CLIMATE change is not a scientific issue. No, really, I鈥檓 serious. It is far more important than that. It forces us to make fundamental choices about our most basic belief systems. If policy-makers and the public could forget about the science, we鈥檇 have a much better chance of averting this looming catastrophe before it鈥檚 too late.
Here鈥檚 the problem. Treating climate change purely as a scientific issue obscures the real points of contention, which are political and economic. I once spent hours debating with a climate sceptic about why the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating, only to discover that his real beef was that he believed all environmentalists were socialists in disguise, whose real agenda was to destroy capitalism. In other words, we weren鈥檛 really arguing about Kilimanjaro at all. Wouldn鈥檛 it be a lot more straightforward to get this kind of disagreement out in the open? Climate change is an emotional debate conducted in entirely the wrong intellectual language.
A second problem of dealing with climate change solely in scientific terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage. 鈥淭he science is still uncertain,鈥� they cry 鈥� and they are right. The science is uncertain. If it wasn鈥檛 uncertain, it wouldn鈥檛 be science. As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot by definition be scientific.
Advertisement
But this dictum does not apply in the policy arena. Mere mention of the word 鈥渦ncertainty鈥� is enough to send any rational politician scurrying for cover. The same goes for the general public, for whom uncertainty will always be a reason not to act, especially if the consequences of acting are likely to be painful. Global warming sceptics are adept at invoking uncertainty to delay action. No more than a handful of climatologists are sceptics on the question of climate change; most sceptics aren鈥檛 experts in any scientific sense. But this is a subtlety lost on both the media, who want a spokesperson for each side, and the general public, who simply want someone they can believe in.
Worse still, when a journalist rings up a climate scientist for their opinion on the issue, few oblige. Most either come over all shy or ramble on about their latest graph. Many in the media and the public, and even among the world鈥檚 political elite, are all desperate for the scientific establishment to show leadership on climate change. But when the ball is passed in their direction, the scientists kick it right back, saying, 鈥淭hat鈥檚 a question for policy-makers. We couldn鈥檛 possibly comment.鈥�
Hence the oft-quoted 鈥渄emand鈥� from the UN sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 60 per cent cuts in emissions. Journalists are so desperate to write a paragraph beginning, 鈥淭he world鈥檚 scientists have called for 60 per cent reductions鈥︹�� that they have to put words along these lines into the IPCC鈥檚 mouth. The IPCC, of course, doesn鈥檛 鈥渄o鈥� policy and has never said any such thing.
But what about scientific objectivity. Isn鈥檛 it important for scientists to protect their professional integrity by staying neutral in policy debates? This is a much more serious concern. Objectivity is crucial in the scientific process. The public tends to trust scientists when they are not seen as beholden to political or economic interests.
鈥淲here is the volcanologist who refuses on the grounds of neutrality to warn of impending eruptions?鈥�
But scientific objectivity should not condemn intelligent scientists to the political equivalent of a Trappist vow of silence. If our future is under threat, scientists have a duty to say so. Where, for example, is the volcanologist who refuses on the grounds of 鈥渘eutrality鈥� to warn of impending eruptions? Or the tropical meteorologist who sits tight-lipped with his models and satellite data while a Category 5 storm spins towards a vulnerable Caribbean coastline?
I think there is something sinister going on. The scientific community has been intimidated into neutrality by environmentalism鈥檚 powerful opponents. In the US, the IPCC is already pilloried by conservatives for daring to discuss climate change at all, and its yelps of objectivity are seen by its opponents as signs of weakness.
A few scientists have made political statements: Robert May, president of the Royal Society, and former IPCC co-chair John Houghton, are examples. It is time others followed their lead. Climate scientists need to accept their role in the real world. As part of the small proportion of the population who actually understand the dire situation we are in, scientists have a moral responsibility to help us find a way out of this crisis. Environmental campaigners have tried and failed to do it. Now it鈥檚 someone else鈥檚 turn.
Environmentalists are like Cassandra before the fall of Troy: destined to tell the truth but never to be believed. Climate scientists are still burdened with the opposite problem. They are much more likely to be believed, but they cannot quite bring themselves to tell the truth.
