Unpublished Op-Ed: Science, Politics, and Press Releases
March 9th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The following is an op-ed I prepared a few weeks ago. It was accepted for publication at a major U.S. newspaper but, for whatever reason, I never heard back frm them again. So I am assuming that its window of opportunity has passed and am posting it here. However, if anyone reading this is interested in publishing it before a broader audience, please send me an email – pielke@colorado.edu. Thanks!
Science, Politics, and Press Releases
The Bush Administration has faced constant criticism for its overbearing management of information. Some of the latest allegations involve scientists from two federal agencies who claim that they have been muzzled by political operatives.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), well known for its public relations prowess, embarrassed itself with the ham-handed efforts of a political appointee to deny media access to James Hansen, one of it’s most prominent scientists. NASA’s woes multiplied when it was revealed that the media gatekeeper was a 24-year old former Bush campaign worker who had “accidentally” claimed earning a college degree when he did not. And when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a press release asserting an official agency position on hurricanes and global warming, this assertion simply was not true. NASA fired its political appointee and instituted a review of its media policies. NOAA revised its press release and its administrator, Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., encouraged all NOAA scientists “to speak freely and openly.”
But the allegations that have followed these two incidents reflect fundamental misunderstandings about the relationship of science and politics. For instance some scientists in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena complained that NASA headquarters preferred to use the phrase “climate change” rather than “global warming” in press releases. But the choice of language to use in a press release reflects political as well as scientific considerations.
It is true that a Republican strategy memorandum recommended the phrase “climate change,” yet environmental advocacy groups have long preferred the phrase “global warming.” Science alone cannot say which phrase to use, and consequently the choice between them necessarily involves political considerations. NOAA and NASA produce hundreds of scientific papers each year, and only a very small fraction are accompanied by an official press release. Thus the decision even to issue a press release necessarily involves non-scientific considerations such as casting the agency in a positive light, newsworthiness, and sometimes, partisan politics.
That the political leadership of federal agencies manages information in pursuit of their interests is not new or surprising. President Nixon went so far as to move around the timing of Apollo moon launches with respect to the 1972 presidential election against NASA’s wishes in order to manage the possible negative public relations consequences of a failed mission.
Some seek to de-politicize science communications in the holy grail of identifying a bright line between science and politics. David Goldston, chief of staff to Representative Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee, said “The issue is where does science end and policy begin.” But if the choice of words in a press release and the decision to issue a press release about science are inherently political, then there simply is no such line.
A better approach was suggested by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, who suggested distinguishing professional duties from personal opinions, “as long as people speak as private citizens, my attitude is, let me hold your coat for you. You can get into that fray and get beat up. You just can’t label it as an agency position.” In the 21st century scientists have options for communicating to the world that rival the reach of official press releases. For instance, scientists can easily set up a weblog from their home computers and on their own time expound on any topic that they wish. A good example of someone successfully using such a strategy is NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, an employee of James Hansen, who along with collaborators has set up RealClimate.org, a widely read and influential internet weblog whose authors have not held back in hosting political discussions on topics like the Kyoto Protocol, Intelligent Design, and the Bush Administration. Today a weblog may have an even greater reach and influence than an official NASA press release.
But distinguishing professional duties from personal opinions can also present a challenge, especially for senior career officials. As the official NOAA media policy states, “Whether in person, on camera, or over the phone, when speaking to a reporter you represent and speak for the entire agency.” Democracy would be impossible if every government employee sought to interpret or implement laws and policy according to their own personal preferences. Government employment carries with it professional responsibilities, which are proportionately greater the higher ranking the career official. J.D. Sobel writes, “All senior leaders, whether appointed or career, serve in an administration and for a principle with broader responsibilities. These officials have special obligations to protect and support their principal and administration as the mechanism of democratic accountability in government. They have strong implicit obligations to stay within the policy framework of their administration and not undermine their principal.”
Of course, government scientists who disagree with the policies of their employers always have the option of resigning, if they feel that they can no longer do their jobs, or they can stay, do their jobs, and seek effective reform from the inside. But what they should not do, however, is pretend that in the purity of science there lies a solution to the realities of politics. Claims to the contrary ultimately will lead to further politicization of the scientific enterprise.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Hi Roger,
I often find your writings interesting but there is always this nagging feeling in me that something is not right. I think I have identified what it is that often bothers me and if I may, it is that you seem to define just about everything that is not science as politics.
