Archive for October, 2005

Preprint Available

October 7th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

A forthcoming paper of mine in Environmental Science and Policy is available as a PDF. Here is the title and abstract.

Misdefining ”climate change”: consequences for science and action

Abstract

The restricted definition of ”climate change” used by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) has profoundly affected the science, politics, and policy processes associated with the international response to the climate issue. Specifically, the FCCC definition has contributed to the gridlock and ineffectiveness of the global response to the challenge of climate change. This paper argues that the consequences of misdefining ”climate change” create a bias against adaptation policies and set the stage for the politicization of climate science. The paper discusses options for bringing science, policy and politics in line with a more appropriate definition of climate change such as the more comprehensive perspective used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

More on the Mooney Thesis

October 6th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Earlier this week I raised some general issues that I had with Chris Mooney’s thesis of a “Republican war on science.” With this post I’d like to get more specific, with some comments on Chapter 7 of his book which focuses on climate politics and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) in particular. Mooney argues that Senator Inhofe is “probably the Republican Party’s leading environmental spokesman” and thus focuses his critique of Republican climate policy on a July 28, 2003 speech given by Senator Inhofe on climate change and a congressional hearing called by Senator Inhofe the very next day.

Mooney is perfectly justified in excoriating Senator Inhofe for cherry picking and selectively choosing his experts. But so what? This is a member of Congress acting in a political manner. Congress is a political place (shocker), always has been always will be. There is absolutely nothing unprecedented about Senator Inhofe’s intemperate speech or his stacked hearing. Floor speeches and hearings are political theater. They are certainly not fora for scientific discourse, and often not even policy discourse. A 1954 study of congressional hearings provides a glimpse into how little has changed over a half-century,

(more…)

Revisiting Bob Palmer on Partisanship in Science Policy

October 5th, 2005

Posted by: admin

Last April, recently-retired minority (Democratic) staff director for the House Science Committee gave an excellent talk here on the state of contemporary science policy. Recent commentary here suggests that Bob Palmer’s views are worth revisiting. Here is an excerpt from a short essay Bob prepared for our spring newsletter,

“While debates about S&T policy have never been center-stage in Washington, its current corrosively partisan atmosphere has driven them further underground. Partisan science fights began in the late 1980’s, when S&T became politicized in Congress as part of a broader strategy – ironically formulated by the aforementioned Newt Gingrich – to fight Democrats on everything, including science. The partisan fight over science policy – exemplified today in reports by Congressman Waxman and the Union of Concerned Scientists – did not start during this Administration. It has been bubbling in Congress for 15 years… Why should this increasingly partisan atmosphere matter to science, when it will continue to perk along nicely, buoyed by tens of billions of dollars of Federal funding? It matters because S&T are key to helping us understand and respond to global changes unprecedented in their speed and scope. We have the largest defense budgets and among the largest Federal deficits in history. We also have the challenge of terrorism and the threat of attacks on our own soil from weapons of mass destruction. Health care costs continue to spiral upward, threatening our small businesses and our future fiscal stability, despite massive expenditures on health research, which seem to exacerbate the cost problem. We face an increasingly competitive Asia, whose ability to challenge our manufacturing base, even our high-tech base – and before long our research and development base – seems limitless. None of these challenges will be solved by science, but they will all require the wise application of science. In the current environment, they may not even get serious consideration, because of a fixation upon partisan advantage and a political culture which makes it increasingly difficult to reach across party and ideological barriers.”

Katrina as Category 1 in New Orleans?

October 4th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

An alert reader (thanks JA) passes along this very interesting news story from today’s Florida Sun-Sentinel,

“Hurricane Katrina might have battered New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as a considerably weaker system than the Category 4 tempest initially reported. New, preliminary information compiled by hurricane researchers suggests the system struck southeast Louisiana on Aug. 29 with peak-sustained winds of 115 mph. That would have made it a Category 3 storm, still a major hurricane, but a step down from the enormous destructive force of a Category 4. Katrina might have further downgraded to a strong Category 1 system with 95 mph winds when it punched water through New Orleans’ levees, severely flooding most of the city and killing hundreds. The levees were designed to withstand a Category 3 storm. If verified, the wind information compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Hurricane Research Division could have chilling ramifications.

