« The Honest Broker »

I find your outrage over this issue about as compelling as Larry Flynt being a champion of the First Amendment.

I would never condone persecuting an individual for voicing a sincere belief, but asking an organization to stop funding deliberate disemination of falsehoods is many leaps away from that crime.

Aren't there better causes to take up than defending Exxon's right to propagandize the world for personal profit?

Roger, I followed the link to the second letter, which is only an antagonistic article by a journalist who received the letter.

That article has this quoted passage:

"We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world."

I must confess I am quite at a loss as to how in the world this would up as your words:

"ignore people with perspectives outside the IPCC consensus"

I hope you had a good reason, perhaps another portion of the letter that I haven't seen supports this?

Otherwise I am not sure how I can avoid the conclusion that you wish to misrepresent what really was written for some personal motivations that I can only speculate about.

Dr. Pielke:

"Climate scientists and advocates confident of their positions should welcome any and all challengers, and smack them down with the power of their arguments, not the weight of their influence or authority. A strategy based on stifling debate is sure to backfire, not just on the climate issue, but for the scientific enterprise as a whole."

While I can find much to admire and agree with in both of these statements even though the conclusions may not be justified, I find extremely puzzling and would like to take issue with both (i) your statement that "The Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate" and (ii) your 100% endorsement of Dr. Whitehouse's characterization of the Royal Society’s letter to ExxonMobil.

First, Dr. Whitehouse does not fairly summarize the Royal Society's letter, which in large part simply takes issue, in a factual manner, with recent public positions taken by Exxon. The parts of the letter which Dr. Whitehouse finds objectionable consist of (i) a reminder by the author that he received assurances from the addressee that Exxon would cease its funding of organizations which the Roal Society says misrepresent the science of climate change, (ii) requests that Exxon notify the author when Exxon will fulfill its pledge and that Exxon specify the organizations that would no longer receive funding, and (iii) a request that Exxon identify, in the same manner that it identifies the organizations in the US that it funds, the organizations in the UK and Europe that Exxon funds, so that the author can determine if these organizations also misrepresent the science of climate change.

From an English perspective perhaps there is a certain edginess to these points, but from an American view I am afraid I have difficulty in seeing them as either "hectoring" or "bullying" as Dr. Whitehouse would have it. But irregardless of one's characterization of the tone, the Royal Society letter simply does NOT (i) "demand[] that EssoUK stop giving money to groups and organisations who do not believe that human activities are totally responsible for global warming"; (ii) "demand[] adherence to the scientific consensus" or (iii) "us[e] its authority to judge and censor".

Second, your conclusions that the Royal Society letter is "inconsistent with the open and free exchange of ideas, as well as the democratic notion of free speech" is not merely over-blown, but funadmentally misconceives what free speech is about. While it is a legitimate question whether the Royal Society should be seeking information from Exxon as to whether Exxon persists in funding climate change skeptics (as opposed to funding climate change scientific inquiry) in Europe and the UK, the Royal Society is not a governmental insitution and has no authority over Exxon. Its letter does not purport to censor Exxon but simply seeks information, which information the Royal Society in any case has no power to require Exxon to provide.

The information that is available as to Exxon funding of skeptics in the US is a result of legal disclosure requirement pertaining both to Exxon and its funding recipients; apparently similar information is not available in the UK and Europe. Perhaps there is another watchdog group that is more appropriate than the Royal Society, but until legal changes are made apparently there is no other way to obtain the information as to how Exxon intentionally manipulates the climate change debate short of asking Exxon for it - and making the request public, so that public opnion may influence Exxon as well.

Third, it seems that you have missed the main point to be made, which it that by playing a "truth in advertizing" role, the Royal Society is of course providing a valuable public role by asking Exxon to act entirely in a forthright, above-the-board manner.

To the extent the Royal Society anticipated this letter would be made public, it has also provided a service by shedding light on the ways in which Exxon chooses NOT to openly engage in debate over the science of climate change - which of course it has every right to do - but chooses instead to manipulate the debate through the hidden use of "skeptics" of doubtful provenance who are in the business of creating public confusion on the behest of corporate patrons.

Why does Exxon act this way? Simply because it feels that it has something to gain from clouding the debate, and that the money it spends on having supposedly independent proxies acting for it has been effective in contributing to the Exxon bottom line - which bottom line of course improves to the extent that Exxon can get away with passing off to the rest of society and future generation that costs of using the global atmospheric commons as a dumping ground for the GHG by-products of fossil fuels. So far, Exxon and fossil fuel use generally have gotten a free ride on misusing the commons, through implicit subsidies that have incentivized further misuse.

In other words, the Royal Society letter, far from negatively influencing the climate change debate, is helping to shed light on some of the darker areas of it. While Exxon has every right to act to maximize its own economic interests, it is quite useful for the rest of the participants in the debate to know whether other contributers to the debate are independent or in fact acting as spokemen for Exxon (or others), so we can better weigh the information such debaters provide.

Surely you would not disagree on this point?

Finally, of course, Exxon is an enormous and enormously power company, and is quite capable of speaking for itself if it wishes to do so. They hardly need you, Dr. Whitehouse or others to act as their proxies. While noting the delicious ironies here, when the Davids all rally around Goliath, I am forced to wonder why you choose to do so, especially when the position you implicitly support would have the effect of adding more smoke and less light to the debate.

