The Better Planet Guide

Scientists have been intimidated into a polite silence about climate changeii. It is time they spoke out, for all our sakes, argues Mark Lynas

Climate changeii is not a scientific issue. No, really, I'm 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'd have a much better chance of averting this looming catastrophe before it's too late.

Here's the problem. Treating climate changeii 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 capitalismi. In other words, we weren't really arguing about Kilimanjaro at all. Wouldn't it be a lot more straightforward to get this kind of disagreement out in the open? Climate changeii is an emotional debate conducted in entirely the wrong intellectual language.

A second problem of dealing with climate changeii solely in scientific terms is that it gives sceptics and contrarians an enormous advantage. "The science is still uncertain," they cry--and they are right. The science is uncertain. If it wasn't uncertain, it wouldn't be science. As Karl Popper put it, a theory that is not falsifiable cannot by definition be scientific.

But this dictum does not apply in the policy arena. Mere mention of the word "uncertainty" 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 warmingii sceptics are adept at invoking uncertainty to delay action. No more than a handful of climatologists are sceptics on the question of climate changeii; most sceptics aren't 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 interminably about their latest graph. Many in the media and the public, and even among the world's political elite, are desperate for the scientific establishment to show leadership on climate changeii. But when the ball is passed in their direction, the scientists kick it right back, saying, "That's a question for policy-makers. We couldn't possibly comment."

Hence the oft-quoted "demand" from the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeii (IPCC) for 60 per cent cuts in emissionsi. Journalists are so desperate to write a paragraph beginning, "The world's scientists have called for 60 per cent reductions..." that they have to put words along these lines into the IPCC's mouth. The IPCC, of course, doesn't "do" policy and has never said any such thing.

But what about scientific objectivity? Isn't 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 because they are not seen as beholden to political or economic interests.

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 "neutrality" 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 environmentalismi's powerful opponents. In the US, the IPCC is already pilloried by conservatives for daring to discuss climate changeii 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 IPPC 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's someone else's 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.

First published 25 June 2005 New Scientist Magazine issue 2505