Room for Climate Debate:
Perspectives on the interaction between climate politics, science and
It is written by Jeroen van der Sluijs, Rinie van Est and Monique Riphagen. It’s lengthy, but the abstract sums it up. You can read the abstract in full at von Storch’s site.
The Rathenau report looks at the interaction of science and politics. It concludes that politics has come to rely on science to tell it what to do. More science means more knowledge, and thus less uncertainty. The problem, however, is that this approach leaves little space for debate. As a result, the political debate moves to science, which in turn leads to politicised science.
The authors recommend more dissent be allowed in the process, which will certainly not be welcome by those who have hijacked the scientific process for the purpose of achieving political aims.
In the abstract the authors write:
To depoliticise science and offer more room for the political debate, more space should be given to dissent opinions, sceptic as well as alarmistic. More openness about uncertainties in scientific knowledge and more room for these dissent scientific views in the IPCC reports would restore the political debate and enhance societies’ capacity to deal with this uncertainty.
Keep in mind that the InterAcademy Council will publish its evaluation of the IPCC this month. Climate science has come under heavy fire since Climategate and the discovery of mistakes, gaffes and alarmist exaggerations in the last IPCC report.
The IPCC process is broken, and needs to be overhauled. Will the InterAcademy Counciltake the Rathenau Institute’s advice and allow dissent, or will it be just another corrupt whitewash?
Both, politics and science can work only if they are open to dissenting view and opinions. Anything else is authoritarian.