Between conflation and denial – the politics of climate expertise in Australia

ABSTRACT

Scientific warnings about impending climate disaster and experts’ advocacy for more and better climate science have been largely unsuccessful for advancing evidence-based policy in Australia. Continuing expectations to the contrary stem from a reliance on the supposed ability of science to prime political understandings of climate change. This paper shows how scientists undermine this ‘deficit model’ ideal by conflating types and uses of evidence and expertise in policymaking. These tactics are unconvincing for conservative opponents, for whom climate science is far from the last word on what climate change means. This paper examines experts’ rhetorical tactics through the eyes of conservative policymakers and, thereby, proposes a strategy more likely to effect resilient climate adaptation and mitigation policies in Australia.

科学上对日益逼近的气象灾难的警告以及发展气象科学的专家倡议，并没能在澳大利亚促成实证的政策。相反，从对科学能力的假想到对气候变化的基本政治理解中，倒是产生了不断的期待。科学家在政策制定中将不同类型及用途的证据及专业知识混为一谈，对这种赤字型理想有害无益。它对保守的反对派没有说服力，在他们那儿气象学对气候变化可不能一锤定音。本文从保守的政策制定者的角度审视专家的言说策略。笔者提出的弹性策略或能影响澳大利亚气候适应及减缓的政策。

KEYWORDS:

• Climate change
• Evidence-based policy
• Australia
• expertise

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Adam Lucas, Darrin Durant and Matt Kearnes for their editorial support and assistance with the initial conceptualisation of this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Peter Tangney is a lecturer in Science Policy Studies at Flinders University, Adelaide.

ORCID

Peter Tangney http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3878-4034

Notes

1 Ridley's argument is coherent, at least at face value, with the otherwise-conflicting philosophies of Kuhn, Lakatos (1970, 91–196) and Feyerabend (1975, 135–46) amongst others. For instance, although these latter two were, respectively, for and against the existence of a formal inductive scientific method, both were critical of naïve ideals of falsificationism that would assume the unfettered ability of contradictory science to falsify a prevailing research programme.