Thanks!

There was a discussion on Radio 4 this morning - appprox 8.45 - between Bob Ward of the Royal Society and Dr Whitehouse. Bob Ward certainly referred to the reports of the IPCC as what constituted what scientists knew about climate change. The discussion should be available on the BBC Radio 4 website for the next week.

The complaints from Dr Whitehouse miss the point. Exxon is not really engaged in a scientific debate, but rather a political debate. Scientific debates can go on for long periods and eventually reach a conclusion in which the theory is found to be either right or wrong. They are, in the end, decided upon the facts - rather than upon share of voice.

Political debates have a finite life and frequently have no factual right or wrong. Often, the 'winner' of the debate is the side with the biggest megaphone. Plus you can get a long way by the use of FUD. So is the Royal Society trying to stifle scientific debate - as is alleged - or trying to stop a particular interest group with a loud megaphone using incorrect science to spread FUD in order to win a political debate?

Coby-

We've gone down this path before, you and I. Your continued insults are here not welcome. If you do not like what you read, then please visit other websites that are less disturbing to your views.

If you would like to engage, which we strongly encourgae, please do so substantively, and leave the personal stuff out, OK?

Thanks.

Correction: David Whitehouse is no longer with the BBC. I have corrected the original post to reflect this. Thanks. RP

Tom Rees-

Thanks much for your comments. You hit the nail on the head when you ask this question:

"So is the Royal Society trying to stifle scientific debate - as is alleged - or trying to stop a particular interest group with a loud megaphone using incorrect science to spread FUD in order to win a political debate?"

This is precisely my concern. I wrote in the original post: "The Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate. This is not, to put it delicately, the most effective use of scientific authority in political debates."

The question for me is whether it makes good snse for a science academy, especially one as esteemed as the Royal Society, to engage in such a political debate which you accurately characterize as follows:

"Political debates have a finite life and frequently have no factual right or wrong."

Thanks.

Tom Dreves-

Thanks for your comments.

You write, "the Royal Society is not a governmental insitution and has no authority over Exxon." I agree.

There are apparently two letters. The one to Exxon is not about censoring. The one to reporters reported in the Telegraph telling reporters what to report seems to be to be asking them to censor political debate (i.e., not science, but politics).

You write, " Perhaps there is another watchdog group that is more appropriate than the Royal Society . . ." Indeed, this is my point.

The Royal Society is many things, but in my view (which is likely irrelevant, not being a member and not being British!;-) it is not well-serving its mission by taking on the role of corporate-political watchdog.

As far as the influence of "skeptics" I would be happy to review the data on this, presented on this site many times. In short, their influence on the public understanding of climate science has been nil. Public views on climate science in the US and elsewhere make the IPCC reports seem tame by comparison. Further, I am sure that Exxon's support for "skeptics" is far less than Exxon's support for Stanford's research on climate technology research. I recognize that for many people mentioning of the word "Exxon" is like putting a red flag before a bull. But lets also stick to what we know about skeptics and their actual influence.

I have absolutely no problem with groups like Greenpeace, Exxon shareholders, House of Lords special committees, other NGOs, etc. serving as corporate watchdogs. This is a good and healthy activity in our governmental and economic systems. But I do raise (what I think are) fair questions about whether we want a national academy of science serving in this role.

At the interface of science and politics there are a division of responsibilities. Do we want scientific institutions taking the form of advocacy groups? I don't think so.

Hi Roger you say: "The question for me is whether it makes good snse for a science academy, especially one as esteemed as the Royal Society, to engage in such a political debate".

It depends on what the remit of the Royal Society is. Its role is not purely scientific, but also to engage in Policy discussions ( http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1280 ). They don't pretend to be policy neutral.

The letter could be framed as an appeal to Exxon to stop muddying the waters of political discussion. So there is a question of whether the letter is legitimate (probably, since the Royal Society seeks to influence policy) and also whether it was smart (probably not).

Tom Rees (sorry to be so formal, but want to keep our Toms straight!)-

Thanks. You write, "It depends on what the remit of the Royal Society is."

I agree. This is the issue that I'd like to discuss, not just of the RS, but science academies in general. I have discussed this issue before:

http://www.ostina.org/content/view/365/158/

or in PDF:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1764-2005.34.pdf

Thanks.

This is well worth reading.

Transcription of BBC Radio 4 program courtesy of Benny Peiser:

BBC Today Programme, 21 September 2006 (8:20)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/

BBC Today Programme, Sarah Montague

Is it the job of Britain's foremost scientific academy, The Royal Society, to hector private companies about how they spend their money? There has been criticism of the Royal Society for asking the oil company Exxon Mobile to stop giving money to groups it argues misrepresent the science of climate change.

Dr David Whitehouse is a scientist and an author. Bob Ward is from the Royal Society. He wrote the letter to Exxon Mobile. Both join me now.

Dr Whitehouse. Why do you object to the Royal Society, to Bob Ward writing to Exxon Mobile?

