The question then being: How much *good* would CO2 emission control (not to mention trading schemes) really do, considering the bigger picture of the biosphere? Those who think we actually know are confused.

Margo- Thanks, you’ve captured my views perfectly!

Tom- Thanks, glad you agree. On science academies, I’d suggest the same standards — if they want to investigate funding they should be comprehensive rather than single out a particular player in the debate. UCS has the luxury of engaging in such skirmishes, the RS does not (at least if it wants to preserve perceptions of neutrality, it may not). I’ll look at the link that you shared, thanks.

I think you are only scratching the surface of a huge political problem.

Have a look at the political meddling by the UNFCCC in national politics. Not only is the UNFCCC not ‘policy neutral’ – it’s not even pretending to be neutral when it comes to party politics of individual member states.

Its executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, has directly intervened recently in a highly charged economic controversy in Canada about the potential burden of the Kyoto Protocol:

“A top United Nations official is challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s claim that immediate action to fight climate change by honouring the Kyoto Protocol would translate into disaster for the Canadian economy. “No, I don’t think it would devastate the Canadian economy, if Canada were to make optimal use of the instruments that are available under the international agreement,” said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in a telephone interview…..”
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/canada/story.html?id=151123cb-d4ae-4631-a2ef-0e168f538dba

There can be little doubt to any observer that Yvo de Boer is effectively supporting Canada’s green and opposition parties on the contentious issue of Kyoto. In so doing, he has directly assisted the opposition in its present attempt to bring down the Canadian government and force new elections.

I wonder how long governments will put up with unelected climate bureaucrats playing party politics?

I don’t think Roger is saying you can’t be “a little bit” of an advocate. My impression is Roger saying that if you decree you are not an advocate then you shouldn’t advocate.

I think he is also saying, you shouldn’t pretend to be arguing scientific points when you are really arguing about policy. That messes up both the science and the advocacy.

Though I am with you on your criticisms of Pachauri, I wonder if you care to make any didactic points by further commenting on the remarks of Hawking and Lord Rees (president of the Royal Society) at the conference organised by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists at the RS last week? http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2162862.ece

The IPCC should simply be reporting the science, except to the extent it has been requested by member states to articulate or evaluate particular policy proposals.

Even with the bounds of this, there is a fair amount of room for the IPCC to report the lates science in relatively, attention-grabbing stark terms.

However, I would note my disagreement with you about the acceptability of science academies and other professedly neutral scientific groups to police the science, by providing information on who funds various groups that report on the science for public consumption.

I suspect Roger called these characterizations out because they seemed contradictory, but I think they aren’t necessarily. IPCC WG1 is a pretty cautious (i.e. conservative) presentation of the scientific consensus. Human beings living here, concerned about possible risks posed to the world their children will be living in, may be shocked that such a cautious summary of the scientific consensus could be so clear about how great those risks may be.

I know some deeply knowledgeable climate scientists who have become increasingly concerned that IPCC, by its very nature as a consensus document, is actually *too* cautious for a summary that is intended to be policy relevant. They think that the need for consensus tends to drive IPCC to underplay the possibilities of extreme climate changes that most humans would consider bad. Not that they think such extremes *will* happen, but that their risk is underplayed.

Cheers,
Scott

If I get you right your position is that a scientist can’t be just a little bit of a policy advocate. Once you are in the game, at least for public perception, you will be considered to be completely in the game. That perception will have repercussions. Its an understandable position.

Kind of like you can’t be a little pregnant

The answer seems to be: “No way, Jose!” Not only don’t they claim policy neutrality. All three have clearly stated non-neutral policy missions!

The Nuclear Control Institute, founded in 1981, is a research and *advocacy* center for preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. (More here http://www.nci.org/ — click about us.)

The link to fas (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/ocp8.htm) shows us paper written by a Guy Roberts of the USAF Institute for National Security Studies US Air Force Academy. Generally speaking, military services, and their affiliated institutes are not expected to take policy neutral stances. They are expected to take proactive steps to protect the american public!

FAS itself is an advocacy group. See http://www.fas.org/static/about.jsp

The third link is to the Centers for Disease control’s page about smallpox. As a tax payer, I don’t want the CDC to take a policy neutral stance toward protecting the American public from smallpox! (In fact, the decision to fund the CDC is a proactive policy decision.)