In your rejection of Chownah's comment you said -
Science knows what it knows. The knowledge accrued within the scientific paradigm is useful and of import to humanity.
Religion knows what it knows. The knowledge accrued within the religious paradigm is useful and of import to humanity.
Philosophy knows what it knows. The knowledge accrued within the philosophical paradigm is useful and of import to humanity.
Art knows what it knows. The knowledge accrued within the humanities paradigm is useful and of import to humanity.
My position is that the knowledge accrued through all these paradigm is of equal worth; one accretion is not superior to the other.
Thank you for articulating your position so clearly. I don't want to disagree, either, so much as to expand on it.
I'm happy to say that in general terms "one accretion is not superior to the other" but I want to take one more step and add, "but one may be far more useful than the others for certain tasks," which I think is what Chownah was saying. A bed is not superior to a bicycle, for instance, but the bed is far better for sleeping on than the bicycle, and the bicycle is far more useful as a means of transport.
Science is very good at describing the (conventional) physical world and predicting what will happen if we make particular changes to it; religion and philosophy aren't good at that that, and art can do well with the description but not so well with the prediction. (It can depict
a prediction, but that's a slightly different thing.)
That makes science a better tool for understanding what's (already) happening to the climate than any of the others. Beyond that, it's also very good for telling us what's likely to happen in the future if we keep on doing what we've been doing, or if we all swap our cars for bicycles, or if we replant all the forests we've cut down. So far, so good for science. But it can't provide any moral or ethical reason for one course or another (although it's often asked to).
That's where philosophy and religion come into their own, saying things like, "We should do X because anything else increases human suffering and suffering is a Bad Thing."
But how do we get people to do X? Religion might help (saying, e.g., "if you don't do X you are a bad person") but art can step up and dramatise the issues and consequences far more vividly than science can do, and more universally than religion can do.