School of Social and Political Science

Introduction

An Anthropology of weather forecasting and climate modelling necessarily takes into account the ways in which such data is communicated and interpreted, among a myriad of divergent domains such as media, scientific expertise and local perception. The problems often manifest as barriers to translating data, convincing publics on a global scale that climate change is real, and instilling a sense of urgency. Ultimately this issue of persuasion in anchored in the nature of climate change as a kind of forecast, based on models of the future which are easily contested.

Carabajal emphasises how anthropology can contribute to a ‘more participatory science’ by ‘rethinking what, how and for who knowledge is produced’ (2020:143). Class, culture, age, education level and many other factors can influence how climate data is interpreted. Geographers, journalists and communication scientists have emphasised the role of place and space in differing meanings and understandings ascribed to the same media coverage and large events such as Conference Of the Parties (COP), with the added complexity that those in areas more vulnerable to climate volatility  are not necessarily more informed or concerned (Hoppe et al 2020). Further, for many anthropologists cultural or class barriers prevent a flow of knowledge in both directions, from publics to experts and vice versa, meaning a recognition of the power dynamics at play is vital, and an emphasis on pluralism within categories like knowledge and scientific fact welcome (Callison 2014).

Referencing the influence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dudman and De Wit introduce the idea of reflexivity in communicating climate and weather data, proposing a framework for ‘an IPCC that listens’ (2021). This opening up of a two-way communicative channel between the scientific expert (in this case the IPCC) and the lay person is taken further by recognising the cultural embeddedness of both. With her research amongst the Masaai, De Wit (2020) reminds us that alternative readings of climate data that are ‘not antithetical to science’ are in fact possible. This sentiment is seconded by Burman’s statement that ‘political ontology’, or the uneven weight given to different kinds of climate knowledges, and political ecology, or the uneven resources and vulnerabilities to extreme weather, are not mutually exclusive concerns (2017:935). Haines considers how scientists are engaging with this problem in making their data ‘useful, usable and used’, highlighting the intricacies of ‘probabilistic forecasts’, ‘multiple models’ and other ‘forms of foresight’ that are somewhat in friction with utilitarian ideas of ‘use’ (Haines: 2022)