Climate Change Inaction and Post-Reality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a difficult article to review. It is exceptionally well written with impressive references. The conclusion, however, doesn't seem to match the paper.

The paper makes an impressive argument that excessive bigness and complexity of society has virtually immoblized signficant action on climate change due to the loss in the belief of the possibility of truth (post-truth), a loss of trust in our insitutions (post-trust), the science-de-education of leaders and journalists, and the indifference of scholars. It summaraizes that in this era of post-reality, confidence is sapped and the critical faculties dimmed by poor or corrupt scholarship and the pronouncements of maleducated authority figures.

And then 6 lines before the end it concludes that "The need for the individual to be informed and to think independently has never been more important." But how can an individual be informed when s/he is surrounded by currupt scholarship? And what does "think independently" mean in this case? Just different from the "bullshit" with which s/he is surrounded? 

The article presents such a dire picture of contemporary society that, without more specifics about what one ought to do to ameliorate the situation, it more natually leads to the conclusion that we might as well party to the end. It is not clear how this is a helpful message. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this article the author relates climate change inaction to post-reality and argues for the cultivation of the critical faculties of the individual. Although the topic is interesting and I do not have problems with any insight as such, the article does not meet academic standards, which is all the worse for an article that problematizes post-reality.

The introduction does not formulate any hypothesis, aim or research question, does not describe how this hypothesis, aim or research question relates to the state-of-the-art and academic debate, and does not offer a setup or logical structure of the article. The logical structure of the article/argument does not become clear during reading the article.

The article is filled with sweeping statements that are left unproven or with too few references. A few examples:

“The consequence of post-trust is increasing public resentment and anger, various associated social ills, a rise in populism and a progressive disengagement from the institutions of democracy.”

“The truth is weakened by repetition and distance from its source, and as in the game of Chinese Whispers it gets progressively corrupted.”

“As cities get bigger, interests shift from the shared objectives of the wider community towards self-interest, and within a country global cities add to the remoteness.”

“In the USA the mere possession of knowledge is a mark of elitism [Edward Luce cited in 11], and simply recognizing reality is seen as a political position [12].”

These are just a few examples; the whole article is a chain of such sentences, which the author takes as self-evident.

 

About a third of the references are non-academic, non peer-reviewed sources, such as news outlets.

 

I am missing a discussion of alternative explanations for the situation of post-reality apart from “excessive bigness and complexity of society”. What about neo-liberalism or other specific new media?

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

For key words, suggest “Climate change” “post-trust” “post-reality” instead of  “scholarship,” “indifference,” and “bullshit”

A thorough editing with regard to commas is required.

GENERAL COMMENT

Since the unending critique of everything and everyone (including a PPE degree from Oxford) is mind-numbing, it is not clear how this article contributes in any way to helping humanity handle the climate crisis. For that reason, this article could be considered “indifferent scholarship,” according to the authors own criteria. Though the author throws out the hint of a positive suggestion in the conclusion, i.e., that teaching science properly in grade school will make a difference, since the fundamental cause of climate change according to the author is the excessive bigness and complexity of society (to say nothing of the tragedy of the commons—with China in play), the suggested solution seems ingenuous.  On the other hand, the cynics, the self-righteous and the doomsdayers will welcome a fellow-thinker who provides a lot to ammunition for all those who are inclined to indulge in a constant barrage of sanctimonious critique. For that reason, I suppose this is worth publishing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf