wellspring staff blog

Don’t you hate it just when you think things are clear, suddenly they get messy again? Under Turnball everyone seemed to be agreeing that climate change is happening, that we are (in part at least) responsible, and the prudent thing to do would be to act to curb global emissions. Then at the 11th hour Turnball is ousted, Abbot replaces him, climate skepticism is back with vengeance, and you and me - the average punter – is not quite sure what to think.

I will leave it to others to try and bring clarity as to the levels, causes, and responses to climate change. Instead I wish to reflect upon the function and nature of how ‘science’ is being used in this debate. Don’t worry at this point if you’re not a scientist, neither am I! I won’t baffle you with data.

What I find amazing is that we have scientists on both sides of the debate. Those who claim the science is clear – climate change is real and human induced; and those who claim the science is flawed. One ‘expert’ Tony Abbot cites is leading sceptic Professor (of geology) Ian Plimer. Plimer has won several awards, including a Eureka Prize for the promotion of science. And Plimer’s mantra is ‘don’t believe the science on climate change’. Astounding!

The profound insight to be gained here is this: scientists practice science, and even if ‘the science’ is neutral and factual (a position I believe is unsustainable), scientists are not. Scientists have agendas, they make assumptions, and they interpret results through personal biases. Should I mention at this point that Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies?

Some of you may be thinking that Ian Plimer sounds familiar. He may. In the 80s and 90s Plimer was an outspoken skeptic who claimed science has disproved God. He even took ‘creationists’ to court claiming they had been misleading and deceptive under the Trade Practices Act. So in one debate he claims science is factual and believable, yet in another he claims it is flawed and questionable.

Science has never disproved God, and it can’t. It’s the wrong tool. And the only people who believe it has didn’t believe in him in the first place.

If all science is agenda driven are we right to be skeptics? Yes and no. Yes, there is a place for being skeptical, usually when an adverse outcome is possible. But what the climate change debate demonstrates are also the limits of skepticism. It is possible to doubt everything. We can never have all the facts, and we can always find someone with a different opinion. But this doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t make a decision.

It’s possible someone has contaminated the towns water supply with cyanide, or that your lunch contains salmonellae. It’s possible that your car has been booby trapped so that it will explode the next time you start it. But you don’t worry about these possibilities. You aren’t skeptical about your food or water or car. And if you were we wouldn’t call you a skeptic, or intelligent – we would call you neurotic!

Every decision we make is made on partial information. As a planet we need to make decisions about climate change based on partial information and that’s OK. More risky is procrastinating, which has the same outcomes as siding with skeptics.
Decisions about God are no different. We all have to make decisions about whether or not God exists on partial information. There will always be doubters, and those with different opinions. But to fail to decide, to procrastinate, that is in effect the same as deciding God does not exist. That is, I think, what Jesus meant when he said he who is not with me is against me.

David Rietveld