Wizards of Climate Science: Ancient Magicians in the Court of Big Science

Abstract

Myths inform real-world decision making. Scientific simulation models can do the same. Neither reflects their real-world targets perfectly. They are most useful in an apophatic sense: employing them as the best tools available without confusing their indications with Truth. The actions and choices of wizards often reflect those of scientists; drawing parallels is informative and several questions will be explored within this framework. How is a climate scientist to respond when offered a Faustian agreement promising limited insights? As scientists, how might we better communicate scientific limits regarding which aspects of the future we can see clearly and which we cannot? Should we risk casting doubt on the as-good-as-it-gets science underlying anthropogenic climate change? If an electorate requires certainty of a threat before it will vote for action, are lies of omission or misrepresentation justified? Is it ethical for scientists whose research is relevant to the policy process to pause their typical vigorous scientific criticism of overinterpretation by others (particularly in sciences downstream from physical science) when their science is thought not adequate for purpose? Should scientists merely advise, presenting the relevant science as neutrally as they can, or advocate by emphasizing evidence that supports their preferred course of action, or become activists overselling their science to achieve well-motivated policy ends by whatever means required?