Don’t Let that Door Hit You on the Way Out
August 17th, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Over at Dot Earth, NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth gets his parting shots in on the fired Mickey Glantz, and in the process changes the focus from a discussion programmatic priorities into something a bit more personal. Kevin apparently didn’t get the memo explaining that Mickey was fired as a member of a low-priority program at NCAR, and not for the people with whom or manner in which he chose to collaborate with physical and social scientists. Most troubling about Kevin’s piling on is his assertion that Mickey’s failure to participate in the IPCC somehow lowered his standing at NCAR:
Physical and social sciences are indeed different in several ways. In physical science we deal a lot more with facts and numbers, and the theories and analysis are based on physical laws. In climate science, we have been able to state that global warming is unequivocal (to paraphrase from the IPCC report) and will continue to some degree for decades regardless of mitigating actions. And so everyone will have to adapt to and cope with the effects of climate change. How we best do that is widely recognized at NCAR and elsewhere as a major issue requiring interactions between physical scientists, who provide the best information possible, and social scientists, who 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. Many of us are engaged in these aspects, including through IPCC, perhaps even more than Mickey? In fact there are many other social scientists at NCAR and it is not fair to say that social science has been “removed”. Unlike Mickey, many are heavily engaged in the IPCC process.
Kevin explains that he wasn’t part of the management team that terminated the Center for Capacity Building, but in this letter defending the decision on behalf of his employer, is it really a good idea to suggest Mickey’s failure to participate in the IPCC as part of the justification for his firing?
Kevin sees “many other social scientists at NCAR”. By my count, there are four people trained as social scientists at NCAR on its “scientist ladder” (i.e., based-funded scientists on the tenure track). There are 2 economists (Miller, Lazo), one population scientist (O’Neill), and one sociologist (Romero Lankao). There are approximately 110 such scientists on the tenure track at NCAR. Where Kevin sees “many” I see four — perhaps the difference betweens seeing four social scientists as “many” versus “few” lies at the heart of Glantz’s beef with his former employer. I will be happy to be corrected if there are other social scientists on the scientific ladder I don’t know of.
Final note: Kevin’s inane comment that physical scientists deal more with “facts and numbers” reveals some of the cultural divide that Glantz and others have discussed.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
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.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
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/