It's Just Data: Climate Discourse Part 2

Coming to terms with the idea that the climate portion of climate change, it is crucial to the conversation; that we explore why using the correct langue creates an axiological (fundamental system of values that we use to give meaning) problem for people. First of all, the data that we face on our everyday lives contains an almost indigestible level of information that puts us in the position to give cognitive attribution to it. This is of extreme importance since our perception of the data is intrinsically tied to how we will perceive the data. (Miller, 2001) For example the graphic to the right observes the disproportionate amount of CO2 released in the past decades in comparison to a general climate variation of rises and falls in CO2 concentrations. The public opinion mainly relies in a cognitive model which describes and at times dismisses this data under assumptions of validity in terms of interpretations of a attribution model of the term variation and social associations with the fluctuating nature of the syntax. (Miller, 2001) In terms of scientific discourse, we given axiological meaning and value to simple empirical data. Interpretations of this nature are then amplified by media agenda events which derive fact from axiological contingency. Regardless of the conduit examples of this create an ontological debate of the nature of research which furthers claims of public discourse that are negligent to the data itself. Put simply, data is just data, nothing more and nothing less. What kinds of attributions do you associate with certain data sets?

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Some description adapted from the Scripps CO2 Program website, "Keeling Curve Lessons."

Miller, C. A. (2001). Challenges in the application of science to global affairs: Contingency, trust, and              moral order. Changing the atmosphere: Expert knowledge and environmental governance,                   247-85