I suppose it is a defensible philosophical position that every interaction with another human being is at its essence political, but I am not sure it is useful for discussion to do that. Surely there are other motives that while not strictly scientific are neither political when it comes to chosing language or deciding what merits a press release and what doesn’t. Just to make the point and not necessarily second guess the motives of a NOAA or NASA PR representatives, one might be motivated by religion, or pride in a particular project or even just affection for a particular researcher. One might see a need and an oppurtunity for correcting a common misconception for no other end than that in itself, without some ulterior political goal.
Coming back to issues involving climate science, I vehemently disagree that a genuine concern (assuming there is one) for the health of the biosphere is a political concern. I also disagree that activism of any kind is by definition political. Raising money for hungry children is not political even though working to change government policy that increases it is. Likewise, working to improve public awareness of what one believes is a serious threat is not in and of itself politics. Campaigning for a party or person based on that concern surely is, but simply raing the issue in the public arena? No.
Going even further on this question, I don’t think you can even begin to categorize a particular action as political (such as putting out a press release) without an understanding of the motivations. Granted, with a press release it is not always hard to figure out what the motives are and surely they mostly are political, but the motive is what defines the character of the act. Thus it is the motive that is political or otherwise, even regardless of the consequences that may be otherwise or political.
This applies just the same to RealClimate.org. You can not call the creation of that website a political action without knowing the motivation. Obviously, everyone involved has their own private as well as public motives and particular articles (forget about comment threads) will stray into realms that may not have been the casus belli but it is not at all beyond the realms of plausibility that the primary motive of this group is one of education and public awareness for the sake of a better future of the planet.
And I absolutely insist that, though not scientific, this is not by its nature political.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I would have liked to add that I feel my thoughts apply just as strongly to James Hansen’s activism. There is nothing inherently political about warning the public of a serious danger.
March 9th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Coby -
You say “I vehemently disagree that a genuine concern (assuming there is one) for the health of the biosphere is a political concern”
However, that “genuine concern” does not take into consideration the fact that CO2 is the base of the food chain, and considering everything we *know* about climate change (which is not much) the odds are that the release of buried CO2 is not pollution but its rescue from the depths and the enhancement of our food supply. I’m against pollution as much as the next person – maybe more. But that would be *real* pollution.
*That* is the bigger picture, and why the dogmatists (and censors) such as on Realclimate are a symbol of myopia, and why this is a battle of politics and puppets vs. science.
http://tinyurl.com/9mdtz
March 9th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Obviously that should have been “the release of buried *carbon*.”
March 9th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Hi Steve,
Whether or not the concern is valid is another conversation (it may have even come up before!), my point is only that if it is believed, ie genuine, then raising it is not a political act.
That is why I reject the notion that James Hansen, by speaking out about the dangers that lie ahead, is discarding science for politics. The only way that could be true is if he were insincere in his professed beliefs and he really had ulterior motives to support one political party over another.
I know that that is an accusation leveled at him, but I have long believed that we tend to see our own faults in the actions of others. I think the accusations of bias and selfishness, even dishonesty and corruption, that some are attributing to Hansen are a fine example of this phenomenon.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:20 am
Coby -
I agree with you. If Hansen believes in what he’s doing, then as far as he’s concerned it’s not a political act. However, nobody’s perfect – except me and you
.
Seriously, the information we are processing is filtered on different levels. For example, there is a gentleman in all this by the name of Mike McCracken. He’s quite well versed in a lot of this climate change “stuff”, but his projection of the range of climate change (in temperature, admittedly simplistic) is that, in the next few decades, Earth will go from 0° to plus … x°. It doesn’t enter his mind – somehow it’s blocked – that there is even a *possibility* that the temperature will go down. There are many reasons it could go down, but his mind is blocked from that realization.
In his mind he is thoroughly scientific, but his inputs are limited by his paradigms. Paradigms can also be referred to, if artifically induced, as brainwashing. That’s why I linked to the Enron site. The Enron … people … are on first name bases with the UN people, for whom the IPCC works. That’s why, just as was the case with Mellon, Hearst and the decorticator, this could be nothing more than a scam by people who want to buy and sell power – literally.
