The Linear Model Consensus Redux
June 8th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Not too long ago we wrote about the role of the so-called ‘linear model’ of science and policy: “The linear model is “based on first getting the science “right” as a necessary, if not sufficient, basis for decision making… “. The linear model places science at the center of political debates.” On the climate issue at least political opponents share a consensus that the political battle on climate change should be fought through science, which probably explains why the debate continues to focus on science and not policy.
On the one hand, The Royal Society announces its role in the academies’ statement with this headline: “Clear science demands prompt action on climate change say G8 science academies”. Science does not demand action. People with values demand action. As we’ve suggested here before, to suggest that science compels a particular action is a mischaracterization of the role of science in policy and politics, and sets the stage for waging politics through science.
On the other hand, George Bush agrees with The Royal Society on the role of science in decision making stating yesterday, “we lead the world when it comes to dollars spent, millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It’s easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it. And if you look at the statistics, you’ll find the United States has taken the lead on this research.”
Advocates of action on climate change seem to expect that if they can get George Bush to admit certain statements about the science of climate change, then certain actions will necessarily follow. This is exactly how Lord May, President of The Royal Society, characterized the issue: