It might seem that the difference between science and politics is crystal clear, but the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen suggests that the difference becomes blurred when it comes down to a discussion of practical measures to solve a major global problem. The moment that scientific questions touch upon a politically charged topic, the game rules become political.

In politics, the key is the strength of your coalition. That is, the group sharing your point of view must be stronger than the coalition supporting the opposing viewpoint. In ancient times, to be “stronger” you often had to be physically more powerful. Now, the strongest group is the one representing the majority.

A majority of the countries participating in the climate change conference support the rapid introduction of limits and quotas for environmental pollution. In a big development, China is now a member of that majority. With a population of 1.3 billion — almost one-sixth of the global population — it cannot afford to ignore the fate of the planet.

Now the task is to convince the developing countries to join the effort. Limiting pollution levels would mean limiting their opportunities for economic development, exacerbating the already large gap between rich and poor countries.

The poorer countries are being induced to support the initiative with financial aid. Last week, it was announced that developed countries would allocate $10.5 billion to developing countries over three years to help them fight climate change. The idea is to assist those countries to somehow “skip over” the development stage that typically involves the heaviest emission of pollutants. The wealthy countries, where pollutants per capita are decreasing, will help bring the developing countries up to a modern technological level.

But economists have yet to find a reliable method for ensuring sustainable growth for developing countries. In his book “The Elusive Quest for Growth,” former World Bank economist William Easterly documented 50 years of unsuccessful attempts to help developing countries develop. But by its very nature, the plan to include poor countries in the battle against global climate change implies a much larger project than simply helping them achieve sustainable growth.

To what extent is the climate agenda based on hard scientific evidence? Those involved tell us that the proposed pollution-fighting measures fully reflect the recommendations of 80 percent of the scientific community. But this overlooks the fact that in science, an 80:20 ratio — or even a 90:10 spread — is far less convincing than it is in politics. When 80 percent of the scientists disagree with the other 20 percent, it effectively means that there is no solid scientific basis for taking practical measures.

It would be great if we did have one, though. The recent “Climategate” scandal in which hackers attacked the server used by the Climatic Research Unit in Britain clearly shows that it is necessary to fund and organize climate research in such a way that scientists are protected from the state’s political interference and even from their fellow scientists. For much less money than has been needed to combat the economic crisis, it would be possible to establish permanent climate-research centers at leading universities and provide them with all of the accumulated data that they require for their work. In that way, the political majority would have a more solid scientific foundation on which to base its decisions.

Konstantin Sonin, a visiting professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, is a professor at the New Economic School in Moscow and a columnist for Vedomosti.