1. I somewhat doubt that Climate Science can get out of its hole on its own. Can Science work effectively with the movement on Stewardship in Christian and other religious communities?
2. I agree that the data is clear enough. One widespread attitude seems to be that brazening through it will be OK, on which more data may make little impact. Alternatively, movies (like Wall-E, say) and other impassioned attempts to communicate apparently feed despair rather than encouraging activism, in response to which it is arguably rational, even if not moral, to enjoy the present. How can we change the Zeitgeist if it’s hard to believe that the political process in the US is unbroken enough to go against the self-interest group’s narrow focus and the self-interest of the individual voter’s now?
3. Science, historically, has not developed ethical and moral resources enough to insist on restraint (pace, inter alia, the descriptive economics, psychology, anthropology, and sociology of selflessness and its evolutionary cognates, which gives rather poor ground for prescription). To the contrary, Science often, albeit not universally, justifies itself as the conduit to new technological consumption. Science has brazened through, and sometimes stridently rejected, Philosophical and Historical portrayals of its sociological aspects, but these portrayals are given significant credence in wider society (a disconnect that arguably resulted in the Superconducting Super Collider calamity for the Physics community). The data can be dismissed as part of Scientists’ self-serving agenda, with at least some justification, in which case what authority might be claimed? Has Science lost the spiritual authority of the conflict of “Silent Spring” with the coincidence of Scientific and Industrial interests?
4. What is to be done about the unworldly, isolated, self-righteous Scientist? Isolated, that is, in his/her community of conferences around the world. Present company excepted, of course, all of whom I’m sure have won plenty of fist fights and arguments without bringing out the heavy ammunition of disdain, data and insight.
Short, longer, too long, and too close to the bone. All perhaps too hard and absurd to answer. My inclination is to be as brutally honest as I can find a way to be, but it does not feel as if other Scientists are willing to go there. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. I wish you luck with this thread, in the hope that others will do better.