Comments on: Letter in Science http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Climate Research News » ‘Earth: The Climate Wars’ - More Bias from the BBC http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-10970 Climate Research News » ‘Earth: The Climate Wars’ - More Bias from the BBC Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:35:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-10970 [...] Programme adviser is non other than science historian Naomi Oreskes [...] [...] Programme adviser is non other than science historian Naomi Oreskes [...]

]]> By: Roger Pielke Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1057 Roger Pielke Jr. Tue, 24 May 2005 11:56:09 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1057 Thanks Eli for your comments. I will readily accept that my short letter could have been written better, and your edits suggest one possible avenue. But on the other hand why would I possibly engage in or legitimize a debate over consensus that I have characterized as irrelevant from the standpoint of policy? I simply don't believe that Oreskes review is equivalent to various petitions that you cite, and I am pretty certain that if I had done what you suggested I'd be criticized (rightly so) for making a claim of equivalency. (Note also that Peiser's work was not available when I submitted my letter last year so I could not have referenced it.) If you'd like to see an explicit attempt to characterize the two-sided political debate, albeit from 2000, that I co-authored, have a look at these: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html Thanks Eli for your comments. I will readily accept that my short letter could have been written better, and your edits suggest one possible avenue. But on the other hand why would I possibly engage in or legitimize a debate over consensus that I have characterized as irrelevant from the standpoint of policy? I simply don’t believe that Oreskes review is equivalent to various petitions that you cite, and I am pretty certain that if I had done what you suggested I’d be criticized (rightly so) for making a claim of equivalency. (Note also that Peiser’s work was not available when I submitted my letter last year so I could not have referenced it.) If you’d like to see an explicit attempt to characterize the two-sided political debate, albeit from 2000, that I co-authored, have a look at these:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-69-2000.18.pdf
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/homepages/roger_pielke/hp_roger/debate.html

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1056 Eli Rabett Tue, 24 May 2005 04:17:07 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1056 Hmm that first sentence in the second paragraph should read If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google - Peiser climate. The electronic gods swallowed the last two words. Hmm that first sentence in the second paragraph should read

If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google – Peiser climate.
The electronic gods swallowed the last two words.

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1055 Eli Rabett Tue, 24 May 2005 04:02:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1055 Dear Dr. Pielke, if you want to make an argument about a policy debate it is useful to briefly discuss the environment in which that debate takes place, not simply to recite the perceived sins of one side. In particular, the anti- side in the "global warming" debate IS attacking the idea of a scientific consensus, and IS doing so with might and main. Starting in the 1990s they put together several petitions and appeals with multiple signatures. You have, I am sure, read of the OISM petition, the Heidelberg Appeal and the Leipzig something or other. If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google . Someone with a pretty good public relations operation is getting this guy into the Financial Times, the Telegraph and a load of other media to trumpet a fairly shoddy piece of work. Why do you pretend that this is NOT happening while using one of the few direct responses on the other side (from Oreskes) as a negative example. I would happily have read "Each side in this argument has attempted to gain legitamacy by presenting petitions and studies showing that their argument has support. The antis have obtained thousands of signatures on various petitions, the pros point to the IPCC reports as summaries of scientific consensus. Recently Oreskes has made a crude attempt to quantify consensus in the scientific literature, which immediately was met by Peiser's loudly proclaimed but seriously flawed counter example. But so what..... " Dear Dr. Pielke, if you want to make an argument about a policy debate it is useful to briefly discuss the environment in which that debate takes place, not simply to recite the perceived sins of one side. In particular, the anti- side in the “global warming” debate IS attacking the idea of a scientific consensus, and IS doing so with might and main. Starting in the 1990s they put together several petitions and appeals with multiple signatures. You have, I am sure, read of the OISM petition, the Heidelberg Appeal and the Leipzig something or other.

If you have ANY doubt whatsoever that this is the case, you merely have to google . Someone with a pretty good public relations operation is getting this guy into the Financial Times, the Telegraph and a load of other media to trumpet a fairly shoddy piece of work. Why do you pretend that this is NOT happening while using one of the few direct responses on the other side (from Oreskes) as a negative example.

