Hoffmanhad initially believed the views that the scientific communityoffered about climate change. However, his meeting with a formerfootball player who later became a businessman who questioned hisviews about climate change affected his views about what thescientific community offered on climate change. In his research,Hoffman presented that the split about views on climate change wereno longer based on climate modelling or greenhouse gas emissions butwere a product of deep-rooted worldviews. This paper examinesHoffman`s argument in light of the various facts on climate change inestablishing the authenticity of his argument on climate change,citing that Hoffman`s argument is somewhat between being true andfalse concerning climate change.
Duringthe meeting between the former football player and Hoffman, Hoffmanrealized that a social consensus on climate change does not exist.According to the surveys conducted, there are a less percentage ofthe Americans who actually believe that climate change is underway.The percentage of the Americans who have believed that climate changeis underway has been changing over time, with a considerablepercentage failing to believe about climate change1.
Inorder to evaluate Hoffman`s argument, it is important to understandboth positions of Hoffman being right or wrong about climate changeand the scientific community. The scientific community on climatechange is commissioned with a responsibility of providing informationon the state of the climate based on the evidence that they collect.At the stage of collecting and analyzing data about climate change,the scientific community is usually differentiated from thegovernment and the public. The results that they provide aretherefore based on their findings on climate change and are not basedon any falsified information since they provide all the requiredevidence in showing that climate change is underway. Therefore, theinformation that the scientific community is not based on any socialor political interest since the evidence provided determines theauthenticity of the information that has been provided2.
Peopletend to believe what they want to believe. The political system isusually between the institution in power and the opposition wing. Theopposition wing is always on the negative about the government andwill in most cases criticize the government without proper basis. Thepercentages that Hoffman has provided on the increasing percentage ofthe Americans who do not believe that climate change is underwayreflect the increasing percentage of the opposition supporters. Thismeans that there are social dynamics that are involved in the publicbelieving about the scientists on climate change. The involvement ofsocial dynamics in believing on climate change therefore reflects onthe manner on which people believe about the actuality of climatechange3.
Insummary, Hoffman has argued after the meeting with the formerfootballer, he reviewed his stand on climate change and realized thatmost of the Americans did not believe in climate change and thepropensity of the public to believe climate change was influenced byexisting social factors, which vary with time. Hoffman is very truesince the percentages provided show a decline in the Americans whobelieve in climate change, which is a reflection of the varyingpercentages of the members of the opposition wing. However, it isimportant to note that the influence of politics on science onclimate change is minimal. The evidence that the scientific communityprovides is based on real data and it’s irrefutable.
Hoffman,Andrew J. "Climate science as culture war." StanfordSocial Innovation Review10, no. 4 (2012): 30-37.
Hulme,Mike. Whywe disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inactionand opportunity.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Walther,Gian-Reto. "Ecological responses to recent climate change."Nature416, no. 6879 (2002): 389-395.
1Hoffman, Andrew J, "Climate science as culture war," Stanford Social Innovation Review 10, no. 4 (2012): 30-37.
2 Walther, Gian-Reto, "Ecological responses to recent climate change," Nature 416, no. 6879 (2002): 389-395.
3 Mike, Hulme, Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 101-105.