I saw in the Guardian yesterday a really extraordinary article by Mike Hulme, a professor and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia. I could hardly believe what I was reading. Here's a taste:

What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy (ie we can't); it is whether we have sufficient foresight, supported by wisdom (ie we have opinions not facts), to allow our perspective about the future, and our responsibility for it, to be altered. All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge (ie forcing people to think like us) about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

The essence of the article seems to be, "the science does not support taking drastic action on carbon emissions, we therefore clearly need a new kind of "science"." I was so stunned by this doublethink I kept it open to write something about it. But Melanie Phillips has beaten me to the punch.

Is it just me, or does it strike other people as really strange that one of the leading authorities on climate change in the country abandons science?