If looking at all the climate science information, including uncertainties, objectively – that is by removing the “fear of change” – which is a *very* big fear in rational beings, the probability of positive change is greater than of negative change. That is, of course, treating all people (including third world people) equally.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:32 am
However, if anyone reading this is interested in publishing it before a broader audience
Internet has a broader audience than any printed press….
March 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Coby-
I agree that Roger’s writings are persuasive, but at the end I feel like he’s just convinced me that 2+2=5.
All-
I think that one has to parse syntax exactly when discussing this topic. If I say, “climate change is potentially serious,” then that’s primarily a non-political, scientific statement. But if I say that “we should take immediate action to combact climate change,” then that’s explicitly a political statement … and one that contains all sorts of non-scientific value judgments.
In this debate, the exact words matter tremendously.
Regards.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Coby-
Thanks for your comment. Somehow my earlier response never appeared. We will have to agree to disagree on what is “political” behavior. This is more than semantics. I do think that scholarship in this area is pretty strongly supportive of my views
Andrew- Not sure I get your point here (2+2=5?) Care to retry?
March 10th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Roger,
Got to agree with Andrew. I think he is saying your logic seems persuasive but the conclusions often make me uncomftorble and wondering if I’ve been tricked. Your writings certainly make me think.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
This has been said before, but it’s relevant here again. Roger is defining as ‘political’ anything within the public sphere (press releases, comments to journalists, websites etc.) which I accept may have some backing in the relevant literature. However, it is not the same definition that I (nor I suspect most people) use in everyday speech. My (functional) definiton for political action is much more related to policy – what is political is that which advocates for a particular policy or party. I therefore see a gap between the definition of public and the definition of political which many scientists (like myself) with a public profile try to stick to. Roger’s definition allows no such gap and thus his statements are completely consistent with the definitions he (implicitly) assumes. The unease felt by some commenters above is, to my mind, related to a feeling that Roger is in danger of assuming (by definition) that which he would like to demonstrate (that all public actions are political).
March 10th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Greg- Good! Thanks. No tricks here, logic, hopefully yes
March 10th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Gavin-
Thanks for your comment. I must say that blog discussions are great for revealing how what seems to be totally obvious and trivial from one disciplinary perspective can be interpreted completely differently from another!
If you accept that the public has some role to play in the broader political system, e.g., through elections, opinion polls, advocacy, etc., then it is only logical that efforts to persuade, convince, teach, propagandize, etc. the public have a political element to them. This is political science 101.
So I actually feel no need to “demonstrate” that many public actions (but especially press releases, weblogs, comments to journalists, etc.) are political because this is well established in the disciplinary literature, and our discussions here aren’t going to change decades of well-established political science research, however inconvenient it may be
But just as I am perfectly capable of devising my own personal understandings of climate science, I’d probably do well to listen to the experts who have worked through climate science systematically. While it is easy for many folks to believe that social science is just opinion dressed up in jargon, actually there is some useful knowledge understandings of the world and how it works to be found there. So while I respect that you have a personal view of what it means act “politically,” recognize that it is a definition of convenience (i.e., allows you or Jim Hansen or Michael Crichton or whomever to claim to be acting “non-politically”). Such definitional gerrymandering is simply not consistent with how scholars of politics would define these actions.
So I guess I’d say, go ahead and dismiss social science understandings if you must, but then also have some sympathy for folks who decide that they don’t need experts on climate science to come to their opinions! Expertise is great when its yours, when it is somebody else’s, well then it gets tricky.
Thanks
March 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Roger,
Your being rather pedantic. There are technical definitions and common definitions of many words.
You use the technical definition, and are arguing against others who are not.
Furthermore those who are using a common definition of acting politically are not dismissing social science, they are only using the same words to say something different.
Teaching Walden Pond in a high school english class is political, so teaching at an elite univeristy. But such formulations can obscure the debate.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Greg- Thanks. Gavin and I have a long running debate, for which probably only he and I know all of the nooks and crannies, so sometimes there are unstated understandings for which I apologize. He claims that his efforts at RC are only about science, I’ve tried to make the case that they are in fact very political over at RC. Some of that appears in this latest exchange about press releases. And I do believe that this is more than just semantic.
Of course you are calling me pedantic while Andrew Dessler says on the same thread “In this debate, the exact words matter tremendously.”
March 10th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Roger,
You have not made a clear case, but rather employed a little verbal sleight of hand, I would like to press you a little more on this issue.
