Is the debate about climate science really about values?

Pielke Jr thinks so:

As I argued in my first essay in this roundtable, the justification of political actions in terms of science is a common feature of our politics, expressly because science is held in such high regard. Everyone (many scientists included) seems to think that by invoking the scientific correctness of his or her positions, he or she can reach a moral high ground that will trump the arguments presented by opponents (who, typically, also appeal to science). Science is thus viewed as a way to circumvent political discourse over values and interests.

For instance, we began this exchange with an invitation to respond to a question motivated by the statements made by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who expressed skepticism about the science of climate change. While we've been having this discussion, the Obama administration has decided to overrule the recommendation of an FDA science advisory committee on the safety of an over-the-counter contraceptive for girls under age 17. 

While many observers cast both examples as anti-science, neither has anything to do with being anti-science and everything to do with politics and values.

While I think Dr Pielke has half a point here, he is holding it upside down. The story of how politicians and voters end up butting heads over science may sometimes have to do with ill-judged appeals to scientific legitimacy, but more often they have to do with the rigid rationality of science bringing to the fore the irrational contradictions between our stated goals and values and our feelings (including our desires, gut instincts, prejudices). Science is attacked not in defense of our values, but rather to defend ourselves from our values when they conflict with our impulses. Science is collateral damage in an assault on our own values and interests.

Suppose you are a man of a certain age ordering breakfast in a restaurant. You want this:

But you know your doctor wants you to order this:

You enjoy being alive and being able to climb a flight of stairs or two without feeling like the air is being squeezed out of your chest. Therefore you and your doctor are not having a conflict about values, or about interests. The second breakfast is the right thing to do. But you want plate number one. And that is where the anti-science rationalizations suddenly become useful.

Doctors don't know everything. They keep changing their minds about what is healthy [but not about whether you should eat 3,000 calories for breakfast]. My father ate whatever he wanted, and he lived to be 80! [Diabetic, blind, and in a nursing home after three heart attacks.] I reject the tyranny of health nuts! Give me plate one!

The debate about emergency contraception is the same thing. It's not (mostly) about values. As a society, most of us agree that kids should have ready access to contraception. But Plan B does not feel like contraception. Even when we know the facts, a pill you take after sex to prevent pregnancy feels like an abortifactant. People who have no problem with kids having access to condoms don't want them to have easy access to Plan B. Because of how it feels.

Climate denial is the same thing all over again. It's not a debate about values. No one's values are served by endangering human civilization or by bringing about the extinction of 40%-70% of all extant species. Conservative, liberal, religious, atheist; that possibility should be equally offensive to everybody. Nobody will argue openly for hurting the poor so the rich can freely pollute, or impoverishing the world of our children so that we can continue to waste.

The things that climate science in combination with what their own values imply -- that's what deniers are running from, because their feelings bring them in conflict with their values. That is also the problem in engaging the broader waffling public. To act we have to think about the long term (hard). We need to spend some money and energy now for benefits that are mostly in the future (hard). Conservatives need to accept that in this area, governments will need to be active in preventing a tragedy of commons (hard).

Conflicts over values can be hashed out directly. People bring science into it mostly, I think, when the hard clear light of scientific reason shows them something their values and interests tell them they should do -- but they still don't want to. Rather than control their feelings and impulses to bring them into line with their interests, or modify their values, they attack the messenger. When they do they use whatever materials are at hand, drifting around in the zeitgeist.

For an American, that means populism, anti-elitism, anti-secularism. Scientists are attacked as leftist with an agenda, ivory-tower dons who have lost touch with reality, parasites subsisting off of tax dollars, distracted professors without common sense. None of these tropes are new; they have been around for decades, some of them for centuries. They can come tinged with anti-Semitism. But at the deepest level, science is not the true target of these attacks -- their purpose is to help people close the gap between what they know they should do (based on their own values and interests) and what they want to do (based on their feelings and desires).