David Whitehouse: My problem is not with the science, my problem is not with human-induced global warming. My problem is with the nature of science and the scientific debate, about different views. Different views, contrary positions, are essential to the progress of science. They are what keep arguments strong, the defence of arguments is what keeps them robust and healthy. And if somebody comes out with bad science, somebody comes out with misrepresentation, you tackle bad science with good science. It does not matter, it is irrelevant, whether these people are right or wrong, whether it's god science or bad science. What troubles me is that the Royal Society is demanding another organisation to stop funding groups that have views different from the scientific consensus. Their views, the value of their views, will be determined by argument and not by doing a tussle around their funding, to get their money turned off because you disagree with what they're saying.

BBC: Bob Ward. Can you respond to that.

Bob Ward: I can. Let me first correct the impression that being given. I did not demand that Exxon stops funding these groups. I made an observation in a meeting I had in July that they were making statements that misrepresented the science and that they were funding groups that were similarly misrepresenting the science. They then offered themselves to stop funding these groups. But let me make a distinction here.

BBC: Can we just follow this through. You then wrote to them saying...

Bob Ward: What happened is, after I'd explained why the Royal Society felt that the statements Exxon Mobile had made in a report in February, when I explained to them that they were wrong in our opinion, they then send me a report in the summer, a new report, which repeated all of the statements which I complained about in the first place.

BBC: And the letter which the Guardian got hold of yesterday was you saying to them: 'I would be grateful if you could let me know when Exxon Mobile plans to carry out this pledge.' Which is why I used the word 'hectoring,' it's a form of hectoring.

Bob Ward: Well, I like the idea that the Royal Society should be accused of bullying the world's largest multinational oil company. All we're doing is saying to them: it is very clear what the scientific community says about climate change. Anybody can find out by going to the website of the IPCC (www.ippc.ch) . And they can see what the scientific community thinks about climate change. And then they can compare for themselves the stsatements that are being made by Exxon Mobile and by these lobby groups - who are not groups of scientists. These are lobby groups, they are not scientists. Exxon Mobile are not offering scientific evidence.

BBC: Let me bring in Dr Whitehouse. Isn't that what the Royal Society should be doing, ensuring that the right information is out there?

David Whitehouse: The Royal Society should be arguing about science, it shouldn't be delving in such politics. It is clear from this letter that the Royal Society did have concerns about the support that Exxon was giving to groups which they disagree with. They can have concerns about that but their argument should not be with the funding, or the background. It's a question of free speech. Scientists in America won the right to criticise the Bush Government when they did not agree with them about global warming. The contrary should apply here.

BBC: Bob Ward. Have you stepped over a line here?

Bob Ward: We haven't. Let me be clear. We're not trying to shut scientists up. What we're trying to do is say to the lobby groups and to the companies that they should present properly what the scientific community is saying. Now, let me just tell you. One of the organisations that is getting funding from Exxon Mobile is the so-called Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. This is a statement on their website: "There is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in carbon dioxide." Now, can David Whitehouse tell me which peer-reviewed scientific papers that statement is bade on?

David Whitehouse: My point is not an argument about the science. The science is irrelevant in this context. You can go to your own website and read scientists talk about the uncertainties of global warming. The question is not whether these people are right or wrong. It's a question about their right to speak. When scientists and scientific organisations like yourself want to serve the cause of public policy, they do so best by following the ethics of science and not public relations and spin.

BBC: Let me just come in here. Dr Whitehouse. Isn't it the case that on this argument people would say the price is too high. And you don't have a level playing field if you have millions being pumped into bad science.

David Whitehouse: First of all. Does is matter that it is bad science? The science, whether it is bad or god, comes out in scientific argument. My problem is with distorting the playing field. Science is about free speech, science is about the exchange of information and argument. It's not about trying to find out who get money paid to somebody else because you disagree with him. We tell young scientists, the most important thing, we tell them, is to question authority. Why should I believe this because you say so?

BBC: We have very little time left. I want a final thought from you, Bob Ward. Is the Royal Society going to continue that sort of approach to prevent funding of organisations that they don't like what they're saying?

Bob Ward: The Royal Society's motto is "Nullis in Verba" - which means "where is your evidence?" (sic) If organisations make statements that are clearly at odds with what the scientific community says the evidence shows, yes, then we will challenge it. Because it does not serve the public for them to be mislead about what the scientific evidence says.

Copyright 2006, BBC

Transcription by BJP

EDITOR'S NOTE: Well, I'm not a classistics. But to my knowledge the Royal Society's motto is generally translated as "on the words of no one," meaning: take no theory in trust ... which is in essence the ethics of scientific scrutiny and debate David Whitehouse has been arguing for. BJP

A bit more background from our archives for those interested in the role of science academies in political debates:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000447what_role_for_nation.html

Roger,

I have to admit that I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what it is that the RS had done wrong here.

"if organisations make statements that are clearly at odds with what the scientific community says the evidence shows, yes, then we will challenge it. Because it does not serve the public for them to be mislead about what the scientific evidence says."

Now I don't have time to read the links you provided (busy reading others :)), but it seems to me given your previous comment, that you are not taking issue with the letters per se, but rather with the RS's policy of taking on an active, public role in trying to ensure that science is accurately represented in public forums. I'm puzzled because I thought that this something that you have been advocating for a long time.

