Indeed, those who study the climate itself rather than the bogus debate in the newspapers and the blogosphere understand that climate science and popular perceptions of climate science are diverging rapidly, not least because the news on the former is getting worse.

Indeed. But there’s something of a perception lurking around here that ‘science’ is one thing and ‘politics’ another, which I think is false.

It’s certainly the case that whatever ammunition denialists use against climate science is not itself part of the ‘skepticism’ which is said to be integral to the scientific method. Rather than proposing an alternative hypothesis which would better explain the range of observations made, any line of attack is used, no matter how contradictory with others it may be. So, what we have in denialist discourse is all politics, and no science. No scientific method.

It’s important to underline this point. What denialists cannot provide is anything which can approximate to a truth statement. Methodological doubt, Cartesian style, is supposed to be a prelude to the uncovering of a truth, not a rhetorical strategy of dismissal. Climate change skepticism, contrary to the claims of some of its proponents, has absolutely nothing to do with ‘The Enlightenment’. Quite the contrary.

Their other classic move is to hold science itself to an impossible standard. Somehow the findings of climate science have to be unequivocally true. What we actually see, then, in this contre-temps is a debate over what constitutes truth. Statements made by the IPCC, for instance, are couched in terms of Bayesian probabilities, rather than ‘predictions’. It’s the same form of statement as with genetic predispositions individuals may have to particular diseases; having such a predisposition does not imply that one will necessarily develop the disease. Probability is not destiny or fate. But probabilities of 90%, as in the IPCC’s Fourth Report, are very strong indeed.

But asking science to articulate truth, if truth is understood as incontrovertible knowledge, is asking it to do something it cannot do.

Nor is the process of reaching a consensus the only method of achieving scientific truth. Statements such as that a 2 degree rise in global temperature is a ceiling beyond which catastrophic climate change will occur are artefacts of a particular process, which is not unrelated to the previous adoption of that range in EU public policy. That’s not to say that it has no merit, or isn’t ‘true’. If anything, the likelihood is that things a lot worse than envisaged will happen if temperature can be restricted to this range, for a range of reasons. The ‘consensus’, then, is likely to be more conservative than the actuality.

That’s also because the model of expert knowledge being the foundation of public policy is an out-dated one – politics and values always intervene, and must intervene, in the process of arriving at a mediation between science as truth and policy as truth effect. To the degree that scientists are being asked to do something other than what a notion of a bounded rationality would suggest, it’s best that they, and we, recognise this. The imbrication of science and values is not of itself a problem, or need not be. Here we can learn from Max Weber’s insights in Science As A Vocation.

In Hamilton’s writing, as in the work of others who are concerned about science communication in a political context, there seems to be an implicit belief that communication is a straightforward process of explaining science to a public. That is not so. And not just because some publics lack knowledge of scientific process, but also because there are different cultural and affective dispositions which inflect how the message is received.

It’s not the case that communication on climate science fails because it’s mediated through a political lens, full of noise created by denialists and politicians and the media. Or rather, it’s not wholly true, because communication is never linear, but always mediated. The challenge is not better to communicate a truth, but rather to realise that the construction of a truth is always via mediation, and that values and politics are, and must be, part of that.

To circle back to the question the post posed; Pilate asked a good question. But the answer to it is not that the truth cannot be discovered. It is to recognise that truth is a matter of persuasion, involving particular dispositions among interlocutors. Values and fact, therefore.

Previously on LP: Communicating climate science.

Reports of the amount of money the Libs have been spending suggest that they must be seriously worried about Higgins. It’s difficult to say from this distance, but a number of observers suggest that The Greens’ Clive Hamilton has not run much of a grass roots campaign. That could be scuttlebutt, and I’d be very interested in any views from those closer to the action. But the prospect of the Liberals losing Higgins to The Greens is quite an extraordinary one, and the converse to the ‘Labor should have run’ argument is that it would be an even greater reverse for the opposition than the seat falling to the ALP (though, as Hugo Kelly and Rebekka Power argue, it could be a case of Labor strategists being too clever by half in handing The Greens an inner city Melbourne base).

