July Bulletin List
Where to focus? Politics and Science in Climate Change dialogue
A recent conversion by a climate change skeptic has highlighted some challenges with the debate around climate change and its implications for dialogue.
The US skeptic blogger, author and journalist Craig Good came to be convinced that manmade global warming is happening, having been previously unconvinced. In one blog post, he explained that his previous mistrust was due to a ‘massively politicised’ debate divided along party lines and a confusion between science and policy. ‘Once enough of us agree on what the problem is’ he argues ‘then we can talk about how to fix it. Until then, at least separate your proposals from the science. Science does not tell you that it’s time to raise taxes’.
As one of the most pressing contemporary scientific issues, climate change is proving to have an increased focus for public dialogue, and there’s no doubt that the problems Good has raised also have an impact in the UK where, some would argue, the debate is slightly less polarised. It has long been observed, for example, that a polarised climate change debate risks alienating the public from the conversation, but the problem of things like name calling still persists. This context can make the job harder for those hoping to move from politicised debate to a more exploratory from of deliberative dialogue.
However, Good’s broader message – that until there is a consensus among the public on the science of climate change, the sole focus should be on the science itself – could be more problematic for science dialogue.
As Chris Rapley highlighted in an interview for Sciencewise, assuming that people already accept climate science can backfire, and there remains an important role in presenting the evidence for and against in a non-judgemental way. However, much (though not all) of science dialogue is not so much dialogue about the science itself, but is dialogue about the ethical, social and political issues which the science under discussion throws up. It is these areas where the public wants to have a say, and where people have the most to contribute.
Total segregation in dialogue between the science itself on the one hand, and questions of how to act on the other, is in most cases both unrealistic and undesirable. Good’s experience, however, is a useful reminder to be aware of how the latter issue can feed into the former, as well as vice versa.