This is a very statist mindset, and that grinding sound you hear is statism running up against science.
In other scientific matters (e.g. If string theory is real) you don't get empassioned pleas for one side.
Environmentalists would do more good by abandoning statism and focusing on private action.
There is nothing stopping people from supporting research into alternative energy themselves. Farmers could be paid by private citizens to slow burn their biomass turning it into stable sequesterable charcoal. The roofs of private buildings could be painted white.
Once those that care about the issue realize their methods and not necessrily their ideas are why they get a lot of resistence, more people will come to their side.
With easily provable externalities like toxic waste, private lawsuits can take care of the problem. Other issues like CFCs are easily regulated.
Cap and Trade solutions for climate change are, say, 5 orders of magnitude more costly. With that comes added demand for certainty. The more rigorous the demands for certainty, the greater the indication that a single governmental solution is inappropriate.
A third runway at Heathrow _should_ be a private decision, by a private company that owns and operates an airport. Runways are also completely irrelevant in this discussion.
Uh, have you ever read Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Leonard Susskind, and Lubos Motl?
Strong opinions are healthy. Strong opinions mandating an end to discussion in order to take collectivist action are not.
"Don't use science to get around politics" sounds like a joke. I mean, really?
"...their ultimate authority is a report from a group of scientists, and they’re saying ‘this is where we stand, forget about our moral concerns, forget about our ethical positions, ... forget about whether we are Christians or Buddists, no, none of that matters.’ The only thing that matters is that they’re holding a report from peer-reviewed science that in itself justifies their position. And it’s not just protesters who are hiding behind the authority of science. World leaders are doing it, too."
What?!
[sorry for the long quote, i'm working myself up :)]
Maybe it's a joke, and it's just too early for me to get it.
"However much we agree on the fundamentals of the physics of climate change, there are huge ethical, political and ideological differences that remain about what climate change signifies for society"
So this is a different debate than what we have in the US, where we watch Fox News, deny global warming, and believe in creationism.
His point is that yes, global warming is here, but we must choose how to handle it, what the trade offs are, what the priorities are, what to give up, and so on. These are political and ideological decisions which the science cannot make.
He raises a very pertinent issue; it's just not that clear in this context.
Here's an extreme, yet simplistic analogy:
Suppose scientists discover that green-eyed people are used as transmission vectors by a lethal flu virus. A cure can be found, but it would take at least a decade to complete the research and testing. Scientists estimate that the virus will kill 90% of mankind within 5 years.
Should we round up and isolate all green-eyed people? Should we kill them?
I do acknowledge, as the other commenter suggested, that my view may be warped by being from the USA, where the battle is still about whether it exists at all.
Stuart Blackman is a science writer and co-editor of the Climate Resistance blog.
My impression of the blog is they want to continue the debate on climate-change and delay whatever action should be taken because they believe the environmental movement is a crazy cult. This interview serves their purpose.
They also believe that: 4. The scientific consensus on climate change as widely reported inaccurately reflects the true state of scientific knowledge. This is a familiar charge from people who deny human-caused climate change.
Maybe biologists and geologists shouldn't have a privileged position in debates on whether evolution is true, and about the age of the Earth. And should medical scientists have the monopoly in debates over vaccinations and disease control? Popular opinion clearly says no.