If Hamilton runs Kelly O’Dwyer close, it will highlight the absurdity of the argument that the Liberals, in rejecting the ETS and elevating Abbott, were playing to their ‘base’. If Higgins isn’t a blue ribbon Lib seat, it’s hard to think of one. As Antony Green observed, while the margin has sometimes been deceptively narrow, the consistency of the Liberal hold on the areas that make up the core of the electorate is what counts.

The other fascination about these by-election contests is that they represent the first test of the new Liberal leader in seats held by one of his two predecessors this term (both of whom now hold sinecures courtesy of Kevin Rudd and the Labor government), and of course, the former electorate of the Great Pretender to the Liberal crown. A loss in either one would be a devastating blow. I wonder how the results will be called, and if there’ll be a bit of bar raising by the commentariat, but serious reverses on the primary vote in either or both seats should speak for themselves. Again, the case for Labor not running candidates in by-elections in Liberal seats is that the focus will be all on the opposition, as opposed to the usual media predictathon when governments lose traction at by-elections.

It should be interesting to watch both unfold. Please feel free to add any reports and links to this thread throughout the day!

Update: The Liberals have retained both seats, it would appear with increased margins on the 2PP. Looking at Higgins, the key is the fact that the Greens’ primary vote is less than Labor’s at the 2007 general election. [Update: That previous comment was made with a number of booths still outstanding. But see also this analysis from Rebekka Power.] It’s evident that there are a fair few ALP voters who won’t vote Green, something I noted on a number of occasions. No doubt these results will be spun as a great victory for Abbott, but the missing element in the equation is the absence of a Labor candidate.

Having said that, I still think The Greens made a big mistake by nationalising the contest, and running a candidate like Clive Hamilton. Kelly O’Dwyer’s ‘Mayor of Higgins’ campaign capitalised on his outsider status well, it would seem. I suggested previously that The Greens might have done better to run a well known local – parochialism always plays well in by-elections, particularly against blow-ins, as the Liberal research no doubt showed. As I intimated in the post, there may have been an element of expectations management going on, with the Libs talking down their chances in advance of the vote.

But I think it’s fair to say that The Greens won’t, and shouldn’t be, happy with the outcome.

But the Libs shouldn’t be all that happy either, as they know full well they ran defensive strategies avoiding the big issues of national politics. These seats should be a total shoo-in for anyone with the Libs’ label on the ballot paper.

The final verdict – the whole thing is probably a bit of a side show.

While Possum appeared to believe that The Greens had a shot at Higgins (and blew it with the preselection of Hamilton), Antony Green is much more sceptical. In a new post on his election blog, Green highlights historical data demonstrating that the margin in Higgins somewhat belies how safe the seat probably is in reality. He also argues, on the basis of a number of federal and state by-elections, that a prominent local may well have been a better pick, a point I also made in my post.

In both Cunningham and Fremantle, the Greens ran candidates with local credentials who could concentrate on local issues, classic think global act local politics. Yet in Higgins the Greens have done the reverse, choosing a candidate who lives in Canberra and has no links to the electorate, and is running on a climate change agenda that can only be described as act global politics. It is the exact opposite of a previously successful Green strategy.

As Andrew Norton observes, Hamilton criticising seems to be a politically ecumenical practice in the blogosphere.

Guy Rundle puts a contrary view.

I’m by no means enamoured of some of the ideas Hamilton has put forward over the years, but I don’t know that judging him on that basis is necessarily the most appropriate mode of evaluating his prospects as a political representative. I was also struck by Guy Beres‘ comment:

It’s all a bit incestuous when you think about it. The Greens famously courted Peter Garrett on numerous occasions before his controversial decision during the (pre-explosion) Latham era to join the Labor Party. In years past, high-profile players within the Labor Party organisation seriously entertained the idea of Malcolm Turnbull joining the ALP’s ranks. One does wonder whether Clive Hamilton would be considered an asset as a candidate by the Labor Party. Clearly his strong views on the nature of modern capitalism, climate change and stringent opposition to nuclear power paint him as more of a natural Greens candidate. Leaving aside the much debated travails of Peter Garrett for a moment, just what sort of impact could a few high-profile leftish intellectuals have on the parliamentary Labor party?

