Naomi Klein: Why Science Is Telling All of Us to Revolt and Change Our Lives Before We Destroy the Planet


“But there are many people who are well aware of the revolutionary nature of climate science. It’s why some of the governments that decided to chuck their climate commitments in favour of digging up more carbon have had to find ever more thuggish ways to silence and intimidate their nations’ scientists. In Britain, this strategy is becoming more overt, with Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, writing recently that scientists should avoid “’suggesting that policies are either right or wrong” and should express their views “by working with embedded advisers (such as myself), and by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena’”.


Naomi Klein, the author of “The Shock Doctrine” and “No Logo”, is working on a book and a film about the revolutionary power of climate change.



I was shocked by the quote above taken from a statement by Ian Boyd at DEFRA concerning his advice that scientists should not criticise (“’suggesting that policies are either right or wrong”) government policy.  When I Googled “UK government criticism”, I found dozens of people and organisations from all walks of life offering criticism.  Why not scientists? They are specialists and I suggest that many if not most are extremely well qualified.  Are all climate scientists working for the government now?



“by being the voice of reason, rather than dissent, in the public arena.“ reveals that the word reason is a noun meaning mental analysis or explanation for an action.  Therefore when a scientist comments on a climate event, it may well be an explanation for an action and thus perfectly reasonable.  Without reference to a dictionary or the Thesaurus, I submit that dissent means to disagree.  Quite obviously, disagreeing with an explanation and using reasonable arguments are neither synonyms nor antonyms.  During a discussion, one can always offer reasonable dissenting opinions.