Science is the tonic for climate doomerism

Over the Easter break I read an interesting article published by Professor Adam Sobel in Nature.  In it, he provides a really useful and humble discussion of the current state of the scientific consensus on the effects of climate change.  I say “humble” because he is quick to point out the areas where the current state of our knowledge is relatively weak and happy to admit the topics that require more research.  I was surprised, for example, that he equivocates on the question of whether hurricanes will increase in frequency in a warming world.  I had always assumed that they would, but apparently I was too certain.

When the questions of physical science end and the effects of climate change on human society comes into focus – the primary question posed in the article is “how doomed are we?” – Professor Sobel’s scientific detachment transforms into emotion and fear.  In response to the question posed he suggests that “It’s not a scientific question, because the terms are not well defined.  What does it mean to be “doomed”? And who is “we”?” Sobel doesn’t provide definitions, beyond saying “doom is a state of mind.”

But we can define these terms, meaning scientific principles can be applied. We should be able to assess the situation in a rational, detached manner.  Continuing to apply scientific principles as we extend the analysis of climate change into the realm of the social sciences is critical if we are to engineer a socially palatable solution to the unfolding crisis.  Professor Sobel states that “what should we do?” is not a scientific question, but of course it can, should, and must be informed by dedicated scientific inquiry.