Why We Disagree About Climate Change

"The book is not an easy read – at least sections of it aren’t. But it is remarkably clear about what science can do, and what it can’t. So a great phrase of his, which I like, is ‘Science always speaks with a conditional voice.’ There are always uncertainties about science. If you ask a serious climate scientist, ‘What is going to happen?’ their answer will be hedged around with uncertainties. Hulme’s point is that, all too often, the nuances and the uncertainties of science and what’s being said about climate change are lost and all people hear is, ‘We’re going to die tomorrow!’ or that Greenland is going to melt and drown London or New York. Yes, because people either hear that we’re going to die tomorrow and just don’t believe it, or they hear it and then it doesn’t happen. It’s probably one thing that has contributed to the hostility, the acrimony, about this debate – that people seem to have exaggerated."

"This is by Mike Hulme who has, in his own career, taken quite a journey from being a scientist producing climate models to someone who is engaged in the cultural and political aspects of the issue. He explains not only why we have disagreements about climate change but why it’s important that we have such disagreements. Because climate change at its core is a bit of an inkblot. It means different things to different people. Even in our conversation we’ve used phrases like sustainability and population growth. People map on to climate change their own vision of what kind of world they’d like to live in and these views embody our values, our culture, and just like on any big issue we have fundamental disagreements across society about the answers to those questions. No. The issue has become so politicised that for some people the term ‘sceptic’ is viewed as a badge of honour, though it doesn’t represent a well-considered view of science, but rather it’s something they associate with their cultural or political stance. If you look at data on public opinion on climate change, it has its ups and downs but it’s very strong in that most people feel that human impact on climate is a bad thing and we should reduce emissions. The level of support for action on climate change is well within the zone in which major action has been taken on a lot of different issues. I view the debates over the science like the debates over evolution. Yes. The debate on evolution is not an obstacle to getting good medical care. Right. And I think Mike Hulme says in his book that, given that climate change represents so many other issues beyond the science, it’s important that we air those out and see what’s at the core of our views. Usually when people argue about science it’s just a façade. I think the world should invest a significantly larger amount in energy innovation. It’s not just for carbon dioxide. We want cheap energy. We want secure energy. In the US there’s a desire not to have gasoline from foreign dictatorships. There are 1.5 billion people in the world who lack access to energy because it costs too much. They have a right to enjoy the availability of energy. The way we normally do things with respect to energy is that everybody gets a veto. People who don’t like nuclear power, windmills or coal take them off the table. You then wind up with no energy at all. I suggest the opposite. If someone wants their energy source in then they are obliged to let me have my technology too. We don’t know what’s going to work and we have to choose our poison in the end. Nuclear waste or carbon dioxide emissions. Germany apparently doesn’t want any energy source – solar, nuclear, coal, wind. If we’re going to get where we want to go we have to innovate because there is one thing everyone agrees on – we don’t want the lights to go out."