Koonin spends too much space in listing uncertainties of climate science. By that he creates an impression that I do not consider rightly balanced.
I do, however, largely agree with his concluding paragraphs:
Society’s choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
But climate strategies beyond such “no regrets” efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about “believing” or “denying” the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Even, if all the above is accepted and understood, I would expect that people continue to disagree strongly on the climate policy. There’s nothing here that is contradictory to requirements for strong immediate decisions, but what he writes explains, why people need not agree on that even, if their trust in the climate science itself is rather strong.
People who feel that urgent action is required are right in pushing for that, but they should recognize the reasons others feel genuinely that too much urgency may result in more damage than good.