Let me put it another way. If an organization is funding other groups that are overtly lying to the public about the state of knowledge on a scientific issue, then who's responsibility is it to counter them? If not a scientific body like the RS then who?

Sorry, Roger, but I am at a complete loss as to what you found insulting or why you would charaterize my parcipitation on Prometheus as continuously so.

As for why I read your fine blog, well, if I only read things I already agreed with 100% then I would not be learning anything, and I learn alot reading here. I find your request that I take my disagreements home with me disappointing and ironic giving the subject of this thread.

If it is important for you that I understand what I did that caused your public scolding, perhaps email is the answer. In the meantime, I believe I have made very substantive points, in fact points echoed by other posters, perhaps you can answer them.

I have no problem with the RS rebutting what they perceive to be bad science. In fact, I would see that as one of their oblibations. However, trying to prevent dissenting views from seeing the light of day is way off base (and unscientific), no matter who is presenting the views. They should encourage criticism! And if the science of AGW is correct, they should be able to show why the criticism is incorrect.

If they want to convince me (a skeptic leaning fence sitter) that they are correct, the best thing they can do is encourage quality criticism of the current science, then logically and clearly disprove the criticism.

Trying to censor dissenting views only pushes me (and others, I suspect) in the wrong direction they want me to go.

Coby-

Here is what I object to from your post:

"I find your outrage over this issue about as compelling as Larry Flynt being a champion of the First Amendment."

"I am not sure how I can avoid the conclusion that you wish to misrepresent what really was written for some personal motivations that I can only speculate about."

A few good rules that have served us well. No name calling. No invoking of other's "hidden" personal motivations. Do bring disagreements, but leave the other stuff out.

Lets agree to discuss and debate based on what we write here, and leave the comparisons to unsavory figures and speculation on personal traits for other venues.

These are rules for everyone here. Thanks!

Roger:

I appreciate your response, but surely you realize that the point you make in your response - that you think scientific institutions should not act as advocacy groups - is a far cry from your initial position that claims that the Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate and is thereby acting in a manner inconsistent with the open and free exchange of ideas. Clearly the Royal Society`s letter to Exxon, which is the letter that Dr. Whitehouse addresses in a letter you endorsed, is not an act of censorship. Furthermore, though this was not addressed is your post, unless a newspaper involved is government-owned, asking a newspaper to carefully consider whether they publish views inconsistent with the IPCC is not an act of censorship - which by definition can only be committed by the government. The Royal Society has asked for nothing except that newspapers act responsibly (though what is "responsible" may be in the eye of the beholder).

I presume you would similarly object if any US or Canadian science academy took the Wall Street Journal editorial page to account for any of its blatantly political and contra-science positions, but that is your prerogative. Let`s just be clear that the debate is over the role of a science academy, and not over "censorship".

It is not my position to comment on what the duties of the Royal Academy should be, but let me note again that I think it clear that by requesting Exxon to speak openly about its sceintific and policy views on climate change, rather than hiding behind proxies, the Royal Academy is providing a service to the debate that seems to be lacking in the UK and Europe. Exxon should be called to task for trying to muddle the debate, and I`m glad the Royal Academy is trying to do it.

Again, the Academy`s effort is about improving the quality of the information that the public and its representatives need to make informed decisions. While you might think someone else should be doing this, it is an entirely valuable and praiseworthy task, and certainly does not squelch Exxon in any way.

Regards,

Tom

Regards,

Tom

Neil Collins of the Telegraph writes, "Yet a closer examination of the scientific case shows that what are now considered by the doomsayers to be firm forecasts of temperature rises are actually 'scenarios' of what might happen on different assumptions."

Ruh roh!

After nearly *5 years,* a journalist has finally noticed that..."Gee, the Emperor has no clothes!"

Interestingly, I was just writing (again) on this very subject, on the Scientific (or "Scientific") American blog. Here's a cut/paste (Ben is Ben Hocking, another commenter, and John Rennie is the Editor in Chief of Scientific...or "Scientific" American):

Hi Ben,

You write, "I'm curious - how can you have an MS in Environmental Engineering and be so hostile to AGW theories? (In your last few posts, you did come off as hostile - at least that's the way I interpreted it.)"

The short answer to your question is that I'm not hostile to AGW theories. If you read my global warming website, and the environmental postings on my blog, you'll see I think:

1) The world has unquestionably warmed since 1880.
2) It's likely that GHG emissions (and black carbon!) have caused at least some of the warming.
3) The year 2100 will almost certainly be warmer than the year 1990.

What I'm hostile to is pseudoscience masquerading as real science. When the IPCC Third Assessment Report says,

"Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."

...that renders them unfalsifiable. If I say, "It may rain tomorrow," that's not a statement of science. (On the other hand, if I say, "There's a 90 percent chance of rain tomorrow," that is a statement of science.)

By the way, I'm not the only one who says the IPCC Third Assessment Report "projections" aren't scientific. Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University has also made that point several times:

"The IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report uses 40 scenarios which show decarbonization and carbonization going in all different directions with no probabilities attached. Failing to provide probabilities is unscientific and reveals the political bias of the results, said Ausubel."

