March 4, 2010 
People seem to want to debate policy options, which I encourage. There may be other topics not covered in existing threads. Also, this might be a place to suggest new topics for posts.
Have at it!
About Policy Lass
Exploring skeptic tales.50 Responses to “Open Thread”
Leave a Reply to dhogaza Cancel reply
The Policy Lass
The Policy Lass 
Some comments by Daniel Sarewitz that I generally agree with:
The Guardian has done something that may be of interest. They took data and came up with their own graphs and visualisations, independent of any other organisation. Their results show what the denualists deny.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/05/arctic-sea-ice-climate-change-visualisation#
They even link to the data so anyone can try it for themselves.
Tamino has called out Watts in no uncertain terms whatsoever. 🙂
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/
New gate-du-jour, by the way: Wattergate 😉
A very interesting read about Watts at this link, including the comments:
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/more-on-anthony-watts/
Tim Osborne’s submission to the Parliamentary inquiry is always worth referring to.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2802.htm
And Wott’s Up With That is worth a look at.
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/about/
An interesting article by George Monbiot:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/08/the-unpersuadables/
@ willard
Thanks. Spot on.
Another intersting read, to show that management science is first and foremost an art of selling pitches:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2009/10/12/091012crat_atlarge_lepore
Here’s the article at the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/mar/08/belief-in-climate-change-science
Monbiot himslef is participating in the comments section.
Interesting option for hyperlinks so that the linked webpage isn’t ranked higher by Google. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow
rel=nofollow
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/09/exclusive-dr-george-woodwell-sets-the-record-straight/
Dr. George Woodwell sets the record straight.
The response to the [email] vandals is to bury them with the data and experience of a century of scholarly research and analysis. The information that is important in making the decisions as to how to manage our world is unequivocal and must be advanced, not as questions at the edge of scientific knowledge where scientist like to dwell, but as the facts that they are, facts as immutable as the law of gravity. The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution. This approach is uncompromising, partisan in the sense of selected for the purpose. It is not a lecture to undergraduates; nor is it ecology 101. It is a clear statement of what is required for government to do its job in protecting the public welfare. The scientific community has a firm responsibility in this realm now. This is not the time to wring our hands over the challenges to hyper-scientific objectivity, the purity of scholars, and to tie ourselves in knots with apologies for alleged errors of trifling import.”
More at the link.
Good post at Climate Progress. Scientists are in a difficult position re global warming. If they do speak out, they are labelled ‘activists” and their scientific objectivity is put in doubt, hence any research they do will be portrayed as ‘biased’ by their personal views. They will also be called ‘alarmists’ and dismissed. If they don’t speak out and later, if/when the science is shown to be correct in increasingly dramatic fashion and we are faced with serious disruptions and danger, scientists will be blamed for not speaking out earlier when they first knew the threat and risks.
The thing is that ordinary people are swayed by emotion and appeals to what they understand not cold rational and objective science expressed with all its uncertainties. That’s why Limbaugh is so successful — he appeals to people’s emotions and fears.
Monbiot is right — there are people who will never be swayed, not matter the evidence. They are anti-AGW for political or vested economic reasons and no amount of risk assessment and evidence will sway them.
Frankly, I wish we could convince some retired scientists to come out and form some kind of activist group and speak out publicly, using their knowledge and scientific expertise and experience as educators to speak directly to the public. They’d have to keep aloof from existing advocacy groups and be really open about any funding so they would be independent. No WWF or other advocacy groups as funders. If the science really is unequivocal, and if the threats are real and imminent (meaning in the lifetime of my children) then something like that is necessary. It would have to be clean, totally above board to retain as much credibility as possible for the scientists involved. No politicians. No industry funders. No advocacy groups. Just scientists and donations from the public.
I’ve been reading all day on the precautionary principle for a project I’m working on and I just keep thinking of how many people over the last century have died because of lax regulation when the science was pretty clear, of obfuscation by industry, of governments caring more about funders and re-election than protecting public health and the public good. It makes me feel helpless.
At times I wish they’d just put up banners saying “You’re all gonna die, and your grandchildren are, too, because YOU KILLED THEM!”
Thank god I’m not in PR 😉
LOL! I know. It’s so damn frustrating. I’m surrounded by people who downplay global warming, who argue that’s its all a hoax, that it’s alarmism, etc. The fact that we rely heavily on fossil fuels for just about everything where I live doesn’t help matters…
On a serious note, under those circumstances, the shill groups and certain DK-afflicted individuals would just lie. Why do you think Jim Hansen took to direct action?
And look what it got him – death threats. Whackos egged on by the denialist press and talk radio hosts.
H. sapiens sapiens, you say?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6900556.html
Climatesight on vexatious FOIA requests.
http://climatesight.org/2010/03/07/freedom-of-information/
Just posting the NOAA Paleoclimate webpage, which is a really handy categorised resource for when you’re in a hurry 😉
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/
Can I make a suggestion for your blog roll, Susann?
http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Does for WUWT what you do for CA.
Done. Thanks!
I’ve had my reply from the information commission regarding the claims that CRU had not played the game with FOI requests.
