Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate scientists Bruce Glavovic, Iain White and Tim Smith called for tools for future IPCC climate assessments and refused to receive further public funding, until governments realized they had to do what they were asked to do.
Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action
January 11, 2022 6.12 am AEDT
Bruce Glavovic Professor, Massey University
Iain White Professor of Environmental Planning, University of Waikato
Tim Smith ARC Professor and Future Researcher, University of the Sunshine Coast
Decades of scientific evidence unequivocally demonstrate that human activities endanger life on Earth. Man’s dangerous interference with the climate system combines many other drivers of global change.
Governments concur: science has settled. But governments have failed to act at the scale and speed needed. What do climate change scientists do?
…
Where to come for climate change scientists?
The first option is to gather more evidence and hopefully act. Continue the IPCC process that is politically neutral and does not follow policy guidelines. Recently editorial in the journal Nature calls on scientists to do just that: stay engaged to support future climate COPs.
…
The second option is more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy. As the recent Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes Was observed, the work of IPCC Working Group I (WHOLD, on the basis of the physical science of climate change) completed and should be closed. Attention should be paid to translating this knowledge into action, which is the area of WGII (on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WGIII (on GHG emission reductions).
…
Pause IPCC job until governments do their part
The third option is much more radical, but not as tasty. We call for a moratorium on climate change research it’s not simply noting global warming and bias.
Attention should be focused on exposing and renegotiating the broken socio-scientific contract. With the breach of contract outlined here, we call for a halt to all further IPCC reviews until governments are ready to fulfill their responsibilities in good faith and mobilize action to ensure ensure a safe level of global warming. This option is the only way to overcome the science of climate change.
Readers may agree with our framing of this tragedy but disagree with our assessment of options. Some may want to know more details about what the ban might cover or worry it could damage the credibility and objectivity of the scientific community.
However, we question whether our “duty” is to use public funds to further refine knowledge about climate change (which is unlikely to lead to the necessary actions), or whether a more radical approach would better serve society.
We have reached an important tipping point for humanity and the planet. With the tragedy unfolding, Postponing climate change research is the only responsible option for disclosing and subsequently reinstating the broken social-science contract. The other two options are charming but offer false hope.
I believe the government that funds climate scientists calling for a climate strike has completely misunderstood their social contract. In my opinion, the real purpose of government-funded research is to help politicians win elections. Politicians actually act on the “product” of scientists’ research, whose work they fund was never part of the deal.
“The whole purpose of real politics is to keep the populace alerted (and thus led to safety) by an endless array of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – HL Mencken.
I doubt climate scientists will be ahead of this strike. Pledges to refuse government funding are unlikely to fly with their peers – unless I’ve read them wrong, and they plan to keep taking the money. But I’d love to see them try. The experience will be educational.
Related