Jesse Ausubel also said, "What I would do is try to make people put money where their mouth is. The IPCC doesn't even put probabilities on its results."

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=7

Jesse Ausubel is an 11-year member of the National Academy of Sciences, and 5-year Program Manager for the National Academy of Engineering. He is the originator of the term, "decarbonization." (I guess that's what John Rennie calls "credentials.")

And even James Hansen has admitted that the IPCC scenarios that resulted in the highest temperature "projections" were simply invented to scare the public:

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate...scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions."

In fact, did you know that the IPCC Third Assessment Report scenarios that resulted in the highest temperature projections were added AFTER peer review?

http://www.reason.org/ebrief105.shtml

Has Scientific American ever informed its readers that the IPCC TAR "estimate" (to quote Scientific American in April 2001) of warming of "1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius" based on extreme and completely unrealistic "scenarios" that were added AFTER peer review? Why not?

THAT'S what I'm "hostile" to...when people like the IPCC pass pseudoscience off as real science...and when "scientific" publications don't inform the public of such violations of scientific integrity, due to obvious bias.

Mark
September 18, 2006 @ 21:55

Oops. I definitely should have corrected the typo in the cut/paste. Here's how it should read:

Has Scientific American ever informed its readers that the IPCC TAR "estimate" (to quote Scientific American in April 2001) of warming of "1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius" is based on extreme and completely unrealistic "scenarios" that were added AFTER peer review? Why not?

Marlowe-

Thanks. I do encourage you to read the various links etc., which might help clarify the discussion.

You ask: "If an organization is funding other groups that are overtly lying to the public about the state of knowledge on a scientific issue, then who's responsibility is it to counter them? If not a scientific body like the RS then who?"

It all depends upon what you mean by "counter them". let me provide several answers:

1. The RS could counter them by presenting its views on climate science, which they have on their WWW site.

2. The Royal Society could explicitly single out organizations that it believes have misrepresented science, such as Bob Ward did with the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in the BBC interview transcribed above.

3. But as we have often argued, efforts like #1 and #2 above have the effect of scientizing political debates -- i.e., turning debates about science into proxy political wars, which in the end does more to politicize science in pathological ways. More effective strategies would be to openly engage in discussion of policy options, either as an advocate of a preferred action, or as an honest broker of a wide range of options.

4. The RS has gone beyond these strategies to insert itself as some sort of financial auditor of Exxon-Mobil's advocacy expenditures. I do not find this to be an appropriate or effective role for a national science academy.

5. There are plenty of other interest groups out there taking a hard look at Exxon-Mobil's activities, and appropriately so. These efforts have had an effect it is safe to say.

6. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that if it were not for those nasty skeptics out there the climate problem would be solved or otherwise action would be further along. I don't think thre is any evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.

This comment to the SciAm blog is also relevant. It was made after John Rennie told another commenter:

"You only think that Scientific American has abandoned skepticism on global warming."

I replied:

Did Scientific American ever *have* skepticism on global warming?

In April 2001, Scientific American reported:

"In fact, in February the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raised the estimate of the world's temperature rise between 1990 and 2100 from 1.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius to 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C.-Philip Yam"

1) Has Scientific American ever told its readers about this comment, buried in the fine print: "Scenarios are images of the future or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts."?

2) Has Scientific American ever told its readers that the the scenarios that caused the highest temperature "estimates" (which were neither "forecasts" nor "predictions") came from simply inventing out of whole cloth ridiculously high emissions that *no one* who knows anything about that matter think have even a remote chance of coming to pass?

3) Did Scientific American tell its readers that those highest scenarios were added AFTER peer review?

4) Did Scientific American ever question the IPCC's assertion that all scenarios are "equally valid?" For example, has Scientific American ever questioned how the A1F1 scenario can possibly be "equally valid" with the B1 scenario?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figts-17.htm

5) Has Scientific American ever questioned how scenarios that lead to such wide ranging temperature increases as "1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius" (and do not even contain any sort of probability that the actual warming will even be WITHIN that range!) can possibly be of any use for policy making? Does Scientific American truly think there are no policy implications whether the expected warming is less than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or more than 5.8 degrees Celsius?

Mark (frankly skeptical about Scientific American's brand of skepticism)
September 18, 2006 @ 22:53

Tom Devres-

Thanks. I do indeed think that "the Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open debate." And to be clear I mean political debate.

You write, "I presume you would similarly object if any US or Canadian science academy took the Wall Street Journal editorial page to account for any of its blatantly political and contra-science positions, but that is your prerogative." Yes. And I'd similarly object in the RS (or its US equivalent) took the the Independent to task for its often over-the-top coverage of climate change. The RS is seeking to advance political positions under the cover of science.

As you say, and I agree, "what is "responsible" may be in the eye of the beholder."

You write, "Let`s just be clear that the debate is over the role of a science academy, and not over "censorship"." Fair enough.

Thanks!

Roger,

Let me start by saying that I pretty much agree with everything Tom Dreves says in his latest post. Here are some additional thoughts on your reply.

