"Science can't settle what should be done about climate change"

In The Conservversation, British geographer Mike Hulme argues that "(t)he debate about climate change needs to become more political, and less scientific." Quoting Myles Allen, he says that "even the projections of the IPCC’s more prominent critics overlap with the bottom end of the range of climate changes predicted in the IPCC’s published reports". Thus, the question of what we are going to do about climate change has nothing to do with scientific consensus: "As Roger Pielke Jr has often remarked in the context of US climate politics, it’s not for a lack of public consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change that climate policy implementation is difficult in the US."
Mike Hulme argues that we need more disagreement instead of consensus on questions which extend far beyond science.

For example on questions like:

• How do we value the future, or in economic terms, at what rate should we discount the future? 
• In the governance of climate change what role do we allocate to markets? 
• How do we wish new technologies to be governed, from experimentation and development to deployment?
• What is the role of national governments as opposed to those played by multilateral treaties or international governing bodies?

These questions indeed have nothing to do with whether we agree upon scientific evidence or not, because " they entail debates about values and about the forms of political organisation and representation that people believe are desirable. This requires a more vigorous politics that cannot be short-circuited by appeals to science."

These are not really new arguments, but there is still missing a serious debate about what such terms like "disagreement", "values" and "more vigorous politics" actually mean - the return of the political into the climate debate hasn't even started yet.
(The photo above was used by the editors to illustrate Mike Hulme's article. The subtitle goes "Kiribati: island in danger. copyright: United Nation photo." Maybe we should also question the iconography of climate change).