Activity 10
Climate change
Read the article by James Hansen, then consider the questions below.
Hansen, J. E. (2007) Scientific reticence and sea level rise. Environmental Research Letters 2: 024002 (6pp)
Elsewhere, James Hansen has written:
"Science and politics don't mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications. The complication is that the scenarios for climate forcings and climate change are a function of people's actions. Unless we make clear the relation between those actions and climate change, policy makers will not have the information they need."
Note: The Macquarie Dictionary defines "reticence" as "disposed to be silent; not inclined to speak freely; reserved".
Questions
- Do you think that, in the article on "Scientific reticence", Hansen just provides an "objective assessment" of the problem? Can you identify statements which do not seem to qualify as "objective assessment"?
- Hansen says that active researchers, such as himself, should "leave it to others to extract policy implications" because "science and politics don't mix". Does Hansen follow his own advice? Can you identify statements which make policy recommendations?
- Thinking about reports you have read, seen or heard in the media in the last few years, do you think that there is much "scientific reticence" when it comes to the issues of global warming, climate change and sea level rise?
- Reread the three paragraphs in the paper which start at the bottom of the left column on page 4 – "Under BAU forcing..." – through to the end of that section – the sentence ending "...greenhouse gas emissions path". This is one of the critical sections of the paper, for Hansen's argument. Does rereading this section cause you to reconsider your answers to the first two questions?