The Policy Lass

Imagine a discourse:

Unless either scientists be­come kings in their countries or those who are now called kings and rulers come to be sufficiently inspired with a genuine desire for scientific knowledge; unless that is to say, political power and science meet together … there can be no rest from troubles, my dear reader, for states, nor yet, as I believe, for all mankind…. There is no other way of happiness either for the state or for the individual….

Now … we must, I think, define … whom we mean by these lovers of science who, we have dared to assert, ought to be our rulers. Once we have a clear view of their character, we shall be able to defend our position by pointing to some who are naturally fitted to combine scientific study with political lead­ership, while the rest of the world should ac­cept their guidance and let science alone.

Ok, so I switched out philosophers with science and scientists, but Socrates raises an interesting question. Should we be ruled by scientist-kings? Should scientific knowledge be king?

Of course, I’m being deliberately provocative. I don’t really believe that our rulers should be scientists, although I’d be quite happy to elect scientists who ran for public office. I’d hate to see working scientists sully themselves in the mire that is politics and I know — I’ve worked as a writer for a major politician in my province.

Continue reading →…

I am really still working on a post, but am very busy at work with a new project that is taking up a lot of mental energy. I generally have an excess of mental energy (need to get more exercise) but this is more than usual. In the meantime, how about a round of the new game I’ve invented (well, robbed from various folks who have gone before me) “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic”.

Judith Curry seems to think that you throw chum out and let them churn in the blood-and-gut surf. That showing you listen and act polite when they spout drivel  talk about why there is no consensus, the data is corrupt, the scientists are cads, and it’s all a big left-wing godless liberal socialist plot to turn everyone into Marx-spouting zombies…

Uh. Sorry.

That showing you listen and are polite will do more to bridge some divide between those who accept the scientific consensus and those who reject it than calling them deniers and pointing out their idiocy.

Spending time at CA or Climate etc. or worse, WTFIUWT, tends to diminish my faith in human reason and logic. It makes me feel like girding my loins and fighting all the harder — or else gouging my eyes out with a rusty spork.

I’ve had a crisis of confidence lately in my role in the climate debates. I want to write seriously about them, because I feel as if this is the biggest challenge we have faced as a civilization, but I get so disillusioned when I see the same old same old from the usual suspects.

What is the best tactic for talking to honest skeptics? Should we assume all self-proclaimed skeptics are truly skeptical and play nice? Do I, with my snarkiness, drive a deeper wedge in between the truly skeptical and science? That would not be my goal at all.  I tend to assume that those who read here accept the consensus and need a bit of comic/snarky relief from the horrors at places like CA and WUWT.

So, what do you think?
Inquiring minds…

I’m working on a post but it won’t be ready for a while due to other commitments, so I thought I would start a new open thread so you can discuss anything your heart desires related to the topics at hand – climate science, denialism, skepticism, global warming — as long as it’s relevant, please feel free to indulge.

I’ll start with this bizarre bit of news re: Mark Lynas’s new book, The God Species:

In the news, Mark Lynas’s new book “The God Species” has apparently been pulled for review at Amazon.uk due to complaints of some readers that the paperback version is not what was described, or something to that effect. There is a bit of discussion as to whether this is his critics in the religious/environmental movement trying to scupper his book sales. Don’t know yet what to think but it appears to be on sale at Amazon.com and other venues.

I tried to go and read his blog for an update, but apparently, I am not permitted to access his blog. Don’t want to get all paranoid that he’s blocked me from reading his blog, so I assume this is a technical glitch resulting from concerns over possible hacking. He wouldn’t block lil ol me from reading his blog, do you think?

Over at Climate etc., the eminent Professor of history and political science Dr. Don Aitken, posted an article titled “How did we get into this?

.

According to Aitken, AGW “orthodoxy” is dominant in part because of a loss of religion, among other things.