Basically they have told me the same old boilerplate they told CRU, which issue is summarised here:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/ICOcorrespondence
Contact me if you like and I can forwards the e-mail I recieved. Basically the FOI office have shown themselves to be horrifically naieve, insofar as their statement to the journalist made it look exactly like CRU was guilty, without any actual evidence or consideration being taken.
What happened at the comission seems to be that a Sunday tiems journalist asked them a question, and it was bumped all the way up the tree to the deputy comissioner David Smith, who was the one responsible for the badly worded statement.
Very bad communications on the part of the ICO. They obviously don’t have anyone skilled in media relations.
For once Roger says something sensible:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/trouble-with-climate-science.html
Despite the usual lips service regarding his own work, Junior points to a nice article by Daniel Sarewitz:
http://www.slate.com/id/2247487/
Almost too commonsensical.
Willard, his post appears rational and academic. However, it relies on an approach to the issue that I find highly suspect — the whole theory of post-normal science.
I disagree with this approach. As I argued in my earlier post Post-Normal Science – or [Pseudo] Sort of Science? there is no trouble with normal science / climate science per se except that it is under attack through the political / policy process.
There is a problem with the policy process and the political process.
People, Pilke Jr and Sarewitz included, act as if the problem is with science trying to influence the policy process, when in fact, it is really corporate power trying to discredit science in order to influence the policy process because it can’t win the science debate.
IOW, the problem is not uncertainty in science — it is this: the science is pretty certain. Entrenched cooperate power with a vested interest in this is unable to make its case against climate legislation because of the consensus and is therefore undertaking a campaign to refute existing science.
One need only look at the influence of K-Street on Washington to appreciate this.
The trouble as I see it is that corporate interests are trying to give science a black eye because they know they can’t win on the science front. The only way to win the policy war is to make action on climate change too politically costly to the incumbent government. It has to win via politics — via power and influence and by discrediting science. Hence, the denialist strategy of finding small holes and magnifying them through the denialist echo-chamber of astroturf orgs and blogs, thus smearing science and scientists and eroding public trust in science and acceptance of its findings.
So, sorry Willard, but I have to disagree with you on this. To me PNS is bunk. It’s post-modern bunk wrapped up in shiny paper and with a tidy bow, but bunk all the same.
A great example of McIntyre’s paraniod belief that the internets are out to get him
Oh oops, I got this from another thread on this blog! Please ignore, I thought I was reading elsewhere (how embarrasing!)
No problem. Promoting DC’s posts and blog is always welcome!
Another really good article:
http://thebenshi.com/2010/03/08/19-analysis-why-marc-morano-is-such-a-good-communicator/
Got to love to hate this guy.
shewonk,
The argument I find commonsensical is this one:
1. Science theories describe facts;
2. Policy regulations stipulate norms;
3. Deriving 1 from 2 is tough, most of the times.
(I weasel out of 3 because it’s not always impossible to derive regulative statements from factual ones, but let’s not enter into the is-ought debate, a debate I am even less inclined to discuss here than the post-normal bunk. In a nutshell, the post-normal bunk is interesting only insofar you are into Kuhnian bunk, as it is only a footnote to Kuhn’s framework, and I suspect that Ravetz promoted it in WTF to make sure he would not be read by philosophers of science.)
Anyway, I am sure I could find a quote on this very site where you state that policy matters supervene over science. That’s commonsensical, really, unless we could prove that science can settle political differences. That does not mean that policy makers should go against science, of course, but that means they have to take measures that go beyond scientific knowledge, which I am far from sure it should include economics.
What I find interesting from this article, in my most humble opinion, is that it underlines the “scientization” of political debates. This scientization is fundamental for those who wish extreme political views without discussing them.
Libertarians, to take an easy example, can engage the public simply arena without having to defend their strange political beliefs. They only want to talk about science, ya know. Free the data, free the code. Since they are selling books, they do not even talk about freeing debates anymore. Open the debate will have to suffice.
In any case, I can agree to disagree with Sarewitz, Junior, and even with you.
Willard, you don’t know how many comments I’ve started and deleted trying to respond to your post. 🙂 Great food for thought.
I am in basic agreement with you and Sarewitz — and even PNS — on this point: in a policy dispute as in over GHGs / climate change, arguments about science — its certainty or uncertainty and its basic conclusions — are often used as shields to hide entrenched political and economic interests and agendas (values and norms).
The outcome of the policy dispute rests less on the weight of the evidence than the power of those claiming an interest in the outcome. That’s politics and policy making is a political process.
I’m not saying this is how it ‘ought to be’. It is how it is, at least from my point of view as someone interested in the social political and economic history of the dispute.
In the case of the climate wars, some on the AGW side support an interventionist agenda and on the contrarian side, some support a libertarian agenda: both agendas speak more to how problems should be solved (government regulation vs. the free market) than whether the problem exists, although that is also a tactic used on the part of some contrarians. Science is used by the various players to support their particular agenda — the interventionists point to the consensus and the libertarians point to the uncertainties. The interventionists tend to accept government as a tool to address policy problems, whereas the libertarians tend to reject government as a tool to address policy problems. Note that this is at a very high level of abstraction — in a more concrete analysis there is far more mud than this.