You said:
“If you accept that the public has some role to play in the broader political system [...] then it is only logical that efforts to persuade, convince, teach, propagandize, etc. the public have a political element to them.”
I still think this is way overstated. According to this, any public education regardless of subject or intent is political and you have premised that solely on the fact that the public is involved in politics. This is way too weak for such an overstated definition.
But here is the bait and switch:
“So I actually feel no need to “demonstrate” that many public actions (but especially press releases, weblogs, comments to journalists, etc.) are political”
You have retreated to only saying “many” rather than all, which is actually a much more reasonable position. But now it seems only fair to ask just how you decide what public actions are and what aren’t political. Specifically, why is a climate scientist notifying the public of an imminent danger political, or why is a website dedicated to correcting disinformation political advocacy.
I am not saying there is no case to be made for those positions and you can take it out of the hypothetical it you want, but I think you have just assumed them.
BTW, I have googled for definitions of politics, crude I know, but maybe you can provide one that is as broad as your usage, I didn’t find it.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
A definition of politics from dictionary.com
The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.
In other words, the negotiation and management of often conflicting interests. Priorities – how do we order the things we wish to do? What do we wish to do?
When a website is committed to correcting disinformation, it is trying to counter the interests of the group propagating the disinformation. For example, while the truth in journalism organizations like FAIR are trying to make sure the facts are known, they are also trying to negate the political advantage sought by those spreading the disinformation.
When a climate scientist notifies the public (or more likely, a public official) of an imminent danger, it sets in motion a particular series of obligations and actions. Political interests may wish to delay or deny those actions, or are distracted or preoccupied with other concerns. The scientists makes his notification based on an understanding of the science. What takes place because of that knowledge, or what is supposed to take place because of that knowledge, is typically decided by a political process, in bodies set up to make political decisions.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Coby-
Thanks for your comments. First definitions of “politics.” I should note that contrary to some of the suggestions made in the comments here – “political” is not a pejorative term. Here are two classic definitions:
Politics is the process of bargaining, negotiation, and compromise that determines “who gets what, when, and how.” From the 1936 book of the same title by Harold Lasswell.
More technically: David Easton, 1965: “those patterns of interaction through which values are allocated for a society and these allocations are accepted as authoritative by most persons in the society most of the time.”
What is meant by “patterns of interaction” and “values”? — most everything! For a sense of the depth of this perspective, have a look at this essay from Langdon Winner which argues that technologies have politics, even bridges, which is quite a bit further than we’ve yet gone with this conversation:
http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rfrost/courses/Women+Tech/readings/Winner.html
OK, you ask:
“Specifically, why is a climate scientist notifying the public of an imminent danger political, … “?
A warning of “danger” is under Easton’s definition a “pattern of interaction” with the intent of realizing some desired “value” (e.g., well-being). A warning of any sort communicated from one group (or individual) to another is a political act. This seems obvious. The act of communication itself is inherently political even if the “values to be allocated” (using Easton’s language) are enlightenment (i.e., knowledge) — these experts from the field of communication have made this clear: http://aarst.jmccw.org/
You further ask, “… or why is a website dedicated to correcting disinformation political advocacy.”
Well this seems pretty clear as well. It is political because it is a “pattern of interaction” seeking to shape how “values in society are allocated”. The values at stake could just be enlightenment values, but they also could be power values. If the website in question is narrowly focused on correcting disinformation in one group, say Republicans or environmentalists (or whatever), then it also seems pretty clear that the “correcting disinformation” is part of a larger strategy of bargaining or negotiation (Lasswell’s language) in pursuit of some desired end.
More important to me than the question of whether a particular action is political or not (since just about every action is political, especially press releases, web logs etc.), is what the consequences are of trying to couch or hide such political actions in the guise of science. the result in my view is to further politicize science in negative ways. Politics is always with us, the important question is how we manage it. Ignoring it or pretending it doesn’t exists does not seem to be a good strategy! See this essay:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1706-2005.13.pdf
Thanks!
March 10th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
David said it better than I did!
March 10th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Thank you very much Roger for the detailed and forthright answer. But I am now left wondering if you think there should be no direct interaction at all between scientists and the public. Is that your view?
