,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The least helpful science communication right now is the smug "well, actually..." caveat on climate/ecological budgets, deadlines and consequences.
Sure, future pathways are complex; models may be flawed; other options (e.g. negative emissions) may prove more useful than they seem; we could make up for our lack of bold action with action at currently unimaginable paces; people might be able to adapt to the barely survivable.
But scientists making themselves feel clever by publicly citing these possibilities as reasons why budgets and timelines might be less urgent than the preponderance of evidence suggests are not serving free inquiry, they're serving predatory delay.
Because climate politics is not an honest scientific debate, it's a dirty political fight, and when scientists make public comment on policy debates, they are engaging in a political fight, where the use opponents may make of scientists' words are scientists' responsibility.
It's too late in the game for preciousness and pearl clutching over the fact that intentionally provocative interventions in the debate often serve those seeking to distort the debate—even when couched in terms of open-minded challenge to consensus climate thinking.
