“Epi-blog”

In what has been a look at an issue that is still under fire and yet to reach the height of debate (mostly, a lot of talking by George W., etal. and no doing), I bring these last few weeks and term to a close. This weblog has documented my inquiry into the examination of the controversy and key issues surrounding global climate change. We have seen how I, the players, and the public debate this issue in the collective square. As my research developed, my commentary turned toward the inevitable questioning of how to report science ala Latour in my discussion of matters of fact vs. matters of concern and how progress doesn't always have to be defined by upward mobility at the expense of Nature.

To explain to the reader, my sense of how the issue of global warming is being played out, I found that a number of experts in the field brought up the question of what constitutes sound science. In sum, there are two very different radical sides, or houses, when debating climate research especially when attempting to make sense of science. There is one hand that denies that science is speaking to us about an urgent matter and one that sees that the clay has been shaped and is being squashed by those still in denial. Latour would suggest that we come out of the cave, look at what is already there - what is already known about Science - and try our hand in ending this debate and moving forward.

To raise one last point in parting, one that hasn’t yet been mentioned… My interests have always been in the stewardship of the environment and protecting finite resources for generations to come, not wiping out millions of years of life in the span of 200-300 years. I hope that I have raised some interesting points and that my methods and techniques have been helpful in providing more information and perhaps a different way of thinking. I have tried to provide a look into my own viewpoints as well through this controversy that is still unfolding in a way that has been inspired by this class, Science: Power-Knowledge, and the readings of Latour and Seth Shulman. Primarily, I hope that I have demonstrated that while no argument can be pitted one against the other, science vs. nature, politics vs. science, black vs. white, certainly we can find a way to keep the facts straight and report what we know rather than distorting scientific evidence.