The observation that science and politics make uneasy and often treacherous bedfellows is hardly revelatory. In science, all hypotheses must withstand the trial-by-fire of experiment; its methodology is self-correcting and objective, unconcerned with petty prejudices or personal conviction. Politics, by contrast, is deeply entangled with ideology – it is not bound to respect reality as science is, and thinks nothing of substituting convincing evidence for emotive rhetoric. And yet, when science and politics clash, it is all too often science that loses.
This is clearly seen in clashes between scientific evidence and economic liberalism, which is defined by the belief that economies should be founded along individualist lines, with minimal governmental regulation. Strong support for the free market and private property rights are identifying features. This latter axiom of faith states that those who have obtained property are free to exploit it as they desire, with no obligation to others. This right is considered absolute, and anything that would interfere with the property without consent – often even taxation – is considered an infringement.
With some variation, these principles form the basis of the political philosophy of many organisations, think tanks and even political parties, such as the Libertarian Party and Tea Party in the United States and Australia’s ruling Liberal Party. Yet often, these fiercely individualist and regulation-adverse philosophies clash with science, with hugely detrimental consequences.
Climate change illustrates this well, because despite overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic influence, there is a tendency for those with pronounced free-market views to reject the reality of global warming. The reason underpinning this is transparent – if one accepts human-mediated climate change, then supporting mitigating action should follow. But the demon of regulation is a bridge too far for many libertarians. Given that climate change affects everyone whether they consent to it or not, then unregulated use of natural resources infringes the property rights of others and is ideologically equivalent to trespass, so the tenuous property rights house of cards comes crashing down.
I find sentences like this so arrogant. I doubt any any half decent scientist would be that absolute and close their minds on any issue including so called "Climate Change". There always has and always will be an unknown portion in things as complex as climate.
