Redes de Datos y Modelos: Una Defensa de Latour en la Ciencia del Clima

Hanna Træland Rostøl

doi:10.63413/disputatio.946

Hanna Træland Rostøl University of Bristol, UK

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63413/disputatio.946

Palabras clave: Ciencia del clima, Bruno Latour, Epistemología de la ciencia, Objetividad, Valores en la ciencia

Resumen

En su obra fundamental "Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime", Bruno Latour desarrolla un amplio marco para definir la relación entre la humanidad, la naturaleza y cualquier otra entidad que pertenezca a esta Tierra. Latour ha sido durante mucho tiempo una figura controvertida y este libro reciente también contiene componentes no convencionales. En este artículo, defenderé la explicación de Latour sobre la práctica de la ciencia del clima frente a un conjunto de críticas planteadas por Philippe Stamenkovic. Demostraré que los científicos del clima, en consonancia con la concepción de Latour, obtienen su credibilidad y establecen hechos en virtud de sus redes altamente sociales e institucionales, en las que se desarrollan y distribuyen sus datos y modelos. Además, demostraré que la separación de la ciencia del clima de los valores políticos y subjetivos que defiende Stamenkovic es inalcanzable: los valores son una parte ineludible de la práctica científica del clima. Para fundamentar mi argumento, examinaré ejemplos específicos de la práctica científica del clima, algo que Stamenkovic omite. Como veremos, los argumentos de Stamenkovic no ofrecen una razón convincente para rechazar la explicación de Latour sobre la ciencia del clima.

Referencias

Arrhenius, S. (1896). On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 41 (5), pp. 237—276.

Bender, F., Hegerls, G. C., Flynn, C., & et al. (2022). The value of values in climate science. Nature Climate Change, 12 (4—6), pp. 00—00.

Boston, P. J. (2008). Gaia Hypothesis. In Encyclopedia of Ecology (ed. Fath, B.). Elsevier (2nd ed.), pp. 86—90.

Chen, D. et al. (2021). Framing, Context and Methods. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds. Masson—Delmotte, V. & et al.). Cambridge University Press.

Coccia, E. (2019). Gaïa ou l’anti—L ́eviathan. Critique, 1(860—861), pp. 32—43.

Collingwood, R.G. (1945). The Idea of Nature. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Flato, G. & et al. (2013). Evaluation of climate models. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds. Stocker, T.F. & et al.). Cambridge University Press, pp. 741—866.

Gore, A. (1990). We face a global ecological crisis unlike anything humankind has ever encountered. Environmental Carcinogenesis Review, 8(2), pp. 197—203.

Hooker, J., Duveiller, G., & Cescatti, A. (2018). A global dataset of air temperature derived from satellite remote sensing and weather stations. Science Data, 5(180246).

Isbell, F. & et al. (2022). Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(2), pp. 94—103.

Jones, G., Stott, P., & Christidis, N. (2013). Attribution of observed historical near—surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(10), pp. 4001—4024.

Kennedy, J., Rayner, N., Smith, R., Parker, D. & Saunby, M. (2011). Reassessing biases and other uncertainties in sea surface temperature observations measured in situ since 1850: 2. Biases and homogenization. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116(D14104).

Knutti, R. (2018). Climate Model Confirmation: From Philosophy to Predicting Climate in the Real World. In Climate modelling: Philosophical and conceptual issues (Eds. LLoyd, E. A. & Winsberg, E.). Springer Verlag, pp. 325—359.

Latour, B. (2017). Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climatic Regime. Translated by Catherine Porter. UK: Polity Press.

Latour, B. (2018). Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Translated by Catherine Porter. UK: Polity Press.

Leahy, S. (2020). Review of Facing Gaia. Journal of Critical Library and Information Studies, 3(1).

Lee, J. et al. (2021). 2021: Future global climate: Scenario—Based projections and near term information. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Eds. S. Pirani, C. Connors, S. Péan, & et al.). Cambridge University Press, pp. 553—672.

Lovelock, J. E. (1990). Hands up for the Gaia hypothesis. Nature 344, pp. 100—102.
Lynn, M. & Lovelock, J. E. (1974). Biological Modulation of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Icarus, 21(4), pp. 471—489.

Maina, W. (2018). 54 percent of Africa’s surface weather stations can’t capture data properly. Retrieved from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate—change/54—of—africa—s—surface—weather—stations—71—of—its—upper—air—weather—stations—unable—to—capture—accurate—data—60685, 01.06.2023.

Malm, A. (2018). The Progress of This Storm: Nature and Society in a Warming World. London, New York: Verso.

Mastrandrea, M., Mach, K., Plattner, G., & et al. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change, 108 (675).

Merchant, C. (1990). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, 2nd ed., Harper & Row, San Francisco.

Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. (1st edition). Oxford University Press.

Pirtle, Z., Meyer, R., & Hamilton, R. (2010). What does it mean when climate models agree? A case for assessing independence among general circulation models. Environmental Science Policy, 13, pp. 351—361.

Stamenkovic, P. (2020). The contradictions and dangers of Bruno Latour’s conception of climate science. Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin, 9 (13), pp. 00—00.
Thunberg, G. (2019). No one is too small to make a difference (2nd edition). Penguin Books.

Watson, A. J., & Lovelock, J. (1983). Biological homeostasis of the global environment: the parable of Daisyworld. Tellus B., 35 (4), pp. 286—289.

Williams, R. (1980). Ideas of Nature. In Problems in Materialism and Culture, Verso, London, pp. 67–85.

Winsberg, E. (2018). Values. In Philosophy and Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, pp. 130—153.