I am also a little uncomfortable with the fact that “politicizing science” is a clearly negative phrase in every context I have ever come across it, and yet you acknowledge that by your usage any public action undertaken by a scientist is political and I think you have implied that there are non-negative politicizations possible (by using the phrase “to further politicize science in negative ways”). So now we are left with a recipe for miscommunication every time you use the word political to describe a scientist’s actions. I will be sure to read you very carefully and keep that in mind, but will others understand that it is not, by your definitions, necesarily bad to politicize science?
March 11th, 2006 at 5:48 am
Coby- Thanks. In response to your first question, I feel very strongly that scientists have an obligation to interact with policy makers and the public. The question is in what form this interaction should take place. I have argued that too many scientists (or more importantly, scientific organizations) are engaging in overt or implicit political advocacy to the exclusion of what I have called “honest brokers of policy alternatives.” See this post from a while ago that tries to describe these alternatives:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html
On your second point, yes I agree that most usages of the phrase “politicizing science” have a negative connotation, but the reality is that we want sceince to play a role in political decision making — in the jargon I presented before, to help deicsion makers authoritatively allocate values in society. It is indeed the negative effects of politicization that we want to avoid.
Much of our discussions on this site seek to unravel these complexities, with some success, some non-successes. I do have a book in press on this subject that I hope will make these points more clear in a single resource. We shall see;-)
March 11th, 2006 at 10:41 am
There is objective and there is subjective. Science is objective. When e.g. RC fails to publish comments highlighting uncertainties or facts watering down their position, it becomes political. Certainly science should heavily influence, if not control, policy. However, to take a subjective viewpoint as Schneider did by saying “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” puts him and anyone who publishes with him firmly in the subjective camp. Same thing with Mann by hiding the MWP and LIA.
However, when Science magazine publishes articles about 3 year old Antarctic ice trends, mentions 30 year temperature trends, or allows obviously contorted conjecture to be mixed in with facts, there is a disconnect between real science and the publication (and therefore it’s following) – as is easily discerned by objective readings of Kennedy’s editorials.
The one thing we know about anthropogenic global warming is that we know way too little. To say we know enough to influence policy is to misunderstand the effects on the public – both in ideals and costs – of a potential error in effect. When it comes to AGW, there are believers, there are denialists, and there are agnostics. Lumping the latter two together is only done by people in the first camp – and beliefs are for religion, not science.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Roger, thanks for the clear answers to may questions.
Steve,
When is enough enough? Do we wait until every last agnostic is convinced? There is already an overwhelming consensus among scientists who we should trust. It is high time to act decisively on their acvice.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html
The world is warming, it is due to human emissions and it represents a clear and present danger.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
FWIW, Roger is defining the answer. One cannot logically argue with a definition, however one can falsify it. If Roger’s definition is correct, all religious statements/beliefs are political, all cheers at football games are political, ad infinitim.
So my question to Roger is can he define any public statement, up to and including *I have to go to the bathroom* as not being political by his definition?
March 11th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Eli- Thaks for your comments. Note however that these are not my definitions but those of the giants of political science. To answer your question simply go back to Easton’s definition that I provided yesterday: “those patterns of interaction through which values are allocated for a society and these allocations are accepted as authoritative by most persons in the society most of the time.”
Most all interpersonal conversation along the lines that you suggest is not political in this sense because it has nothing to do with how “values are allocated for society”. Have a look at Landon Winner’s article which argues that “artefacts” (technologies) have politics. Politics is in more places than most places would care to admit.
Let me reiterate, the important issue for me on this thread is not whether public speech is or is not political, but the consequences of trying to hide clearly political behavior (e.g., informing the public or politicians) behind the guise of science. Dan Sarewitz takes this on in this op-ed:
http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/Bush_op-ed.pdf
Thanks.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Funny Cobe.
Especially the link to not “just another blog” but one that actually “references” Oreskes.
Quite the political statment *there*.
Just in case you are actually under the impression Oreskes was correct, at the bottom of this link are a few references that would dispute that. Not that I necessarily agree with everything on the page, but you may want to check some of the references out.
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/euoncc.htm
March 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Steve did you ever read the entire quote by Schneider? The quote is at the end of a long section in an early book, in which he discuss the imposibility of explaining complex science in a few short sentences to the media. His point was that it is virtually impossible to explain the science in the limited time or space made available by main street media.
