Comments on: Don’t Let that Door Hit You on the Way Out http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4516 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4516&cpage=1#comment-10726 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:14:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4516#comment-10726 Dale Jamieson sent this into Dot Earth: I began collaborating with NCAR scientists in 1980 and for much of the past two decades I have had various visiting, adjunct, and affiliated appointments at NCAR. For this reason and others I think I am in a position to comment on the events surrounding the sacking of Micky Glantz and the closure of his program. What has finally provoked me to comment is the recent post by Keven Trenbeth. Where to begin with Trenberth’s remarks? “In physical science we deal a lot more with facts …” Many social scientists would be quite surprised to discover that they are less interested in facts than physical scientists. “physical scientists…provide the best information possible, and social scientists… are involved in how best society can adapt to the projected changes to minimize impacts, reduce vulnerability, and best use the information to improve decisions.” While social scientists are concerned with these issues, this is a remarkably narrow view of what social science has to offer the climate change discussion. In particular, what is missing is the dynamic interaction between climate and society that is at the heart of the problem that we face. And, again, Trenberth seems to be suggesting that it is physical scientists (but not social scientists?) who focus on providing “the best information possible.” But rather than go on in this vein, I want to make a larger point about what I think lies behind Glantz’s sacking. This is based on my personal observations and some may think that I exaggerate, but here it is as I see it. There is a kind of cluelessness about social science that is characteristic of NCAR scientists. This may be due to the narrowness of much scientific training, especially when coupled with the culture of a scientific laboratory. But whatever the reason, this lack of understanding typically gets expressed in the vague attitude that social scientists are supposed to function as popularizers or PR flacks for “real” science; or that social scientists are the missionaries who are supposed to save the world. Thus, the kind of bloody-mindedness, skepticism, and independence of thought that is valued in most of the academy is seen as obstructionist when exhibited by a social scientist at NCAR. It is this prevailing attitude that explains, I think, why many (perhaps most) of the members of ISEE (the group that is commonly referred to as ISEE’s social science group) actually have little training in the social sciences. After all, who needs a Ph.D. in a social science discipline in order to be a popularizer or missionary? Ironically, it has seemed to me that in recent years this “two culture” problem has been getting better in the wider climate science community. It is thus especially sad to see that it has continues to grow worse at NCAR. In this regard, the personal tone of Trenberth’s remarks, which seems to blame Glantz for the demise of his group, is especially sad. ********************** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law Environmental Studies Program New York University 285 Mercer Street, 901 New York NY 10003-6653 http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/ Dale Jamieson sent this into Dot Earth:

I began collaborating with NCAR scientists in 1980 and for much of the past two decades I have had various visiting, adjunct, and affiliated appointments at NCAR. For this reason and others I think I am in a position to comment on the events surrounding the sacking of Micky Glantz and the closure of his program. What has finally provoked me to comment is the recent post by Keven Trenbeth.

Where to begin with Trenberth’s remarks?

“In physical science we deal a lot more with facts …”

Many social scientists would be quite surprised to discover that they are less interested in facts than physical scientists.

“physical scientists…provide the best information possible, and social scientists… are involved in how best society can adapt to the projected changes to minimize impacts, reduce vulnerability, and best use the information to improve decisions.”

While social scientists are concerned with these issues, this is a remarkably narrow view of what social science has to offer the climate change discussion. In particular, what is missing is the dynamic interaction between climate and society that is at the heart of the problem that we face. And, again, Trenberth seems to be suggesting that it is physical scientists (but not social scientists?) who focus on providing “the best information possible.”

But rather than go on in this vein, I want to make a larger point about what I think lies behind Glantz’s sacking. This is based on my personal observations and some may think that I exaggerate, but here it is as I see it. There is a kind of cluelessness about social science that is characteristic of NCAR scientists. This may be due to the narrowness of much scientific training, especially when coupled with the culture of a scientific laboratory. But whatever the reason, this lack of understanding typically gets expressed in the vague attitude that social scientists are supposed to function as popularizers or PR flacks for “real” science; or that social scientists are the missionaries who are supposed to save the world. Thus, the kind of bloody-mindedness, skepticism, and independence of thought that is valued in most of the academy is seen as obstructionist when exhibited by a social scientist at NCAR. It is this prevailing attitude that explains, I think, why many (perhaps most) of the members of ISEE (the group that is commonly referred to as ISEE’s social science group) actually have little training in the social sciences. After all, who needs a Ph.D. in a social science discipline in order to be a popularizer or missionary?

Ironically, it has seemed to me that in recent years this “two culture” problem has been getting better in the wider climate science community. It is thus especially sad to see that it has continues to grow worse at NCAR. In this regard, the personal tone of Trenberth’s remarks, which seems to blame Glantz for the demise of his group, is especially sad.

**********************
Dale Jamieson
Director of Environmental Studies
Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy
Affiliated Professor of Law
Environmental Studies Program
New York University
285 Mercer Street, 901
New York NY 10003-6653
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/

]]> By: Sylvain http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4516&cpage=1#comment-10719 Sylvain Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:57:36 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4516#comment-10719 If physical scientist deals more with "fact and numbers" why are they unable to see the failure of GCM's to provide adequate information. Such inability is clearly shown by the number of paper your father's Weblog present. Why do they fail to recognize that Global average do nothing to help decision making at regional level. If physical scientist deals more with “fact and numbers” why are they unable to see the failure of GCM’s to provide adequate information. Such inability is clearly shown by the number of paper your father’s Weblog present.

Why do they fail to recognize that Global average do nothing to help decision making at regional level.

]]>