In a recent piece entitled Politics in the Guise of Pure Science, John Tierney asks whether scientists can be "honest brokers" on controversial and politically charged issues like global warming and climate change.
Citing various instances in which he casts various scientific authorities as backpedaling on their own initial catastrophic predictions, he criticizes the role scientific authorities establish in the political community. Among other things, he argues that scientists should acknowledge the promotion of their own agendas.
Of course scientists are interested in advancing their own agenda, not unlike anyone else. The idea that scientists can serve as impartial soothsayers on issues as complex as the environment is naive at best. The problem is not with scientists and their agendas but what is asked of them. How can we expect the science community to provide airtight predictions about the evolution of climate conditions on earth? We can barely predict the weather with any certainty more than 24 hours in advance and the complexity of the dynamics of the environment are at least of the same order.
The truth is that there is inarguable evidence of shifting climate conditions and the risk not to act is far too great. And, an agnostic position on the part of the scientific community is likely to incite action on any level.