In my opinion what has occurred is a slow and essentially unplanned process over two generations that involves a substantial increase in the wealth of our societies, technological changes that have helped us communicate on a global level in an unprecedented way, a strong rise in the educational levels of the population, the rapid rise in the importance of science and research generally, a decline in the importance of organised religion (though not in the USA), an associated decline in the belief that materialism will suffice, the growth of an environmental movement that has some of the characteristics of a belief system, and the rise of lobbying organizations and especially of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that purport to speak for, or act for, what they claim to be unrepresented groups of people or poorly understood issues.

Over at both Mark Lynas’s blog and at Collide-A-Scape, my comment has become a topic of discussion.

On Lynas’s blog, Barry Woods seems upset that I consider him an “enemy”. Hey, Barry — if the shoe fits… I haven’t been coy about this whole business. I believe it’s a war — a policy war. As such, there are allies and adversaries. There are strategies and tactics, weapons and intelligence. In this, if you’re not with me, you’re against me. It’s a very important war — perhaps one of the most significant. Scientists are not good at fighting wars. Honest and well-intentioned members of the public or media aren’t necessarily good at fighting wars. I wouldn’t have pegged Lynas as naive but maybe he is — at least about how his latest blog posts have become fodder for deniers.

Case in point: Lynas is lauded for being “honest” for criticizing the IPCC over the WGIII Chapter 10 and press release. Reading a little deeper, the implication is that everyone else on his “side” — aka AGW — is dishonest. This is the big lie that deniers spread — that we all know that climate change is a lie and that the IPCC is corrupt and we’re all just pretending, lying in order to line our pockets and bring about a new communist world order. His “honesty” then gets touted as a turnabout, a epiphany, and the imminent demise of AGW is heralded far and wide in the denialosphere.

More noise to obscure the signal.

At Keith Kloor’s, KDK33 suggests that I am guilty of noble cause corruption. I think that’s taking my comment a tad too far, but that’s to be expected. I didn’t advocate lying for the sake of some higher principle. I said that the “truth” he felt so compelled to state — and I don’t accept that it is a truth — in alignment with deniers, will be bent all out of proportion, tainted and turned from a ploughshare into a sword which they will then use to skewer him. I think good arguments have been put forward that Lynas got it wrong in substance, regardless of the fact that he agreed with McIntyre. I merely wanted to point out that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Here’s Keith Kloor:

In a comment at Lynas’ blog, Policy Lass, a liberal climate blogger, reveals what’s really bugging climate activists about Lynas’ highly publicized critique of the IPCC:

This is a war and as we all know, the first casualty is truth. This means that well-intentioned supporters of AGW who point out errors, perceived or real, serious or of no consequence, find their words used as ammunition to attack them and AGW in a cynical effort to affect public policy by raising unfounded doubt about the science. If you decide to speak out, you have to remember that no matter what your motives or intentions, your words will be spun to suit the needs of your opponent. Unfortunately, when you are involved in a war, you have to think strategically. Those who are naive about this become tools for their enemy’s advantage.

This is a variation on the Republican 11th commandment of politics, made famous by Ronald Reagan. Lynas, in refusing to muzzle himself, is likely to get squeezed further by the climate capos on the left.

Of course deniers are raising the alarm that we warmists / alarmists are on a witch hunt, throwing Lynas to the lions and all. That’s what they do — overreach is their specialty and modus operandi. It plays well to the crowd, who after all, are distracted from the real problems by circuses.

Continue reading →…

Over at Climate Audit, Steve has called for the sacking of the entire WGIII.

Here’s Steve:

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

Apparently even Mark Lynas thinks so…

…a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.

Why the histrionics strident language?

It’s the Special Report of WGIII and the press release that came out prior to the release of the larger document.

Now, we all know Steve is not a fan of the IPCC. His life for the past decade seems to be about auditing the IPCC and climate science used in it to determine if it lives up to the Mining Industry’s high standards.

He doesn’t think it does.

Continue reading →…