I do not understand the argument that the science of climate change "should not be political". Alternatives include "It was OK until it got political" and "(Climate) scientists shouldn't advocate this policy or another, just stick to the facts".
What exactly is the sentiment?
That science shouldn't have any political implications?
That scientists shouldn't be "left-leaning"?
That we'd be better off if climate change was never discovered (or researched)?
It can't be no. 1, since there are obvious historical examples of political science (e.g. Manhatten Project). Scientists are humans and thus advocate for whatever positions they want, so it can't be 2. And 3 is unlikely since those who express this sentiment don't seem to be outright deniers.
I'm not a full-blown "society dictates science" type; indeed I'm mostly a Baconist. However, I still acknowledge that science isn't done in a vacuum, that only certain things get research money, and that the science funded is coupled (at least weakly) to the politics of the day.
I guess my take is more pragmatic than academic. In my opinion, the crux of the matter is not that climate change is political per se but that the issue is so highly charged and fear provoking that there is no rational public debate to date and climate scientists (such as J. Hansen at NASA) have been harassed for speaking out.. The problem is confronting the uncomfortable issue raises questions of the sustainability of western standards of living as well as that of developing nations. It's sad that we are gridlocked in a polarizing debate instead of working together to ameliorate and devise solutions for future generations...even possibly reinventing the sluggish global economy at the same time.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Bart sees an incoming asteroid at the Springfield observatory, threatening the town. After the asteroid fortuitously burns up, the crowd burns down the observatory to prevent a meteor threatening them again.
ReplyDeleteA left/classist interpretation could be that scientists have an enabling role to the upper classes. If they produce science which goes against that role (carbon from fossil fuel burning acidifies the oceans) then they would be marginalized/replaced by better enablers.
I'm sceptical of most versions of the "should not be political" argument too. Without bending over ridiculously far backwards to interpret it charitably, I can think of one sensible interpretation: it's a (sloppy) way of asking scientists not to be gratuitously partial or partisan.
ReplyDeleteBut I suspect "should not be political" more often means something like "should not have any bearing on my own political beliefs", which is iffy for obvious reasons, or "should not have any political ramifications at all", which is demanding the impossible.