The policy dispute will be largely solved by the policy makers based on their values and objectives, and chief among those are retaining power. There is no use in gaining political power in an electoral system only to lose it because of bad policy decisions hence, policy decisions are usually weighed heavily with respect to political fallout of action/inaction. Fallout is largely determined by how one’s base and one’s funders respond to a policy decision, withdrawing or maintaining support at the ballot box and at cheque book. Politicians will weigh the risks and costs and decide on an action that will hopefully allow them to retain or increase support from voters and funders while addressing the problem.
In my view, the lack of real action on climate change in the US and the developed world despite the consensus and preponderance of evidence is illustrative of the power of those who reject government intervention. Science is not an objective source of knowledge to use to inform policy disputes but a weapon in a war. Those with a more interventionist agenda hold up the scientific consensus as a sword, displaying it as proof that action — aka legislation — must be taken. The libertarians try to destroy that sword — undermine the perception of a consensus — by pointing to flaws in the IPCC report or areas of continuing uncertainty. Science becomes contested terrain.
So I agree on this point — further research and study is not necessarily going to settle this dispute. It will be possible for contrarians to argue that regardless of the science, adaptation to warming is preferable to the costs of mitigation involving government regulation. Interventionists will be able to argue that the cost of adaptation is too high such that mitigation and legislation are necessary. At some point, if AGW is valid and if nothing is done to mitigate GHGs, even those libertarians who are fundamentally against government intervention may find themselves agreeing to it because of the fallout of inaction, which would threaten the very free market and personal freedoms they so value, but I imagine they will hold out as long as possible.
Whether action is taken and what that action entails are political questions that will be answered by politics — aka power — not science.
In my personal view, the science is certain enough on the existence of warming and the threat posed to climate by the continued unregulated (uncontrolled) burning of fossil fuels. There are questions that remain to be answered and there must be more research — about future impacts given various policy responses, but the basic science in my view is certain enough to act based on the precautionary principle — which is part of my own value system.
We need balance, so here it is. Michael Tobis’ title says it all:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/03/daniel-sarewitz-is-wrong.html
Watch until the very, very end 😉
J,
You mean this:
Or this:
The article about Begley is quite good too.
Here’s another blog I never came across until today, and well worth a look at.
Watching the Deniers
Throwing a spotlight on climate change scepticism
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/
Thanks J Bowers! And I’ve never come across shewonk either, great site – will be adding this one to my feed. Mike @ watchingthedeniers
shewonk,
Your response was worth the editing. It might be a nice basis for a future post. Eli steals a lot from his mice’s, even from his own mind.
This theme carries an important message. I would surmise that this message makes you a policy lass, after all.
***
As for the science itself, Steve’s commenters are having a ball during his absence, and are beginning to philosophiz. It all starts with a comment from a certain brent, that has bears a certain relationship with what we are talking about right now:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/11/shut-eyed-denial/#comment-225416
Please take note of the comments from Luther Blissett, the real one for sure, before the zamboni flattens the thread.
shewonk,
Your response was worth the editing. It might be a nice basis for a future post. Eli steals a lot from his mice’s, even from his own mind.
This theme carries an important message. I would surmise that this message makes you a policy lass, after all.
***
As for the science itself, Steve’s commenters are having a ball during his absence, and are beginning to philosophize. It all starts with a comment from a certain brent, that has bears a certain relationship with what we are talking about right now:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/11/shut-eyed-denial/#comment-225416
Please take note of the comments from Luther Blissett, the real one for sure, before the zamboni flattens the thread.
Someone’s applied a bit of logic to what it would have taken to satisfy the data demands over at CA. You should read it 😉
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/05/phil-jones-called-out-by-swedes-on-data-availability/#comment-225435
And desmogblog has some handy figures concerning money being poured into anti-AGW think tanks and lobby groups.
http://www.desmogblog.com/partisanship-and-disinformation-surrounding-global-warming-taking-their-toll
Bill Gates does Antarctica:
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Learning/article.aspx?id=116
This forwarded message from a dendroclimatologist to CA, back in 2007, was pointed out on NeverendingAudit.
http://climateaudit.org/2007/03/29/a-free-swing-for-dendroclimatologists/#comment-83419
Pretty much sums it all up. For example:
Another denialist meme bites the dust at breakneck speed (sorry, but it’s got to the point where “sceptics” is becoming completely innapropriate).
http://www.knowyourplanet.com/climate-data/
Enjoy.
J,
The 11 responses from Steve in the thread makes one wonder the degree of freedom really was given to the dendros for their swing.
Does anyone happen to have a handy link to any kind of list of volcanic eruptions going back to at least 700 AD? Thanks.
Just How Greedy is Tony Blair:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/03/20/just-how-greedy-is-tony-blair-anyway/
How to upgrade canaris in coal mines:
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/coal-industry-mshas-appalling-record-on-emergency-equipment/
ProfMandia posted this link over at Skeptical Science. A graphical view of sea level rise for most coastal US cities (click on a city and move the cursor over the images to get an interactive update).
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/cutting_edge.html