A few days ago I came across with a statement made by a an ex-rally driver and a current  member of the European Parliament Ari Vatanen on climate change. Vatanen saw climate change as something which had very little to do with the actions of human beings, and went on to state that “Our enlarging carbon footprint is only a sign of the welfare we have created for ourselves” (I was only able to find the comment in English from a Greenpeace blog, if someone can find the comment in English from a source that can be seen as more “neutral”, plmk). Thus,  for him all the effort put into reducing the emissions on carbon dioxide seemed somewhat useless, or even more, harmful, since it hindered us from achieving higher growth figures and wealth. On Vatanen’s opinion, high carbon footprint could be seen as a good thing, and instead of trying to tackle climate change we should be paying attention to other issues, such as the development of the developing countries.

I personally disagree with Vatanen over the issue on climate change, but got curious on why or on what grounds does he think the way he does, especially since climate change and humans’ role in it has become accepted more and more as a fact. From his website I found a few links which backed his views (list here, mostly in Finnish). Even though the list did not seem very convincing for me, I spent the next few hours reading different views and opinions over the topic. What struck me was that it seemed that for many the question was no more a scientific one, but more a matter of opinion: first choosing what to believe and then choosing from the massive mountains of research (or blogs) the evidence that backed one’s beliefs.

Needless to say this can be applied to both camps of the climate war, and overall, there is nothing wrong in expressing opinions, quite the contrary, but I started wondering at what point had a possible matter of life-or-death become one of opinion. If we accept that climate change is basicly a scientifical issue, then wouldn’t it be best to leave it for the scientists? I admit that the world of science is far from harmonius one, but then again, anyone who has spent years studying the subject seems to me to be in a better position to take part into the conversation than someone who, well, hasn’t. What is the purpose of a politician expressing his or her views in a way that Vatanen does and being so sure about the case, as not even the scientists, who have spent their whole careers on the matter, cannot completely agree? Furthermore, what would it take to convince Vatanen to change his mind? One of the principal ideas of any science is that one gets closer to the truth by viewing the work and findings of others and taking those into consideration in your own work. If the debate on climate change is done from “locked” positions based on evidence that corresponds to one’s likings, then there is not much room for this kind of learning.

I suppose what Vatanen is really doing is trying to get the lunch ticket of a politician, e.g. votes in the upcoming EU elections.  The problem with Vatanen’s views is that he actually is in a position to make a difference, even though not a very big one. On the other side, if the matter would be left entirely to scientists, that would exclude not only the people from decision-making but also kicking out many of the ideals and values of the democratic societies. However, if the threats of climate change are as high as it has been said, can that kind of matter be left for the politicians who might have no expertise over the matter? Since the climate scientist did not tell Vatanen how to drive his rallycar, on what grounds can Vatanen tell the climate scientist what kind of research results to expect?

Needless to say, Vatanen has all the right in the world to express his views, already due to the (very slim) possibility that he is right. Furthermore, there lies a also danger in excluding people (people including politicians) from the debate. Even though scientists and scientific results should have the biggest weight over the issue, others too should be able to grasp the issue; if not, who knows what topic would be next considered as “too important” for the people to decide. However, what I would like to see is that politicians such as Vatanen would also leave room for the possibility that they are wrong, and see the issue not one of opinions and choosing sides but rather as a scientific, in which they might lack the expertise. Sure, the same thing can be said to the other side, but then again it seems that they are referring to more than one research in their arguments and in general they tend to answer the questions thrown at them with more scientific arguments. Furthermore, the cost of being wrong is likely to be more higher with the sceptics than with the others. If the climate is not man-made and, moreover, does not form a threat of any kind, we have wasted few hundreds billion dollars but thats it. On the other hand, if it is but nothing is done to stop it then the price is likely to be a whole lot higher. In any case, a price too high to be left to be decided on the basis of locked opinions.