Op-eds on science and politics

(3 December)  THE SCIENCE AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE.  Read my reflections on the relationship between the science and politics of climate change in this Wall Street Journal op-ed and a second take on the same matter in The Guardian newspaper, ‘Laboratories’ Outer Limits’.

This article has 3 comments

  1. Hi Mike,

    Very nice one. Since reading ‘Why we disagree’ in the early summer, I’ve been waiting for the breakthrough piece – I think this is it.

    To give you an idea of the current buzz on the web, here’s the stats page of a shortened-URL for the WSJ link: http://bit.ly/info/6eEdPx . You can compare that to the total response for Andy Revkin’s coverage of ‘Why we disagree’ back in July.

    Good luck with the attention ;-)

    Best regards,
    Cliff

  3. Good article, and I appreciate your candor on the subject. I would like to propose an alternative to the mantra you identify (“Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, compel everyone to believe it. . . and we will have won”).

    How about “Get the science right, reduce the scientific uncertainties, lead the conversations towards risk-vs-reward, and let the politics focus solely on THAT.” Our mistake as a society is that we let science be politicized. We should keep science pure and let the RESULTS be politicized. In cases such as climate change, both sides should be able to argue about facts and their perception of what actions to take and how they will play out. That is what many people were doing until ClimateGate suddenty (apparently) legitimized the man-made-climate-deniers (of which I am inclined to be one). Now, science has been gelded and is not even a part of the equation any more.

Comments are closed.