Latour's always had an earth-as-gaia thing, so this isn't all that surprising. It just seems like he's willing to take the side of scientists in a case where he sees them as pro-gaia, and others as anti-. More power to him, but, as someone who absolutely believes in climate-change, Latour's the worst person to have publically on your side. It's just fodder for denialists who will, correctly in this case, see his involvement as a politicized cherry-picking approach where one endorses the scientific findings that support one's personal values. Even if he's right about science being fundamentally politically-entwined, the optics aren't good.

This sums it up well

Also, given the state of the dispute and the current lack of confidence, we can’t just go back and state that climate change is “just a fact.”

Q: Isn’t it?

A: No, science is more complex and messy than to understand how the climate works. It is an illusion of certainty to state that we fully understand it, a remnant of the ideal of science. — the article linked

Is he right? It doesn't really matter. This is a glaring red target for anyone on the other side. If you're taking a public role as defender of the reality of climate change, interviews about this public role are the wrong place to bring up these concerns.

I see what you mean. I have only encountered Latour via articles and reviews so my knowledge of him is pretty scanty. I've also started to notice the various new-left and constructivist criticisms of science, partially through links and conversations on this and other forums.

But climate-change denialists will make fodder out of anything whatever, won't they? Here in Australia there are several entrenched in the upper echelons of government, and they're effectively blocking any kind of coherent policy. Australia had enacted a very successful carbon emissions program which they then dismantled with the promise to 'plant more trees'. And they've successfully muddied the waters to the point where many don't even know what to believe about it any more.

Admittedly, I don't know Latour that well either. I've read a few of his essays though, and didn't like them much. I have the feeling that if I hadn't encountered many of the (kantian and post-kantian) ideas in them already, his essays would have seemed so scintillatingly insightful that I would have been inclined to go along with the rest of what he says. But, having encountered those ideas before, the additional concepts he constructs from them seem like severely unjustified leaps. And, besides, he's something like the godfather of OOO which I absolutely can't stand - but that's a personal thing.

But climate-change denialists will make fodder out of anything whatever, won't they

Yeah, that's a valid point. I'm volatile on this issue, as I am on everything, but catch me on an average day, and you'll get quiet defeatism. I have little hope anything will change the course. Gaia, if there's such a thing, will be fine. Whatever happens to us, will.

I have the feeling that if I hadn't encountered many of the (kantian and post-kantian) ideas in them already, his essays would have seemed so scintillatingly insightful that I would have been inclined to go along with the rest of what he says. But, having encountered those ideas before, the additional concepts he constructs from them seem like severely unjustified leaps. — csalisbury

Not to stray too far off topic, but what you say about your reading of Latour here is something I've noticed more and more in my own experience reading a lot of philosophers over the past year and a half or so. I'm much less impressed by a lot of folks than I was at age, like, 20-25, because their sources and conjuring tricks are more transparent to me now. So I'm really glad to see someone echo this sentiment -- the first time I've seen/heard it -- since the few times I've ventured to articulate the idea with friends and colleagues it seems to come across as an arrogant dismissal, though I don't think it is.

It's got me thinking that a true understanding of many of these philosophers is like love, involving a sort of willful ignoring of their faults, and the age at which you encounter a philosopher is really key, because (e.g.) Latour is going to be better at convincing younger readers to become engrossed in his work. I take this to be a pervasive phenomenon in French philosophy in particular, with people like Cioran, Rancière, Badiou, even Onfray trying to win over Bac aged youngins to their style of thought probably more than their actual colleagues, consequently borrowing liberally from a lot of historical thinkers and subjects (e.g. math) without a huge amount of worry over rigour.

Is he right? It doesn't really matter. This is a glaring red target for anyone on the other side. — csalisbury

You make it sound it does matter. If it doesn't matter then why are you seemingly sounding alarms merely on the point that he says climate science is complex?

Even if he's right about science being fundamentally politically-entwined, the optics aren't good. — csalisbury

A problem if someone is right?

How strange.

"Optics" are politic speak. It sounds as though what matters most to you is the politics. And it is a problem when politics entangles itself in science. When science does not suit the politics of the day science inevitably gets manipulated.

Always about power and money.

Climate change and global warming are occurring. However, the majority of the data, from past and present, indicate that change is natural and not manmade. Global warming and climate change has been occurring, in modern times, since the last ice, when half the earth was covered in ice. More ice melted, before the start of civilization, due to natural climate change, than what is left in the polar caps. This did not destroy the planet, as the propaganda goes. It changed the planet, but life adapted.

The practical problem, with the manmade climate change assumption is, if true, it would be the first time, in the history of the earth, that man impacted the global climate. The earth has done this many times, but manmade would be a unique event to the earth, if it was true.

From a science POV, one data point event, from a very complex process, is not sufficient to draw a straight line with a fixed slope. You need at least two points. With one point, you can use any "angle" and still make the line touch a single data point. This is where fake news came in; reinforced the optics for the chosen angle. If we had two data points, the slope of the curve is defined by the data and not a subjective sales angle. The angle, being used by the majority of scientists is not making good predictions, since it is not the correct curve. They always overshoot the future.

An analogy is developing a new drug. We run a single one pill test with one subject, whose stomach ache goes way. We use that one event as proof the drug is a wonder drug for everything. One cannot factor out coincidence, if we only have one data point from a complex system.

On the other hand, earth induced climate change, is like aspirin, in the sense that this has happened on many occasions; hundreds of data points, allowing one to draw a clean curve, without the need for a clever emotion driven sales pitch. The single point conclusion is a magic trick. Bruno Latour is not able to see through the magic trick, so it is real to him, based on what he thinks he sees.