It appears that you agree that the RS has the 'right', i.e. a legitimate interest in involving itself in the debate, by virtue of your replies #1 and #2; since they are tactics or methods it can use to further its objectives (i.e., the accurate representation of science in public debate). Whether or not the RS believes it is more is more effective to use its website, single out groups on an individual basis, or move further upstream in the chain (i.e. to Exxon), IMO is entirely up to them, but I suspect that they would choose all three approaches, rather than rely on one alone.

On the vices of scientizing political debates, I don’t see why this is a bad thing necessarily (or avoidable whenever the stakes are high), and even if it is, then I would simply say that it wasn’t the RS that started it, but they do have a legitimate interest in making sure that the science that is used in the political debate is not misrepresented.

#4. RS as financial auditor. As I see it, the decision to go straight to Exxon rather than fight each its proxies individually is one that they have every right to make. If that is a more efficient/effective strategy then so be it. I’m not clear on why you think this is inappropriate. If Exxon is funding these organizations then it is to some degree accountable for their actions, right? As Tom Devres suggests “by requesting Exxon to speak openly about its sceintific and policy views on climate change, rather than hiding behind proxies, the Royal Academy is providing a service to the debate”.

#5. There are plenty of other interest groups out there taking a hard look at Exxon-Mobil's activities, and appropriately so. These efforts have had an effect it is safe to say.”
I agree with everything you say, but so what? Just because there are other groups ‘taking a hard look at Exxon’ doesn’t preclude RS from doing so as well does it?

On #6 I’m a little bit more agnostic. On the one hand I agree that public opinion seems relatively immune to the septics FUD tactics – at least to the extent that they believe that AGW is a problem. However, I don’t think that means that the septics have had no effect at all -- for the very simple reason that if this was true then it begs the question as to why the Exxons of the world are spending so much money funding these activities. I suspect that the FUD tactics are affecting how seriously the public views the threat and how much they are willing to do to take action (I’d welcome some public opinion research that you have on this topic).

While Roger and I have resolved this and other things via email, I still think I should clarify for other readers:

"I find your outrage over this issue about as compelling as Larry Flynt being a champion of the First Amendment."

- I did not intend for Roger to be Larry Flynt in this analogy, that is ExxonMobile.

Otherwise, Tom Dreves has made all the points I thought important, and better than I would have done, so consider this a "me too" post :)

Marlowe-

Thanks. The RS of coure has the "right" to do whatever it wants. In my view the RS risks their long-term legitimacy and authority when engaging in NGO-style politics.

I have no doubt that many people will accept whatever advocacy help they can get whether from the RS or wherever.

However, at the same time I do think that it is important that we ask what effects such advocacy might have on the RS specificially and the scientific enterprise more generally. In my view the negative effects of such overt advocacy on the scientific enterprise outweigh whatever short-term political gains might be achieved by the RS on this particular issue. The world is full of issue advocates. There are precious few places of honest brokering of policy alternatives. National science academies should be one such place.

On the vices of scientizing debates -- read Jasanoff, Sarewitz, Weingart etc. -- don't take my word for it.

On public opinion/climate change see these posts:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000054a_myth_about_public_.html

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000524paul_krugman_think_.html

Thanks!

Mr Ward said: "It is now more crucial than ever that we have a debate which is properly informed by the science. For people to be still producing information that misleads people about climate change is unhelpful. The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."

Lessee...the short version of this would be:

"Let's debate, so we can all decide to take the action that the RS has already determined (even before release of the IPCC AR4) is necessary."

:-)

P.S. "And let there be no debate about that!"

:-)

In reading this excellent conversation, a few stray thoughts strike me.

Regarding Marlowe Johnson's observation, "If Exxon is funding these organizations then it is to some degree accountable for their actions, right?," I note with mostly amusement that a majority of the funding for the Royal Society comes from the British government. Shall we then conclude that the British government is to some degree responsible for an effort to influence how a U.S. corporation donates to U.S.-based policy organizations that do the bulk of their work on U.S. domestic policies? Perhaps. Perhaps Americans will not find this troublesome, Britain being the Mother County and all.

I wonder if the same cross-Atlantic open-mindedness would prevail if U.S. government-funded institution were to pressure a major British philanthropist to stop funding something like, oh, perhaps criticizing the war in Iraq. A very important issue, that. Not being infallible, surely some domestic war critics have once or twice said something with which the U.S. government might properly disagree. Strike off their heads! Er, funds!

I note also that the Royal Society receives donations from ExxonMobil itself. The phrase "conflict of interest" comes to mind. If I were a recipient of a donor's largess, might I not like it if said donor became disenchanted with the other recipients of contributions? It might increase one's own portion of the pie, would it not? Worth a try, anyway.

I laughed aloud at the part of the Royal Society's letter complaining that some recipients of ExxonMobil largesse allegedly overstate the degree of uncertainty in climate science. If a thing as complicated as the factors determining the climate of the Earth is not known for sure, the potential uncertainties are very great indeed. Further, if we knew enough to quantify them, we would probably know enough to predict the weather next Tuesday.

Dr. Pielke, you are correct. The Royal Society risks being seen as a political/policy group. Perhaps it does not mind. Perhaps it sees it as truth in labeling.

