589-662 (New York: Cambridge UP, 2007).There are many different climate models, most of which can be categorized either as atmosphere-oceanic general circulation or global climate models or as regional or local circulation models.The former models simulate larger areas of climate change and have low resolving power, while the latter simulate smaller areas of climate change and have higher resolving power.The challenge is how to integrate these two types of models.
The natural sciences do not have a monopoly on authority to participate in the controversy surrounding global climate change.At best, they might settle from a technical perspective the controversy of whether human activity is, in fact, causing global climate change.So, a public philosophy of science can, at least, help to clarify what the controversy is regarding the science of climate change, as we have done in this paper.It does not, however, address the controversy regarding the moral, econom-ic, social, or political implications of climate change.It is insufficient by itself to address