One definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. The climate debate is full of people who repeat the same behavior but expect different results.

On the one hand we have the self-described skeptics who seem to think that by highlighting uncertainties in science they can turn around the freight train that is public opinion, scientific consensus, and policy maker’s beliefs that human influences on the climate are worth addressing. In an essay published yesterday on TechCentralStation some familiar skeptics write, “The science is settled. The “skeptics” — the strange name applied to those whose work shows the planet isn’t coming to an end — have won.”

I’d ask (or perhaps more accurately, request), does this victory mean that skeptics no longer feel a need to debate the science?

On the other hand are the technocrats who seem to think that solving the climate problem is simply a matter of “tuning” climate policies to the desired concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, presumably via some giant control panel with a big knob labeled (Global Atm. CO2 PPM) that policy makers can set like a thermostat. An example of this sort of view appears in an essay in today’s issue of Science where the authors write that “Humanity can solve the carbon and climate problem in the first half of this century simply by scaling up what we already know how to do.” Examples of such “simple” solutions include:

*Increase fuel economy for 2 billion cars from 30 to 60 mpg
*Add 700 GW (twice the current capacity) of nuclear power
*Decrease tropical deforestation to zero instead of 0.5 GtC/year, and establish 300 Mha of new tree plantations (twice the current rate)

What the technocrats fail to appreciate is that even as “solutions” such as increasing fuel economy, adding nuclear power, and eliminating tropical deforestation may be technologically feasible, seeing their actual implementation represents social and political challenges. Solving poverty, disease, and wars are also similarly “simple.” Overcoming these sorts of challenges are in reality not so simple, irrespective of the state of technology.

So if the climate debate were sane we’d stop arguing about issues of science and technology and instead start talking about society and politics, because we’d recognize that all the discussion of science and technology, no matter what side of the debate you are on is unlikely to lead to improvements in energy policies or a reduction in vulnerability to climate impacts. However, I have a sense that we will continue to debate the science and technology of the climate issue and expect different results than we’ve seen to date.