I would happily have read “Each side in this argument has attempted to gain legitamacy by presenting petitions and studies showing that their argument has support. The antis have obtained thousands of signatures on various petitions, the pros point to the IPCC reports as summaries of scientific consensus. Recently Oreskes has made a crude attempt to quantify consensus in the scientific literature, which immediately was met by Peiser’s loudly proclaimed but seriously flawed counter example. But so what….. “

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1054 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 20 May 2005 12:03:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1054 Eli- Thanks much for your comments. If you want to give the "numbers game" legitimacy, then there is no better strategy to legitimize it than by engaging in that debate. The point of my letter was to observe that from the standpoint of action, the numbers game is pretty much irrelevant. We can talk about numbers of acticles, skeptics and so on -- or we can talk about what sorts of new and innovative policies might make practical and political sense on climate in the post-Kyoto period (e.g., lets revisit Article 2 of the FCCC). If we (collectively) spent 10% of our time on the latter that we do on the former, then we'd be much better off. But the sport and spectacle of sceptics vs. hawks appears to be too much of a draw on _all_ sides. Eli- Thanks much for your comments. If you want to give the “numbers game” legitimacy, then there is no better strategy to legitimize it than by engaging in that debate. The point of my letter was to observe that from the standpoint of action, the numbers game is pretty much irrelevant. We can talk about numbers of acticles, skeptics and so on — or we can talk about what sorts of new and innovative policies might make practical and political sense on climate in the post-Kyoto period (e.g., lets revisit Article 2 of the FCCC). If we (collectively) spent 10% of our time on the latter that we do on the former, then we’d be much better off. But the sport and spectacle of sceptics vs. hawks appears to be too much of a draw on _all_ sides.

]]> By: Eli Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1053 Eli Rabett Fri, 20 May 2005 03:46:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1053 Oreskes is a direct response to the numbers game set up by various propagandists, such as the 17,000 scientists can't be wrong, there is no climate change, Singer, Seitz and Robinson farago. You can search long and hard in that list to find someone who works in climate science research, although there are a few, but the, shall we say, strange article which formed the basis for that petition, had many questionable assertions designed to fool the gullible. I did not see this blog mentioning that farcical bit of misdirection, nor was there context provided in your letter to Science (the Oregon Research Institute petition not being the only such attempt). I conclude that you object only to Oreskes and do not see what she wrote as an attempt to address systematic propaganda. Given how easy it was to take Peiser's list of dissenting abstracts (from a different search) apart, I think you would have to agree that he was wittingly attempting to reinforce the FUD squad. I take your letter in the same sense. Your statement "So in addition to arguing about the science of climate change as a proxy for political debate on climate policy, we now can add arguments about the notion of consensus itself." is mighty tongue in cheek, given that many of the usual characters are arguing exactly that and have been doing so since the early 1990s. Before that a lot of them were arguing that smoking did not cause cancer. Oresekes' essay did not arise in a vacuum, and cannot be addressed as standing alone. It was certainly more representative of agreement in the climate research community then the various "petitions" and "statements" organized by Singer and his ilk. Thank you for your contribution to this. Oreskes is a direct response to the numbers game set up by various propagandists, such as the 17,000 scientists can’t be wrong, there is no climate change, Singer, Seitz and Robinson farago. You can search long and hard in that list to find someone who works in climate science research, although there are a few, but the, shall we say, strange article which formed the basis for that petition, had many questionable assertions designed to fool the gullible.

I did not see this blog mentioning that farcical bit of misdirection, nor was there context provided in your letter to Science (the Oregon Research Institute petition not being the only such attempt). I conclude that you object only to Oreskes and do not see what she wrote as an attempt to address systematic propaganda. Given how easy it was to take Peiser’s list of dissenting abstracts (from a different search) apart, I think you would have to agree that he was wittingly attempting to reinforce the FUD squad. I take your letter in the same sense.

Your statement “So in addition to arguing about the science of climate change as a proxy for political debate on climate policy, we now can add arguments about the notion of consensus itself.” is mighty tongue in cheek, given that many of the usual characters are arguing exactly that and have been doing so since the early 1990s. Before that a lot of them were arguing that smoking did not cause cancer.

Oresekes’ essay did not arise in a vacuum, and cannot be addressed as standing alone. It was certainly more representative of agreement in the climate research community then the various “petitions” and “statements” organized by Singer and his ilk. Thank you for your contribution to this.