You may honestly disagree with Schneider, but at least present his position accurately! Quoting Schneider out of context is effective (in discrediting Schneider) but it is not honest.
Furthermore the is a big difference between being honest and being correct. They are two different things. For the most part I think the RC crowd is honest as is Roger Pielke Sr. They both make honest attempts to explain their position and present their understanding of the science accurately. Clearly they are both not correct.
As another example when you said …
“To say we know enough to influence policy is to misunderstand the effects on the public – both in ideals and costs – of a potential error in effect.”
I assume you may be being honest, but this is a part opinion and part value judgement. And many poeple may honestly think you are incorrect.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Steve,
I appreciate the data dump you directed me to, but I’ll wait for you to point to something more specific before I waste my time. The glaring illogic and clear political advocacy of the text at the top does not at all pique my interest to wade through all those references at the bottom (none of which are attached to any specific part of this fellow’s text, BTW). Plus, I am already familiar with, and not impressed by, John Daly’s website.
As for your complaint that I was being political, I thought we had just established that is not necessarily a bad thing, so again you need to be more specific in what is wrong with mentioning Oreskes’ paper (especially considering it is just an little add on to the more substantive point at that page – http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html ) when trying to determine if there is a scientific consensus or not.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Greg -
We’re talking about science vs. politics. Whatever Schneider tagged onto the end of his statement for whatever reason is irrelevant. He said to balance accuracy with alarmism. That’s the gist of it. That puts him in the political camp vs. the scientific camp. That’s the bottom line.
As far as honesty vs. objectivity, I agree that people mislead to believe in simplistic explanations can honestly repeat lies.
Coby -
I’m afraid you’re going to have to give me some better guidance in what you are willing to look at. It’s understandable that you don’t want to go through a significant number of papers disagreeing with your (and Enron’s, by the way) position. Although you may wish that land use changes, black carbon on snow, etc. have no effect on global (especially Arctic) temperatures and it’s all CO2, one of these days you’ll have to face the truth that it’s not as simple as modelers (or their handlers) make it out to be.
And, I don’t agree that in a discussion of science it’s okay to skew the results – which is what inevitably happens when political slants appear – particularly when we have no clue of the big, long term, picture.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Steve
Below is a copy of Gavin Schmidt’s response to a RealClimate contributor’s mis-quotation of Schneider (comment 69 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=1 )
As it is presented quite effectively I thought it appropriate to ‘bring it across’ in order to address the fact that you too are attempting to hand wave away your inappropriate criticism of the Schneider’s position with your “ridiculous canard” in an apparent attempt to introduce unwarranted mud into the water of this policy/science thread…
[Response: Oh please... Selective mis-quotations of that interview have been contrarian fodder for years and are a complete distortion of what was said and what Schneider's position is. The full quote and Schneider's respsonse to the issue are easily available (here) and continued use of this ridiculous canard can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to mislead. Just to make it perfectly clear the full quote is:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Schneider also made it abundantly clear that this bind should be tackled directly by any scientist dealing with the media:
"[Misquoters] also omit my solutions to the double ethical bind: (1) use metaphors that succinctly convey both urgency and uncertainty, and (2) produce an inventory of written products from editorials to articles to books, so that those who want to know more about an author’s views on both the caveats and the risks have a hierarchy of detailed written sources to which they can turn. What I was telling the Discover interviewer, of course, was my disdain for a soundbite-communications process that imposes the double ethical bind on all who venture into the popular media. To twist my openly stated and serious objections to the soundbite process into some kind of advocacy of exaggeration is a clear distortion. Moreover, not only do I disapprove of the “ends justify the means” philosophy of which I am accused, but, in fact have actively campaigned against it in myriad speeches and writings. Instead, I repeatedly advocate that scientists explicitly warn their audiences that “what to do” is a value choice as opposed to “what can happen” and “what are the odds,” which are scientific issues.”]
I suggest that *you* rather than Greg have got the “gist” of his message wrong.
Thanks
Hugh
March 12th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Roger, that may be the definition of the giants of political science, but it is clearly an attempt to assert ownership over any debate and as such should be treated with the derision it deserves. If everything is political, then clearly those who study political science are the experts that everyone should look to for expertise and guidance, which is, very convenient for you and them.
Of course the same argument is made by many religous leaders, that everything is religous, and therefore nothing is political, and you should listen to G_d’s word, through them for guidance. Of course G_d speaks to each of them differently.
