
Time to ditch the climate consensus - laika4000
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
======
ivankirigin
It should be more often observed that the only reason we see this call for
consenus (and opposition) is that they demand government action.

This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism
running up against science.

In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get
empassioned pleas for one side.

Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusing on
private action.

There is nothing stopping people from supporting research into alternative
energy themselves. Farmers could be paid by private citizens to slow burn
their biomass turning it into stable sequesterable charcoal. The roofs of
private buildings could be painted white.

Once those that care about the issue realize their methods and not necessrily
their ideas are why they get a lot of resistence, more people will come to
their side.

~~~
gustavo_duarte
I'm all for private action, but you cannot take the government out of this
issue. After all, whether to build the third runway in Heathrow is not a
private decision. Likewise, it's hard for private parties to deal with
externalities.

~~~
ivankirigin
Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action.

With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take
care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated.

Cap and Trade solutions for climate change are, say, 5 orders of magnitude
more costly. With that comes added demand for certainty. The more rigorous the
demands for certainty, the greater the indication that a single governmental
solution is inappropriate.

A third runway at Heathrow _should_ be a private decision, by a private
company that owns and operates an airport. Runways are also completely
irrelevant in this discussion.

~~~
jshen
"Unorganized private action can easily outweigh government action.

With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take
care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated."

This seems to be a contradiction.

------
DanielBMarkham
A plea for reasoned discourse and the end of the politicization of science by
the left. Excellent article on the quality of the discussion of climate
issues. The climate change debate itself, I know, has been done to death here.
But I still think that the quality of the discussion, the role of politics in
science and vice-versa, are important issues regardless of whether the topic
is climate change or not.

~~~
Adam503
Because when a crisis strikes, it's the bankers and derivative traders we
really need to here from. Now, you scientists, you need to go out and do
something useful. Go shopping.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
How about just doing science? Seemed to work just fine for hundreds of years.

~~~
gustavo_duarte
But has this ever truly happened?

Even if we go back all the way to Archimedes, we'll find his science
intertwined with warfare, ship building, public works and various other
'statist' concerns.

Or take Galileo - surely not just doing science. Darwin. Manhattan Project,
and the subsequent roles of various people like Oppenheimer, von Neumann, and
Edward Teller. Nazis eliminating 'Jew Science'. Or for example Carl Sagan's
comments about sources of funding for physics (so heavily military and
'statist') and their effect on the science.

I think this idea of pure science in isolation is an idealization that does
not happen in practice.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I think you're mixing up several issues here.

First, nothing is truly black or white. Scientists are humans, and humans are
political and involved in things outside their own field. This humanity,
however, poses a conflict of interest from the mechanisms of how science
operates: observe, hypothesize, test, reproduce. In other areas where human
nature play a conflicting role with job goals, such as the therapist-patient
relationship, doctor-patient relationship, or lawyer-client relationship,
strict guidelines have been established to ensure that the human part of doing
the job doesn't interfere with the job itself. Where's the line? That's
outside my pay grade. When scientists start viewing themselves as activists
first, scientists second, however, we've crossed it. Science is concerned with
both normal science and paradigm-changing work. Whatever else you may be doing
could be important, critical, wonderful, whatever -- but it ain't science.

Your second concept is statism. I'd take that up with the other commenter who
mentioned the statist issues.

I think your observation that politics and science have always mixed it up is
a great one. However, I think it actually proves my point instead of yours.
During the time that these people lived, like Galileo, the word "science"
could mean many different things. Indeed, science of the day was the church.
And the church had a heavy hand in what was "allowed" to be discussed and what
had "scientific consensus". It's only in looking back that we're able to say,
gee, of course Galileo was the _real_ scientist here. At the time, common
opinion was against him.

The A-bomb guys, as far as I know, did not publicly advocate some sort of
scientific consensus in atomic policies. The old Soviets, however, had
Lysenkoism -- another example of "science" being co-opted by the state and
used to shut down discourse. (In many places even today, you'll end up in the
insane asylum if you have the wrong political opinions). The Nazis were famous
social darwinists. The list goes on. In each case, science and politics got
mixed up to the point where politicians were using science as a foil to
advance their ends and scientists were in politics to advance their own ends.
You're absolutely right. This isn't anything new. We've seen where this ends
up. Science ends up like the old church: with dogmas, consensus, political
funding, ostracism, etc.

Let's not go there.

------
hvs
Any time that you hear someone say, "we need to get beyond debate and act," it
usually means they are no longer willing to listen to others and they just
want to implement _their_ solution.

~~~
sethg
But this is one of the _necessary_ differences between science and politics.
Politics requires making decisions, and acting on them, based on imperfect
information. There's nothing wrong with saying "I know we don't have 100%
certainty on this issue, but even at a level of only 80% certainty, the
expected cost of doing nothing is so great, compared to the cost of taking
action, that we're better off taking action."

~~~
hvs
The cost of acting in the way that some people want could do extensive damage
to our economy and could have very little effect on the problem that they are
attempting to solve. If individuals feel that there are things that should be
done, they are free to start implementing themselves and working with business
to make the case. It is only when people assume that the government has to
force everyone to do what they want is it a question of what _everyone_ agrees
on. You don't need complete consensus if you are willing to put your money
where your mouth is.

------
tc7
I don't understand why you would argue against using facts as the basis for
debate. We're not giving proper weight to people's spiritual beliefs related
to climate change?

"Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really?

"...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and
they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns,
forget about our ethical positions, ... forget about whether we are Christians
or Buddists, no, none of that matters.’ The only thing that matters is that
they’re holding a report from peer-reviewed science that in itself justifies
their position. And it’s not just protesters who are hiding behind the
authority of science. World leaders are doing it, too."

What?!

[sorry for the long quote, i'm working myself up :)]

Maybe it's a joke, and it's just too early for me to get it.

~~~
ilitirit
> What?!

He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context.

Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy:

Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission
vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least
a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the
virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years.

Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?

~~~
tc7
That choice seems more obviously between two evils than the climate change
issue. :)

I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped
by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at
all.

~~~
ilitirit
It's not about climate change - it's an analogy. It's not a choice between two
evils either (you could round them up AND kill them). And of course you could
propose a multitude of different solutions beside or in addition to these.

My point was that science cannot be used to justify all the choices you make
in cases like these.

------
msie
Please note who wrote the article:

 _Stuart Blackman is a science writer and co-editor of the Climate Resistance
blog._

My impression of the blog is they want to continue the debate on climate-
change and delay whatever action should be taken because they believe the
environmental movement is a crazy cult. This interview serves their purpose.

They also believe that: _4\. The scientific consensus on climate change as
widely reported inaccurately reflects the true state of scientific knowledge._
This is a familiar charge from people who deny human-caused climate change.

~~~
easp
Its like the f'ing tobacco industry did for four or five decades. Once they
realized the science is against them, they start spraying FUD out every
orifice, delaying action for as long as possible.

------
WilliamLP
> Perhaps the most surprising thing to hear from a climate scientist writing
> about climate change is that climate science has for too long had the
> monopoly in climate change debates.

Maybe biologists and geologists shouldn't have a privileged position in
debates on whether evolution is true, and about the age of the Earth. And
should medical scientists have the monopoly in debates over vaccinations and
disease control? Popular opinion clearly says no.

------
badger7
FFS. Colour me the stereotypical bad guy in that steaming pile of an article.