]]> By: Louis Hissink http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1052 Louis Hissink Mon, 16 May 2005 11:05:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1052 Finding the phrase "Global Climate Change" in, what, the abstract?, is important? Stating that climate changes is fact, indeed overstating the obvious. If climate did not change, implying that it is static, then one could logically draw the conclusion that neither was life present. If climate did not change and we were confronted with a, say, constant temperature, then the peception of hot and cold would be absent. No, absence of hot and cold means no transference of energy and hence an absence of life. Does this imply that changing climates are expressions of life, and that unchanging climates, death? (read unlife which is a somewhat cumbersome term). Finding the phrase “Global Climate Change” in, what, the abstract?, is important?

Stating that climate changes is fact, indeed overstating the obvious. If climate did not change, implying that it is static, then one could logically draw the conclusion that neither was life present.

If climate did not change and we were confronted with a, say, constant temperature, then the peception of hot and cold would be absent.

No, absence of hot and cold means no transference of energy and hence an absence of life.

Does this imply that changing climates are expressions of life, and that unchanging climates, death? (read unlife which is a somewhat cumbersome term).

]]> By: The Post-Normal Times - Perspectives on Environmental Science and Policy Decisions http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1058 The Post-Normal Times - Perspectives on Environmental Science and Policy Decisions Sat, 14 May 2005 01:11:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1058 <strong>Being skeptical of the so-called Skeptics</strong> Over at Prometheus, Naomi Oreskes and Roger Pielke are being far too polite when they refer to arguments (of the so-called Climate Skeptics) about uncertainty and whether there is consensus about the science of climate change, as a proxy for... Being skeptical of the so-called Skeptics

Over at Prometheus, Naomi Oreskes and Roger Pielke are being far too polite when they refer to arguments (of the so-called Climate Skeptics) about uncertainty and whether there is consensus about the science of climate change, as a proxy for…

]]> By: Dano http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1051 Dano Fri, 13 May 2005 18:51:51 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1051 Hmmm...no HTML tags. That first para. should be italicized. Hmmm…no HTML tags. That first para. should be italicized.

]]> By: Dano http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3475&cpage=1#comment-1050 Dano Fri, 13 May 2005 18:50:55 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3475#comment-1050 I see: The existence of scientific scepticism would have "a direct effect on policies." Perhaps it is this political fear that lies behind the current attempts to deny that scepticism within the scientific community exists to any significant degree. I was specific in my assertion: substantiated skepticism has an effect on policy-making. Your particular assertion is not substantiated. The abstracts you found were about uncertainty, not lack of consensus, and uncertainty is a factor in decision-making. Substantiated skepticism contributes to the decision-making process and participates in the ways of knowing that decision-makers use (wisdom, experience, instinct, information) to make policy. Roger regularly asserts (viz. (i) above) that decision-makers have politics-free results rolled up to them. Scientific results are only one way of knowing, but are controlled, careful results, hence their importance in many societies. The recurring theme on Prometheus is that scientists remain above the fray in order to have their results remain valid. Whether Platonic and Cartesian methods are 'best' is another topic, but a main point of gathering knowledge is for human use. If knowledge can't be used for policy decisions - as you seem to imply - then what good is it? D I see: The existence of scientific scepticism would have “a direct effect on policies.” Perhaps it is this political fear that lies behind the current attempts to deny that scepticism within the scientific community exists to any significant degree.

I was specific in my assertion: substantiated skepticism has an effect on policy-making. Your particular assertion is not substantiated. The abstracts you found were about uncertainty, not lack of consensus, and uncertainty is a factor in decision-making.

Substantiated skepticism contributes to the decision-making process and participates in the ways of knowing that decision-makers use (wisdom, experience, instinct, information) to make policy. Roger regularly asserts (viz. (i) above) that decision-makers have politics-free results rolled up to them.

Scientific results are only one way of knowing, but are controlled, careful results, hence their importance in many societies. The recurring theme on Prometheus is that scientists remain above the fray in order to have their results remain valid. Whether Platonic and Cartesian methods are ‘best’ is another topic, but a main point of gathering knowledge is for human use. If knowledge can’t be used for policy decisions – as you seem to imply – then what good is it?

D

]]>