“The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it”

It's the vagueness of the language that's a bit disturbing. What do they mean by “action”, “mislead” and “undermine”?

“Action” to continue scientific research in crucial but uncertain areas, or to push “action” towards certain political agenda? It’s not clear, and this creates some worry.

With respect to “undermine” and “mislead” If the RS intends to prevent those who they feel are blatantly misrepresenting or cherry-picking the science for political ends, then OK – it’s their choice. But will the RS be equally vigilant with such groups/individuals on all sides of the debate?

Or does the RS mean to discourage the media from presenting the views of *any* scientists that presents research findings that might question some of the material presented by the IPCC?

You want to hope the intentions of the RS are good. But such vague language leaves much to be concerned about.

I think the Royal Society did the right thing. Exxon Mobil is not engaged in a scientific discussion by supporting organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Their support is pure politics dressed up as science. Exxon Mobil wanted to influence the public not debate scientists. The Royal Society has a responsibility to state it's beliefs when science and politics intersect as they often do in climate change. Telling the media that the positions Exxon Mobil is espousing are not worthy of being reported is smack in the middle of that intersection. Is it really any different than the government telling the media and through them the rest of us that we shouldn't believe tobacco companies who minimized concerns over smoking? I don't think so.

What I find offensive is a something like this: http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060919105731-66383.pdf

This is censorship. A political appointee in a government agency is preventing a government scientist from being used as a source for a news organization because that scientist doesn't toe the political line of the current administration.

Since when is corporate PR and think tank lobby propaganda an element in the free and open scientific debate? Certainly a thinking person can distinguish between an honest and lively scientific debate, and propaganda based on distortions and misrepresentations of the science. To condemn the propaganda is a legitimate exercise of good judgment.

The supposed 'climate remediations' formed from within 'greenhouse supposition' can't have any beneficial effect, there isn't possible a 'greenhouse based' warming effect (with implementation of the 'greenhouse theory'), and so supposed 'greenhouse remediations' can only then be seen as potentially DETRIMENTAL to the NATURAL persistence of 'Natural events' & NATURAL alterations as observed in their still irregular but otherwise reasonable & 'GENTLE' Natural style.
It is easily understood why there is not general public support for 'greenhouse platforming', they simply do not accept the rhetorical presentation of nonsense by a small group of bullies (word as per this 'thread'). Perhaps those who attempt to 'ratify bulling' should understand the general public attitude to such practices in ALL arenas of life, including the ACADEMIC ARENA & should consider altering their 'position' on censorship especially, to be more accommodating of SCIENCE and less concerned in support of the 'talking greenhouse façade', perhaps?

It is that the censorship styling 'greenhouse discussion' attempts to avoid notice of SCIENCE, and focus instead of OPINION from just a 'few' presented as 'expert' and the noticed as being that supposed 'consensus' which in REALITY does not exist at all. These 'few' simply have no answer to SCIENCE and, unable to overcome such with OPINION, bully to produce censorship along with background vilification (tainted comments regarding 'corporate propaganda is obvious vilification 'in the attempt'), so notice please as EXAMPLE only to the attitude of those seemingly siding with censorship:-
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/blog/?q=node/204#comment-1533 -(+)

Is this the attitude included in 'greenhouse education'? Should it be considered that 'support' for 'greenhouse opinion' is indoctrinated within the education system? Certainly behavior is indicative of such. As to the Public, their general attitude seems expressed in the comment next, 'made to me' whilst attempting discussion in another place:-
-----
Heh
by Bob Friday September 15, 2006 at 11:34 PM

Social fascists are running this site.
Don't give them facts they just want money
-----
- It is 'the PUBLIC' are what this persistent censorship is 'rejecting', along with SCIENCE & is NOT at all an action of a 'discussion moderation' or SCIENCE at all, it is clearly seen as CENSORSHIP to support 'lobby platforming' and is being attempted on ALL levels it seems. Is it ANY wonder WHY the 'public' do not 'respond' then to MOVIES and 'Novels' platforming 'climate doom & woe'?...
- This is the function of the 'greenhouse platform', Politics to attempt to overplay the 'WHO is speaking' and underplay what is said being said, and belittle those who raise issues in SCIENCE the 'greenhouse platform' wants to have ignored (see link '+' above)....
-It is that 'dissension' is the just fiction, bullying the 'solution' and that is being seen when issues raised conflict with the 'greenhouse platformers' (political) ambitions. But then the 'greenhouse platform' has always been POLITICAL after the attempt to enter within SCIENCE saw the 'greenhouse theory' fail (for three times presented, three times failed).

The rise in median surface temperature is well seen, it is related to rematerialing of the surface by and within the production of Human habitat. This is so easily observed that the only method that the 'greenhouse science platform' can produce to counter this issue is to produce censorship and vilification of those whom point to this situation. It is clearly observed in the slides within those few outlines at link (**) below.
The current 'warm climate period' is only ONE of many within the last ~3 Million year 'Primary Trough' period tween the 60 or so 'Glacial Events' there in contained, and it could well be the last of this present 'Period' without any need to allude to 'humanistic alterations' with the processes involved well beyond 'human tinkering' still (& fortunately). All Humanity has done is move where the Rain might fall, but it will still be falling...just elsewhere than 'now', see link '**' below. This is commonly known information.

