The Political Climate Science

"The Earth is a highly complex system formed by a large variety of sub-systems (biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere, as well as social and economic systems etc.), which interact by the exchange of matter, energy, and information. As the result of these interrelations, the Earth can be interpreted as a complex and evolving network. One may consider each subsystem separately, but the growing understanding of the whole system Earth suggests that one should take into account the interactions between these subsystems."

Climate science includes scientific domains such as atmospheric physics and thermodynamics, hydrology, hydrometeorology, oceanography, statistics, land use, biology, forestry, agriculture, computer modeling and so on. The atmospheric elements include temperature, clouds, humidity, rainfall, sea levels, jet-streams, mass flow, el-Nino and el-Nina, volcanoes, and extreme weather events like hurricanes and cyclones, thunderstorms, tornadoes, floods and droughts, among others.

There are people who claimed climate science is now settled based on the claim there is 97% consensus among the scientists. On top of that, there are several American Scientific Societies, Academies and Government Agencies that support this stand.

This consensus is hotly disputed by other groups. Climate science has become political which is toxic. The scientific approach differs from a political approach. Most of the objection to the settled science controversy are arguing from the scientific perspective. This article is not intended to discuss the merits of the arguments from both sides but to look at it as a "political climate science".

Support and popularity are more important in politics than the truth. We cannot question the political rights of the voters to choose. This choice can change as we have seen some scientists do. Scientists who should focus on their research in their areas of interests are now asked to make a political choice which they are ill equipped. At the same time, the choice they made can bear their careers and funding opportunities. This is a fallacy, a false dichotomy, forced upon the scientists.

I think and hope most scientists in climate science know they are like the blind men and the elephant. They are all working on a small piece of this huge problem. Only by integrating all their findings and exploring the integrated findings from many perspectives can they gain a better understanding of the dynamics of the earth atmosphere and the resultant weather and climate. And yet, with every study published, the advocates on both sides of the divide try to use the study to confirm their bias, a behavior befitting that of politicians.

"Ignorance about an issue is said to be ‘rational’ when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one  could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so.” Anthony Downs proposed this economic theory in 1957 and it is usually applied to politics. Unfortunately, it is a difficult problem to address.

Given the complexity of climate science, it is likely that most scientists are experts in not more than a single domain. They may have general knowledge of the other domains but it will not be at the expert level to make a judgment that they can defend scientifically. When asked to make a political choice, they will be affected by the rational ignorance effect. The reliability of their choices would be similar to that of voters. Can the opinions of the scientists be trusted under these conditions? It is therefore of immediate concern to regain the trusts of the public. It is not likely if climate science remains political.

The obvious way to mitigate the rational ignorance effect is to increase the benefits of gaining knowledge while reducing the cost of gaining it. An infrastructure that supports this must be strategically planned and developed. Even suggesting this is political and there will be opponents.

The Internet is an example of an infrastructure that allows us to do things economically and efficiently that we cannot imagine a few decades ago. It will be an important part of the new infrastructure suggested. 

If the dangers of climate change are real, inaction is not a choice, but so is misdirected actions which would be ineffective, a waste of resources and even a loss of future opportunity. Billions are now expanded in addressing this "political climate science." Such is the folly of men.