From my point of view, at least the scientists are a much more modest group. Yes, science said that Katrina, when out in the Gulf, would hit NO, and in the future one can expect more to do so, and probably, they will be more intense, but how and if the town was to be evacuted and rebuilt is up to the government, e.g. the political scientists. We see how good a job they did which tempers my desire to accept their assertions of expertise.
So Roger, should I believe the political scientists or the religous leaders? The later have the advantage of being occasionally sincere.
March 12th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
re:
Posted by: Greg Lewis at March 11, 2006 08:25 PM
Posted by: Hugh at March 12, 2006 10:38 AM
That quote(1) is (was?) an abhorrent insight into this professor’s attitudes about the ethics and professional attitudes of scientists. To my knowledge, no part of this quote has been withdrawn or repudiated by it’s author; and recent attempts to legitimize/rationalize it by quoting it in it’s entirety are equally and transparently abhorrent. Even Heinz Foundation award winner Dr. James Hansen recognized the problem(2) in 2003 — though he too appears/implies to have sanctioned such practices, prior to 2003.
Such practices should have been repudiated at their outset. The failure to do so is now partly responsible for the AGW movement’s retarded momentum, as many of these proffered extreme scenarios has been examined more closely, or failed to materialize in their alarmist timeline or severity.
The children’s story that covers this practice is obvious to all those who choose to recall it. Yet the rationalizing and quote clarification continues, as if a misquote “gotcha” of the original makes such practices human and therefore acceptable.
To those posters above (and to Drs. Schneider, Schmidt and Connolley among the “scientist” defenders), who obviously forgot the fairy tale of boys, sheep and wolves, perhaps you could at least remember another lesson from your childhood, “two wrongs, do not …” uh, now how does that go?
(1)http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/APS.pdf
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad base support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
(2)http://www.sciam.com/media/pdf/hansen.pdf
“Summary opinion re scenarios. Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been
appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the
global warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels”, shale oil and tar sands were
receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate
forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that
accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the
important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of
providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming.”
March 12th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
John Mc, the discussion above is about how the Schneider quote you like so much has been cherry-picked.
Do you want to read those comments, then re-post?
Thanks!
D
March 12th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
I think this discussion is *very* enlightening. It is apparent the dogmatic alarmists support the bending of the truth – as evidenced by their attempts to redefine Schneider’s statement. In fact, they are molding it into the very essence of political bias.
Face it – we have *no clue* of what climate will be like in 50 years – and hardwired physical scientists ignoring the effects of flora and population growth show that by glossing over the big picture.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Steve, re having no clue, we must all be careful we don’t extrapolate our own ignorance onto the whole human race. The models have already proven themselves to an important extent and regardless of the future of emissions your statement is pretty unsupportable, especially because you limited your derision to 50 year projections. The next 3 or 4 decades of warming are already committed. I’ll agree that 100 years becomes much more iffy, but none of the IPCC scenarios had any probability associated with them, they are there as guidlines, not predictions, to tell us what we need to aim for.
I have outlined a few reasons why we should pay attention to what the models are telling us, even if they are “compooter models”, here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/models-are-unproven.html
March 12th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Coby,
This:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
is a sorry excuse for a hindcast. Got anything better?
How about this: Got the data behind the pictures?
You can’t honestly call that an accurate hindcast without a look at the numbers. Well, I take that back. You can, if you’re a “believer”. If you’re looking at it without prejudice, it’s not very convincing.
And this statement: “none of the IPCC scenarios had any probability associated with them, they are there as guidlines, not predictions, to tell us what we need to aim for”.
What, exactly, do you mean by “what we need to aim for” – do you mean that’s what future modelers need to aim for in their projections?
But mostly a link to the data behind the pictures would be nice.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Steve, if you really are interested in the details, you can not do better than following the internal links in the TAR and check the references, they are all specified.
As for it’s success, if scientists came to you in 1880 and said “our models predict that the temperature will rise .8oC by the year 2000″ and you waited, how on earth can you complain they were wrong? No one cares year to year, it is the trend that is important and clearly the modeled and observed trends never strayed more .1oC or so.
That is a successful hindcast.