(more…)

Excess of Objectivity Revisited

October 4th, 2005

Posted by: admin

Here’s Dan’s response to the entry below:

Author: Daniel Sarewitz

I thank Dylan Krider for his interesting comments. His point, I take it, is that one side (that is, his side) values science and truth, and the other side (that is, I take it, the current political regime) is simply a bunch of totally duplicitous greedheads who don’t give a crap about anything except feathering their own beds while the rest of the world suffers.

(more…)

Reader Comments

October 4th, 2005

Posted by: admin

In responding to this entry yesterday, Dylan Otto Krider offered this thoughtful comment responding to Dan Sarewitz’s piece, Excess of Objectivity. We’d like to encourage the discussion by bringing Dylan’s comment and a response from Dan to a larger audience.

Author: Dylan Otto Krider has written on science related issues for the Houston Press, Dissent, and Skeptic.

I have read the Excess of Objectivity paper, and agree with it wholeheartedly – at least, I think I do, until I see it put into practice.

Quote: “[Science] can alert society to potential challenges and problems that lie ahead. In fact, the threat of stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, and global climate change were brought to public attention and political prominence in part through the work of scientists. But, once an environmental issue becomes politically contentious, the geological view of nature accepts that science itself can become an obstacle to action.”

(more…)

A Few Comments on the Mooney Thesis

October 3rd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

With a number of readers writing me and asking for some commentary on Chris Mooney’s recent book, “The Republican War on Science,” I thought I’d offer a few thoughts. I expect that there will be some comments, questions and criticisms and I am happy to address these in subsequent posts. It is a complicated subject. This post is not a book review, but an attempt to engage the “Mooney thesis” from a big-picture perspective. Mooney’s work and accompanying marketing blitz has people talking and debating, and that is quite an accomplishment in today’s over-saturated information environment. Chris was kind enough to send to me a signed copy of his book with a “thank you” for always challenging him, and I appreciate that. This post continues in that spirit – seeking to challenge Mooney’s thesis in a respectful, intellectually-grounded manner.

However, I’ll admit to being reluctant to do so. The Mooney thesis is a clever, even brilliant, wedge device, like a political Rorschach test if you will. It is difficult in this context to engage in intelligent debate about the substance of Mooney’s thesis without ideologues being quick to ascribe a political motivation for one’s views, and then to ignore the substance. It is not uncommon to see ensuing discussion devolve into angry ad hominem attacks and mindless witnessing to one’s own political values. That being said, because Mooney’s thesis forces science policy to be discussed in Republican-Democrat terms, it is ironically enough an important factor in the contemporary politicization of science. This is not a statement about Mooney’s motivations, but the effects that his work has had on science policy debate and discussions, which I observe in classes and in professional collaborations every day. Such debates are polarized from the start, and getting people to consider the factors that enable the misuse of science is clouded by their partisan lenses. I do believe that there are factors that are independent of party affiliation that enable, and even motivate, the politicization of science.

Here is Mooney’s thesis in his own words:

(more…)

Another Misattribution, Climate Scientists Silent

October 3rd, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

On 28 September 2005 the New York Times ran an editorial titled “Time to Connect the Dots” that argued from attention to greenhouse gas reductions in order to address the threats of global warming on hurricane damages. Here is an excerpt:

“The scientists who have studied the issue have not detected any increase in the number of hurricanes. Yet these same scientists – in research reports appearing in reputable journals like Science, Nature and The Journal of Climate – have detected increases of up to 70 percent in hurricane intensity, a measure that combines the power of a hurricane and its duration. There has been a commensurate increase in damage, mainly because more and more people have stubbornly put themselves at risk by moving to low-lying coastal areas. But the hurricanes’ added strength has clearly contributed to the ever-higher toll in lives and property damage.”

(more…)