« Science Policy: General »

Whether a cause is 'good' is a value judgement, but 'bad arguments' can be objectively determined (i.e. does the logic of the argument truly impel the policy that is being argued for). Thus for you to (correctly) point out that plausible hurricane-climate change connections are not a big deal in assessing a good policy response to reducing hurrricane damage, is an appropriate commentary that shouldn't be interpreted as implying that GHG emissions should not be reduced for other (presumably better) reasons. Similarly, if I point out that the existence or not the Medieval warm period as a global phenomena is irrelevant to the argument for future anthropogenic warming, I am doing the same thing - correcting a bad (i.e. irrelevant) argument independently of whether the arguer is arguing for a 'good' cause or not. That is not 'wasting my time' arguing with sceptics, it is trying to make clearer to all concerned what arguements have policy implications and which do not. (That is distinct from arguing for a particular interpretation of the proxy record however). Only scientists are in a position to do this kind of assessment, and that is the kind of thing that can be usefully channeled through NAS committees or organisations such as IPCC.

Hi Gavin- Thanks, we are in 100% agreement on these points that you raise. But two responses that go beyond:

1. Rayner's main point seems to be directed at those who would make the case for emissions reductions (a "good cause") based on their role in reducing hurricane impacts, which we could extend to those arguing for the EU to work towards a 2 degree stabilization target (a la Richard Tol) to those arguing for emissions reductions to counter malaria (a la Indur Goklany) to thgose who elevated the "hockey stick" to iconic proportions in the IPCC (a la Hans von Storch), etc. etc. Rayner is, quite rightly in my view, asking us to pay some greater attention to "bad arguments in support of good causes" in addition to the overwhelming attention paid to "bad arguments in support of bad causes". I believe that it is the former that do more to limit progress towards "good causes" than the latter. Often we only get a nod in the direction of the former, with most all attention paid to the latter.

2. But my larger point (and I presume Rayner's as well) is that such arguments (as you have described them) are necessary, but not sufficient. We also have to pay attention to the institutions that connect science and policy, as well as those that make and implement policy. An example of this would be the concerns raised here about the legitimacy of the IPCC or the structural fidelity of the FCCC. We see frequent statements (not necessarily from you) here from folks who would prefer to battle over truth claims rather than engage in the messy realities of institutional design and functioning. So concerns about institutions are typically framed as efforts to udnermine truth claims, rather than areas of legitimate concerns of themselves.

The result of 1. and 2. above is not a completely misplaced focus on skeptics, but a focus on skeptics to the exclusion of other critically important functions in the science-policy process.

Thanks!

Roger, there may be something foul with the links on "tear this wall down".

However, to the point, as long as there are bad arguments for bad causes, there will be bad arguments for good causes. Those who wish to eliminate both should start at the former if they wish to be taken seriously.

Hi Roger,

Steve Rayner wrote, "The danger of using bad arguments for good causes, such as preventing unwanted climate change, is two-fold."

Then you wrote, "Rayner's main point seems to be directed at those who would make the case for emissions reductions (a 'good cause')..."

You seem to have morphed Raymer's "good cause" of "preventing unwanted climate change" into (your own personal?) "good cause" of "emissions reductions."

I don't see how "emissions reductions" (of CO2) are, a priori, a "good cause."

I disagree with Eli. I think we should concentrate on eliminating bad reasons for good causes. We are never going to eliminate bad reasons for bad causes. While it's well established there is "global warming" occurring, it's difficult to logically invest in it when we have people talking about e.g. the "last 30 years" - an obvious sham, when one considers that the 30 years before that it was cooling; and dismissing alternate forcings out of hand.

It goes back to that High Priest of AGW, Stephen Schneider, who said "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Those "scary scenarios" and "simplified, dramatic statements" make good fodder for pseudo-scientists who are looking for a popular bandwagon to jump on, but also make for an argument that has holes like swiss cheese. While it offers up a "cause" for a religious crusade, it doesn't take much independent thought to see it's smoke and mirrors, particularly when CO2 is almost exclusively blamed, while it is arguably the closest thing we have to manna, and the third world needs all the manna it can get.

It's too bad the uncertainty is not adequately represented - the world would never have fallen for a scam like Kyoto, and with more calls for resolving uncertainties, maybe there would be more funding for climate science itself, rather than funding for energy brokers.

Hopefully AR4 will be more honest about uncertainties - we will see.

Hmm, like I said, eliminate the bad reasons for good causes, and the denialists will be right there with more bad reasons for bad causes.

BTW, Roger, I hammer on you enough about negative things, but this and the O'Brien piece are why I read you - your above"

So long as policy debates are dominated by people who believe that universal agreement on a particular set “facts” or perspective on “truth” is a prerequisite to policy action, don’t be surprised to see continued gridlock and inaction. That is a truth you can count on.

is what I mean when I ask you to use your training and experience to provide positive examples for decsion-makers to use. Here, you insist on leadership. Simple.

Thank you.

Best,

D

Eli, you said:
"to the point, as long as there are bad arguments for bad causes, there will be bad arguments for good causes. Those who wish to eliminate both should start at the former if they wish to be taken seriously."

Then you said:
"Hmm, like I said, eliminate the bad reasons for good causes, and the denialists will be right there with more bad reasons for bad causes."

So, you think those two statements mean the same thing? Yeah, okay. It's difficult to have a constructive conversation with someone having that type of logic.