Scientists are being played expertly in the ongoing political debate about
climate change. Here is how the game works. Those opposed to acting
on the options currently on the table, like Kyoto or McCain/Lieberman,
invoke “scientific uncertainty” about climate change as the basis for
their opposition. Of course, the basis for opposition for most of these
folks has nothing to do with scientific uncertainty and everything to do
with their valuation of the costs and benefits of taking action. As
George W. Bush "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html">said
in 2001, “For America, complying with those [Kyoto] mandates would have a
negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for
consumers.” The projected economic impacts of Kyoto are of course
uncertain because they are the product of complex computer models based on
numerous assumptions and parameterizations. But this uncertainty is not
an obstacle to the Bush Administration taking decisive action.

Even though the basis for President Bush’s opposition is grounded in how
he values expected outcomes, he nonetheless "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html">raises
scientific uncertainty about climate itself as a basis for his
decision, “we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate
may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or
will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or
even how some of our actions could impact it. For example, our useful
efforts to reduce sulfur emissions may have actually increased warming,
because sulfate particles reflect sunlight, bouncing it back into space.
And, finally, no one can say with any certainty what constitutes a
dangerous level of warming, and therefore what level must be avoided.”
But his invocation of such uncertainties is just a distraction. Consider
that Senator John Kerry who also opposed the Kyoto Protocol, but never
invoked scientific uncertainty as the basis for his opposition (he =
"http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1001.html">claimed
that the fact that developing countries did not participate was the basis
for his opposition). Because Bush and Kerry shared opposition to Kyoto
but had different views on the science of climate change, this suggests
that ones views on climate science are not deterministic of one’s
political perspectives.

While there is ample evidence that scientific uncertainty is not the main
reason behind opposition to action on climate change, advocates of Kyoto
and emissions reduction policies more generally have seized upon claims of
scientific uncertainty as the linchpin of their advocacy efforts (Why?
Read "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf">this).
In this way, the political debate over climate change takes place in the
language of science, with some invoking “scientific uncertainty” as the
basis for their preexisting ideological and political views, and others
invoking “scientific certainty” (often in response to those invoking
“scientific uncertainty”). Whether one likes it or not, claims of
uncertainty map onto one political agenda and claims of certainty onto
another political agenda. In climate politics there is no such thing as
objective or unbiased science, it is all viewed through the lens of the
political conflict.

The great irony here is that the debate of certainty and uncertainty is
largely disconnected from the real reasons for political debate over
climate change, which is based on a conflict over values. There may of
course be those few folks whose political perspectives undergo "http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/articles/EnvironControv.htm">“data-induced
transformations” based on science but as Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay
have observed “people generally come to their beliefs about how the world
works long before they encounter facts.”

If this assertion is close to being right, it means that opponents to
action on climate change have already taken a big step toward winning the
political debate when advocates of action take the bait on uncertainty.
By raising uncertainty as a red herring advocates for action spend
considerable time and effort trying to disprove allegations of uncertainty
as the centerpiece of their efforts, but no matter how this sideshow winds
up, it will do little to change the underlying political outcome, as the
opponents can just switch their justification to something else while
maintaining their political commitment to opposition. This is an
exceedingly difficult line of argument for environmentalists and
scientists to accept because the former have hitched their agenda to
science and the latter’s claims to authority lie in science.

The experiences of a new weblog run by a group of climate scientists, href = "http://www.realclimate.org/">realclimate.org, provide a great
example of this dynamic. The site claims to be “restricted to scientific
topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications
of the science.” This is a noble but futile ambition. The site’s focus
has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis
for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George
Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox
News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly
aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.
And by trumpeting certainty and consensus, and attacking claims to the
contrary, it has fallen squarely into the uncertainty trap.

So if opponents to action on climate change want to distract the attention
of some prominent climate scientists, they need simply write the
occasional opinion article or give a speech in which they invoke
uncertainty about climate change. Meantime, business as usual pretty much
gets a free pass.

It would be wonderful if opponents to action on climate change would stop
hiding behind science. But the efforts of those scientists who take them
on the basis of science are what allow then to hide in plain sight. The
way out of this situation is not to engage in endless debate about
climate science, but to question whether science is in fact the right
battleground for this political conflict.