March 13th, 2006 at 4:45 am
Coby,
You said:
“No one cares year to year, it is the trend that is important and clearly the modeled and observed trends never strayed more .1oC or so”
Well,we’re looking at different graphs. You’re right, the annual differences are not important. The one I’m referring to, which we both have linked to, varies by much more than 0.1°C on decadel scales. The fact they don’t back up their pictures with numbers is also telling.
But, we’ve been through all this before and you don’t pay attention to what I’m saying, so just go ahead and worship your simplistic models and don’t worry about the differences.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Steve-
You wrote:
just go ahead and worship your simplistic models
The only person worshipping anything is you. We have repeatedly presented you with peer-reviewed analyses supporting our point, which you simply reject, preferring to adhere to your dogma. And you repeatedly refuse to give us anything that supports your point of view, or tell us where you even heard it.
I realize that your membership in the church of techcentralstation requires you to say that, but seriously, do you expect anyone on this website to take you seriously?
Do some research on the topic next time (that means to read more than the title).
Regards.
March 13th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Well put Andrew, you have saved me some time. I would just reinforce your point by advising Steve that using those argumentative, ad hominem and politicized terms like “worship” when I merely cited some research says more about his closed mind than mine.
March 13th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Hmmm – Andrew. Are you actually trying to be genuine? If so, you must be a different Andrew Dessler from the one who said:
“I’d be happy to provide actual citations — complete with titles!”
Which you haven’t done. Did you just forget, or are you just standing by your picture (you know, the alleged graph with no data, not even any x,y points)?
Or is your ability to back up what you said as weak as Dano’s, who accused me of backpedaling but never actually came through on that either?
March 13th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
[/ignore]
“Or is … as weak as Dano’s, who accused me of backpedaling but never actually came through on that either? ”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000733politics_and_the_ipc.html
I’d say “stop making things up”, SH, but that is, in effect, telling you to be quiet and we don’t want to silence anyone…
So, I’ll simply state this: Steve, I suspect your comments are conscious spam, intended to hijack the thread. If they are not consciously so, they are in effect so. Spam. You are best ignored.
I really gotta stop taking this off:
[ignore]
D
March 13th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
For those of you trying to understand the debate with Steve H., here’s a quick summary:
Steve: There’s no way any model can hindcast the last 100 years of climate.
Everyone else: Here’s a mountain of peer reviewed evidence (evidence provided)
Steve (fingers in ears): la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la — I can’t hear you — la-la-la-la-la
Everyone else: Seriously, Steve, there’s a huge body of peer-reviewed literature on this subject. While models have uncertainty, they do show skill over the last 150 years.
Steve: I reject your reality and substitute my own!
(he then genuflects at the altar of techcentralstation and does three Hail Lindzens).
It’s clear that Steve will never change his views, regardless of the scientific evidence. That’s fine — I dealt with people like him during the ozone-CFC debate about 10 years ago, and I watched while common sense and strong science buried them. And to the end, they all cried, “CFCs don’t destroy ozone.” I expect the same to occur here. So long, Steve! Give my regards to Fred Singer.
For anyone actually interested, one can find a summary of our confidence in climate models at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm
And anyone who wants to see the raw data (Steve asked, as if he’d actually look at it! LOL!), you can find the archived AR/4 model runs at http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ then click on “data portal”.
Regards.
March 14th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Dano -
Sorry, didn’t count. No change in my opinion between reading it fast and reading it slow.
Andrew -
Pride of ownership can cloud one’s judgement. Sorry, but the reality is models are just too simple to make policy with. But, hey, Enron et al (including the Oil-for-Food guys) appreciate your incorrigibility.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Steve-
Care to provide any evidence to support your point?
I didn’t think so.
Your adherence to the dogma of the Church of Singer-tology will definitely get you promoted to a higher level Lindzen.
Regards.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Sorry Andrew. The hindcast just doesn’t match up. I’ll close with the last two sentences in this link from the site you like so much.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/128.htm
“Feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry, climate, and the biosphere were not developed to the stage that they could be included in the projected numbers here. Failure to include such coupling is likely to lead to systematic errors and may substantially alter the projected increases in the major greenhouse gases.”
March 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
And still no one (except Dr. Hansen and perhaps Mr. Hemphill), speaks out against Dr. Schneider’s position rationalization AGW scientific (call it) spin/emphasis/focus?
March 18th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
correction: rationalizing