My other observation would be that I’m not sure that high profile candidates necessarily fare better in by-elections, where the name of the game isn’t really to attract national media attention, but grass roots campaigning on the ground. I have no knowledge of the degree to which Hamilton has or has not been involved in community politics and campaigning on a local level in the suburbs encompassed by Higgins, but my general view would be that such a candidate would be a good bet for an increased vote. In light of the commentary around the Higgins by-election as a barometer on climate change policy, The Greens might have been thinking that’s the better tack to take.

It’s going to be an interesting contest, whichever way it pans out.

Previously on LP: A couple of earlier posts on the Higgins contest.

Update: Legal Eagle.

Update: Hamilton on Hamilton.

Update: En Passant.

Update: Since this post has largely focused on Hamilton rather than electoral strategy and the likely outcomes in Higgins, I’ve put up a new one on that topic, linking to a recent analysis from Antony Green.

Australia is in the midst of a flat-screen TV crisis, says Clive Hamilton. Driven by an insatiable desire for “stuff”, we spend more time chasing money and less doing the kinds of things that would really make us happier and more fulfilled — spending time with friends and family, getting involved in the local community, and developing our skills and creativity. Greed and materialism are making us miserable.

But there’s no evidence that people in affluent countries like Australia are greedier or more materialistic than in the past. The major reason we buy more stuff is because stuff has become cheaper. The increase in working hours is not being driven by an increasing desire for stuff but by increases in the cost of things like housing and services.

Hamilton, to put it mildly, has some questions to answer around the basis for his “Affluenza” claims. It would also be interesting, also, to trace exactly why such claims seem to strike a chord.

I’ve long thought this sort of mindset is particularly politically pernicious, and so I’d completely endorse the conclusion to the post as well:

The affluenza myth is both self indulgent and dangerous. It’s self indulgent because it allows affluent, educated people to blame the world’s problems on the consumption habits and psychological weaknesses of less educated, households. And it’s dangerous because it distracts attention away from serious social problems such as the lack of affordable housing for low income earners and the problem of raising taxes to fund redistributive policies in the future.

The ALP under Rudd is in fact far more moralistic and authoritarian than the Liberals ever were.

I think that’s far too broad a statement, and could be contradicted with evidence from other policy domains. And needless to say, there were enough Howard Ministers – Tony Abbott being one who immediately comes to mind – who could trump almost anyone when it comes to sanctimonious authoritarianism. It’s more accurate to say, in my view, that the arguments of “communitarians” provide useful cover for left ALP ministers (for instance, Gillard, Tanner and Macklin) to sign on to an agenda which actually derives straight from the Catholic right, and which has more than a little political calculation behind it – both in terms of Senate numbers (and the cohesiveness of the ALP Senate caucus itself) and also in terms of skimming some votes from churchgoing socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals.

A very similar dynamic is observable with regard to the arguments of the Noel Pearsons and Warren Mundines of this world – in that they provide cover for authoritarian interventions in Indigenous affairs (and increasingly in social policy more generally). The basic mindset is the same – worrying about the breakdown of norms and the absence of community. The communitarian stream of political philosophy – which largely developed in the 1990s and has strong affinities with “Third Way” politics – generally bemoans the alleged fracturing of moral values and shared ethics and places the duty on the state of recreating community in its absence. Very often, the practical and political application of such views has more than a tinge of racism about it. The goals set can never be achieved (which is useful politically for the more canny operators), and a lot of the concern is misplaced and wrongly framed, but a lot of damage can be done along the way by state intervention. Also writing in Spiked, Guy Rundle is much more sensitive to the real political dynamics of moralistic social democracy than Miller.

Probably the best way of understanding what’s going on is in terms of the clash between post-materialist and materialist politics. Labor governments need their own discourse to recapture those who “should” vote for the centre-left on economic grounds, and moralism and campaigning about the dire effects of pr0n and binge drinking or whatever provides the missing piece of the puzzle. But it is very much the case that such attitudes – or at any rate similar attitudes – cross the political spectrum, and that’s why it’s far too simple to judge one government as more authoritarian than another. There is a reason why Miller is partially right in suggesting that the left’s response has been “anemic” but again I think she’s too predisposed by her political dispositions to be an objective analyst in this instance. That reason has to do with – yep, you guessed it – the same legacy of 60s libertarianism Hamilton rails against, but it’s a big issue, and one I’ll return to shortly in another post.