In the Shift

Previously I’ve talked about Climategate as akin to what happened to Monsanto in the backlash agains genetically modified foods, or to the dubious science used to link MMR vaccines to autism.

But my favourite interpretation that Climategate is a Tiger Woods moment.

Tiger Woods is a great golfer: the best of his generation. But Tiger Woods became much more than a golfer: he became a brand, one of the biggest brands in world sport. Woods came to define the intrepid quest of the senior manager (Accenture), character (TAGHeuer), performance (Gatorade), and victory (Nike). I doubt if Woods had much involvement in building that brand other than cashing the cheques; but when his personal life hit the headlines in 2009, he was judged by the values in the brand that had been constructed around him – a brand that came crashing down, taking him with it.

Climate change also became a brand, one that was built around a strong scientific consensus. Emboldened (as only outsiders can be) by their new found status as visionaries, climate change scientists plunged into public policy, ethics, culture, and economics. Many politicians, journalists, civil society groups, and business leaders listened, and in their own ways created the brand. Brand Climate Change grew, and became as values-driven as it was evidence-based.

Scientists did not build this brand, although some were happy to contribute, often by talking on issues about which they were as naïve as they were assertive. But the brand was irrevocably connected to the science just as Brand Tiger was welded to golf. In a Tiger moment, it is not Climategate’s assault on the science that matters as much as the accompanying serious blows delivered to policy, public opinion, private sector attitude, and all of the other elements of ‘non-science’ that ultimately combine to legitimize any scientific belief, and without which scientific beliefs cannot be harnessed to influence human behaviour.