SCIENCE and politics make uncomfortable bedfellows. Rarely is this more true than in the case of climate change, where it is now time for emergency counselling. One point repeatedly made at last week’s climate change congress in Copenhagen was that formulating an action plan to curb climate change is not the job of scientists.

Politicians may be left scratching their heads over what to do (see page 6), but at this stage climate scientists cannot provide more guidance than they did in the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for two reasons.

First, models will never provide a straightforward prediction of how the climate will change. As one Copenhagen delegate put it: “Tell me what the stock market will do in 100 years and I will tell you what the climate will do.” Second, as most climate scientists will agree, their role is not to formulate policy. They can provide more or less apocalyptic scenarios of what will happen if emissions hit certain thresholds, from burning forests to disappearing islands. But when politicians ask what is the absolute maximum amount of carbon dioxide we should allow to be

Time to end the climate of confusion

EDITORIAL

pumped out, the answer is, invariably, slippery: how much risk do you want to take?

There are ways out of the deadlock. As the major climate negotiations in December approach, scientists need to be able to take off their labcoats sometimes and speak as concerned citizens. Some may feel uncomfortable with blurring the line between science and activism, but they should be aware that no one understands the risks better than they do and no one is better placed to give informed opinions.

Politicians, for their part, should stop begging climatologists for easy answers. What they need instead is a new breed of advisers to

descend from the ivory towers of academia and join the climate fray – people who are willing and able to weigh up the risks, costs and benefits of various degrees of action. Risk managers, step up to the plate.

If all else fails, there may still be the safety net of geoengineering . As we have said on several occasions, this option can no longer be dismissed as fantasy. Reputable scientists are discussing options among themselves and with policy-makers, but the fact that we are even considering it should spur governments to cut emissions, cut them deeply and cut them fast. Geoengineering is no get-out-of-jail-free card; it has dangers of its own. The military are already taking an interest (see page 6), raising the spectre of climate weapons able to divert rainfall and bring drought. That is the last thing we want. ■

We need ways to bridge the gap between climate scientists and politicians

What’s hot on NewScientist.com

THE experts call it “dependency creep”. The global positioning system has grown to become a pillar of modern life at a time when our local star has been calm. Over the coming years, however, worsening space weather is likely to cause GPS failures on a weekly basis.

According to a recent National Academy of Sciences report , every signal failure could cost a single offshore oil rig as much as $2 million, as GPS is used to keep the platform in place. And light aircraft without backup navigation systems could encounter unprecedented dangers. This is just the tip of the iceberg, yet politicians are unlikely to react to warnings of possible space weather catastrophes. Perhaps more traditional ways of catching their attention – devastating loss of lives and money – will do the trick (see page 31). ■

Here comes the sun and it’s not all right

Arise, Roboctopus!

THE octopus is the inspiration for a project to build the world’s first soft-bodied robot (see page 18). They have no skeleton, just a hard beak, which means they can squeeze themselves into the smallest spaces. They are extremely smart too. Given their extraordinary abilities, the only wonder is that it’s taken so long to come up with the idea of a fully fledged roboctopus. With other marine biomimetic projects on the go, such as the robotuna , jellyfish and manta ray , the robo-aquarium can only be a matter of time. ■

“One point repeatedly made was that formulating a plan to curb climate change is not the job of scientists”

21 March 2009 | NewScientist | 3

NEWS Concept of “hypercosmic

God” wins Templeton prize French

physicist and philosopher of science

Bernard d’Espagnat has won this

year’s £1 million prize for studies

arguing that quantum physics

implies that reality must be partially

unknowable, or “veiled”

PHYSICS Faster-than-light

tachyons may be impossible

Relativity does not rule out a realm

of particles that can only travel

faster than light, but a new study

suggests such particles may be

fundamentally impossible

PSYCHOLOGY Personality tests

reveal the flip side of comedy

Climbing up on stage to tell jokes to

a bunch of strangers may seem like

the most extrovert of activities, but

comedians have revealed a surprising

shy side

NETWORKS Society’s vital

networks prone to “explosive”

changes Systems like the internet

or the network of global flight

connections have the potential for

unprecedented extreme behaviour,

computer scientists warn. Learning

more about their capacity for sudden

“flips” could help make the internet

more efficient

VIRTUAL REALITY

Immersion in the ultimate

virtual cocoon Researchers are

attempting to simulate all five senses

simultaneously to create the ultimate

virtual reality experience,

indistinguishable from the real thing.

Watch a video showing a crude

version of the concept

ENVIRONMENT Personal carbon

allowance for all? Limiting rich

people’s emissions, no matter what

country they live in, could lead to

a fairer climate deal, according to

researchers at last week’s climate

change congress in Copenhagen

Read these articles and more

at www.NewScientist.com