http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/carbontrading.html

I have to be honest, I’m amazed I don’t see more climate scientists talking about an Apollo program.

Using hurricane impacts to justify emissions reductions is simply a misguided argument. As we wrote in BAMS in 2005:

“But a great irony here is that invoking the modulation of future hurricanes to justify energy policies to mitigate climate change may prove counterproductive. Not only does this provide a great opening for criticism of the underlying scientific reasoning, it leads to advocacy of policies that simply will not be effective with respect to addressing future hurricane impacts. There are much, much better ways to deal with the threat of hurricanes than with energy policies (e.g., Pielke and Pielke 1997). There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes (e.g., Rayner 2004).”

I specifically discussed the ED statement here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000899how_to_make_your_opp.html

And if you’d like a slightly less concise statement of the fallacy of using disasters to justify emissions reductions, see this short article that Dan Sarewitz and I wrote last year:

Sarewitz, D., and R.A. Pielke, Jr., 2005. Rising Tide, The New Republic, January 6.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1694-2005.01.pdf

In turn, I’d be interested if you think that justifying greenhouse gases based on hurricane impacts is a sound policy argument.

Thanks!

Reading the op-ed made me wonder if it was a climate skeptic’s plant intended to discredit those who believe and publicize the coming impacts of global warming and the need to decarbonize the global energy system.

I have been an environmental activist for nearly four decades. The quality of discourse, serious examination and national-level political advocacy environmental groups and spokespersons apply to the global warming concern sadden and anger me.

Tidwell’s piece was a high volume rap rendition of what has been phrased in the more sensible, believable tone of the US Climate Assessment Report — similar conclusions minus the rhetoric and sensationalizing.

Thanks. A few replies to your question.

Participating in an advocacy event, whether sponsored by Environmental Defense, National Environmental Trust, or the Climate Institute, is advocacy, pure and simple. It works both ways of course, and many of the so-called climate skeptics have been criticized appropriately for cozying up to fossil fuel interests or the political Right. To use a silly analogy — if you decide to accept a speaking role at the RNC or DNC next year (it could happen;-) that will be interpreted as an edorsement of their platform — unless you say otherwise! That is the political reality.

2 You ask, What should scientists do? We for one thing let’s consider what you wrote in BAMS:

“The debate has clearly shown that some of the
most challenging issues in our field that are also of the highest policy relevance are at the interface of climate change and weather extremes.”

But you do not explicitly say what the policy relevance is. What is it? If you are so busy and unqualified to discuss policy, as you suggest, then how do you know that your work is in fact policy relevant? To which policies? In what ways is it relevant? Can you tell me what policies might be made differently if you and your colleagues are proven correct in your scientific debate over global warming and hurricanes? Can you be specific? What policies were you referring to in the BAMS quote above?

What should scientists do? Well if you have time in your busy schedule to appear at advocacy events that are created specifically to promote certain policies, then it seems that you also have a responsibility to explain how it is that you think your science supports that advocacy agenda to which you are lending your name and credibility.

Dr. Chamiedes did this, good for him. I fully support scientists getting invovled in advocacy. (I do object to scientists getting involved in advocacy but claiming not to be.) He is just making bad arguments. That is, he is advocacting policies that cannot work as he suggests they can. When people make bad arguments they will be criticized – just like in science so it is in policy.

What should scientists do? The minute that they decide that their work is relevant to the public or policy makers, and seek to engage those audiences on the significance of their work, they take on an obligation to understand how it is relevant and describe that relevance to the public and policy makers.

[Just so you don't feel uniquely picked on here, we asked the same questions of the opposing camps in the so-called "hockey stick" debate and determined long before the NRC that the debate wasn't particularly relevant to climate policies.]

Thanks!

You miss the “nuance” of my statements. Scientists pointing out a risk, and then calling for a re-evaluation of policiies in light of that risk, is very different from advocating for a specific policy. This is an appropriate use of science to inform policy makers.

Slinging around of hot air on the subject of policies related by climate change by us academics is entertaining but not a terribly good use of our time. Kerry Emanuel stated in his Nature interview pointed out that about 9 months after publication of his paper, his research program was 6 months behind owing to all of the interactions with the media and decision makers. Personally, I typically put in an 80 hour work week (worse the past year), and this doesn’t count activities such as blogging. I have a responsibility to my employer to do the job that I am paid for (administering an academic department). This is not a cop out. We are simply not qualified to assess the complexities of public policy in the public arena. And those that do seem to many to have a personal political agenda.

And then when I applaud people like Bill Chameides for switching from hard science to policy, he is criticized by you and then we are criticized for interacting with him. A list from you of what you think climate researchers should be doing with their 60-80 hour work weeks would be most interesting.

Judy

Thanks much for your continued engagement. I do have a few repsonses to your comments.

1. You write, “As a climate scientist I do not advocate for specific policies.”

I have two responses to this.

A. Sure you do: “We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.”
http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Hurricane_threat.htm

B. Endorsing or lending your name and credibility to advocacy organizations is indeed a form of advocacy — “stealth” issue advocacy. if you appear at an event organized to promote “climate stabilization” then you are providing support for that agenda, whether you “stick to science” or not.

2. Saying that scientists are “too busy” to help explore the policy implications of their work is a cop out. You write of the hurricane-climate debate that “The end result of this debate is likely to be that this public fragmentation of the meteorological community has generally lessened the possibility for this community to influence policy . . .” And what influence is it that you think should occur? Surely not just _any_ policy? Perhaps you have something in mind?

3. Climate scientists, you included, are deeply involved in policy and politics. That is reality. The question therefore is how scientists should engage. Of all the options, participating in the policy process while pretending to be without policy preferences is the worst strategy in my view. If your research really matters for policy, then tell us why you think that. We’ll listen.

Thanks!