Defending the science and the left/right political divide

What I want to explore a bit more here is the concept of uncertainty. At the activist/left end of the spectrum much of the focus is either on small probability, high impact climate outcomes, or on the near 100% probability that we need to act.

Why is there often so much partisanness in the discusion? Is the other side evil? Out to cause death and destruction because they love to see people suffer, or because they are greedy and heartless and only argue for their own interest?

Methinks these explanations are attractive because of the way evolution has shaped our nature. But, they are also rather inadequate. Much of the debate is done in people's spare time and with very little direct benefit for the participants. I believe people engage in climate debates out of idealism and secondarily for the entertainment value, so it's a mix of charity work and football supporter. Which does not answer though how people decide which side to support, or why there are two sides in the first place. Aren't the facts clear and supportive only of one course of action? Which is where we can come back to the subject of uncertainty and the limits of knowledge.

How can we predict outcomes? For smoking, apart from models and fundamental insights, we can take two groups and compare and see what harm smoking does. But for the probability of predicting ecosystem collapse or nuclear war? There aren't multiple Earths to do controlled experiments on and neither is the past a very good guide. During the Roman Empire there could be no nuclear war. There were no nuclear weapons. This rather limits extrapolation from the past. We haven't had nuclear war for over half a century, so it's a good bet we won't have one in the next month. But how probable is it in the next 100 years?

So, how does this give an explanation for the existence of two sides in the debate again?

There is no rational way to assess the risks of societal or ecosystem collapse or the benefits of technological developments far out into the future.

I tend towards the non activist camp primarily because I love technology and the promise for the future it holds, and secondarily because I am hopeful the world is moving towards complete peace in analogy with the evolution Europe has experienced over the last 50 years. Many other non activist minded people I think are motivated by what they think the free market does for people, and a distrust of the state limiting people's freedom. Activists I think worry about societal instability, as well, but as a consequence of the greed of corporations. And they worry a lot more about ecosystem vulnerabilities. Some of this is about values, sure, but a large part is about implicit assessments of unknowable probilities.

By now you must be wondering about the title I chose. What I am pleading for here is more awareness of the limits of science in deciding political issues, more awareness also of the danger that partisanness leads us to underestimate the reasonableness of opposing views.