✖
Climate inaction and delay: Conspiracy or cockup?
There is much concern in some parts of society about recent political decisions in the US and elsewhere, described in terms such as "an assault on science".
But is it simply a matter of 'the bad guys' versus 'the good guys'?
If we wish to understand the problem and respond appropriately, we need to take a rational approach, look at the evidence, and reach an evidence-based consensus conclusion.
In fact, the evidence indicates the recent political changes are part of a larger problem where we are all 'bad guys' to varying degrees, and that the process of science can falter when its implications are unpopular with the wider population.
Our response should be to strengthen the whole process of rational policy making, and make it more science-based.
The 'assault on science'
Kit Yates et al [1] have published an article Standing up for science in an age of political interference. They are right to be concerned about many recent developments in the US and elsewhere that are often described in terms such as- undermining of expertise
- vilification of scientists
- political interference by popularist politicians
- a rise in conspiracy theories and disinformation.
Is it just a problem of 'the bad guys' versus 'the good guys'?
One assessment of the phenomenon [1] is that until recently, policy making has been evidence-based, but coordinated political forces are deliberately disrupting this - i.e. it is a question of 'the bad guys' acting in their own interests against 'the good guys' (the rest of us).Or is science struggling to cope with the implications of the changes needed?
Is it really the case that there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and the 'bad guys' are gaining ground? Is this the whole story, or do we need to look further?An alternative explanation (partly or wholly responsible) is that the political decisions are genuinely felt by the decision makers to be for the best, due to misthinking. One thing to be considered is whether this is part of a wider problem where we are all 'bad guys' to varying degrees and in some areas.
What is the evidence in climate change?
Action on climate change is obviously a key battleground, so it is worth looking at what action is being advocated - is there a dichotomy between the 'good guys' attempting to organise action in line with the IPCC, and the 'bad guys' denying any need for action (or at least is there a bimodal distribution of action advocated)?A bimodal distribution is not what we see - instead there is a spectrum of climate denial .
In summary, there is a spectrum of climate denial
In summary, there is a spectrum of climate denial and even the groups that should be setting an example of high quality evidence-based policy making are instead part of the spectrum of climate denial - not telling the truth, and not speaking up in support of those groups that are, such as Climate Uncensored and Just Stop Oil, with the consequence that Just Stop Oil activists are treated by the legal system as fanatics rather than whistle blowers.When the problems are so widespread, it is best to conclude that it is a systematic problem, rather than many individual failures.
What is to be done: Science-based decision making
What we think are the reasons for climate inaction and delay should govern how we respond.People talk of evidence-based policy making, as if that is adequate, but it is easy for decision makers to find some piece of evidence that fits with their preferred course of action and ignore the rest .
Instead we need the application of the full rigour of science - which will be referred to here as science-based decision making.
This is characterised by
- honesty and transparency
- pooling of evidence
- a reasoned explanation of any decision
- enough detail included or referenced to ensure that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion (reproducibility)
- aiming for a consensus of reasonable people by
- checking for consistency with others
- working with others to resolve any inconsistencies
- challenging anything inconsistent or misleading.
Practical implications
There needs to be- a programme of education to avoid errors (c.f. books on common statistical errors) such as
- common interpretation problems:
- mistaking association for causation
- inadequate sample sizes
- not comparing like with like
- inadequate sourcing - not being able to find a source within a few seconds
- logical errors
- thin end of the wedge arguments etc
- advocacy of high standards, use of checklists, and guidance for contributors to journals
- books and courses
References
| [1] | Kit Yates et al (2025) Standing up for science in an age of political interference BMJ 2025;388:r638 http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r638 |
First published: 4 Apr 2025