The public are not convinced of the 'doom and woe' propaganda as it is commonly known to be complete nonsense, & most certainly NOT science, and no number of politicians, actors or musicians will make any Movie to the 'general betterment' of 'greenhouse opinion' to the public. Production of style internet discussion groups will NOT assist in 'public conversions'. There is little relevancy of 'how much' CO2 is present with regard to CLIMATE, Temperature is NOT even a valid indicator of 'Climate involved' processes, and measure of Temperature is not even showing ANY valid, RELIABLE & persistent link to measure of CO2. Hence the effort to discuss 'paleo-periods', or fabricated 'future scenarios', rather than NOW. This is noticed by the public also, and NOW is what is relevant in 'Politics'.

Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
(**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/

Roger,

Thanks for your efforts against politicizing science. Though I was initially not very skeptical, the more I see attempts (such as that by the RS) to censor the debate, the more skeptical I become of anything from the IPCC.

Dr. Pielke:

I have reviewed with interest the exchanges on this thread and confess I have a difficult time understanding just exactly what your position is as to (i) the letter from the RS to Exxon, (ii) Dr. Whitehouse’s reaction, and (iii) what you see as the preferred manner in which the RS should deal with issues relating to the misrepresentation of climate science by interested corporations through the anonymous use of “for-hire” pundits. I appreciate your further clarification.

1. You stated that you endorse Dr. Whitehouse’s letter 100%, but as others have indicated, the pertinent parts of the RS letter consist of requests for information and not demands. Do you still agree with Dr. Whitehead that the RS letter is “hectoring and bullying [and] demanding adherence to the scientific consensus”, and is “using its authority to judge and censor”? If not, perhaps you can clarify what parts of Dr. Whitehead’s letter you agree with, and which, if any, you do not endorse.

2. You have stated that you think that by its letter to Exxon, "the Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open [political] debate," but you have also noted that “other interest groups out there taking a hard look at Exxon-Mobil's activities, and appropriately so”.

If it is appropriate to seek to clarify when corporations that have a vested interest in the status quo (of incomplete and ineffective GHG regulation) are seeking to block policy changes through the paid use of undisclosed pundits, and to provide more information to the political debate on the behavior and motivations of participants in that debate, in what way can you conclude that the RS is seeking to LIMIT political debate?

3. You assert that “the RS is seeking to advance political positions under the cover of science” but nowhere can I see in the letters at issue or this thread what “political” positions you or others consider the RS to be trying to advance. Can you clarify why you consider the RS’s actions to be directed at political positions, rather than at clarifying the climate change science? In what “overt advocacy” is the RS engaging and how does it negatively affect the scientific enterprise?

4. You state that “[t]here are precious few places of honest brokering of policy alternatives. National science academies should be one such place.” I am not sure I share your premise; since national science academies are preeminently scientific organizations without particular policy expertise, they do not seem well-positioned to “broker” policy alternatives, but perhaps you share my view that they should be providing scientific advice as to the nature of problems and in vetting the scientific aspects of policy proposals made by others.

In any case, can you help me to better understand how you think it is that an “honest broker” (or a science academy, in general) undermines its position when it acts to promote a more forthright and honest discussion of climate science (which of course would be the effect of identifying pundits who are funded by Exxon)?

5. If it is a “trap” and unsupportable to think that skeptics have had the effect of delaying action to solving the climate problem, then how can you at the same time state that the “appropriate” efforts to take “a hard look” at Exxon’s activities “have had an effect”? Obviously these positions are inconsistent – if Exxon and others have not delayed action, then their own expenditures have themselves been wasted, and efforts to clarify their use of pundits meaningless.

Rather, it seems clear that it is your own initial statement that is counterintuitive and unsupportable. While there are other factors at work (especially interactions among various countries to get the best climate change deal and to minimize free-riding and cheating), very clearly important monied interests that are have been enjoying the free and unfettered use of the global atmospheric commons. The benefits of such use have been significant enough that they have spent rather freely to maintain the flow of such benefits – just look at campaign contributions to Joe Barton and other Republicans. The funding of pundits as been a part of this, and it seems to me that the cost-benefit calculations of those spending (and watchdog groups that invest in disclosing such investments), coupled with the fact that meaningful policy action has not occurred, speak very loudly and clearly against your speculations that skeptics have not been able to delay action to solving the climate problem.

But even if you are correct - and that skeptics have had no success in delaying policy action - can you confirm whether you agree that it is useful when discussing policy to identify those who benefit from the status quo and who the interests of various parties would be affected by different policy options?

Thank you,

TT

It is the 'fence of censorship' that the 'greenhouse platform' attempts to raise that is at issue. There is not any actual validity in the use of a descriptive like 'corporate pundit for hire' or 'denialist &/or sceptic', with these terms used by the 'greenhouse Platformer' to vilify those presenting those points otherwise wanted to remain 'unnoticed'. It is ALSO the Political play of the 'greenhouse Platformer' made obvious with these terms, NOT any deficiency in the points made by those so targeted for vilification. The 'greenhouse platform' efforts to discuss 'paleo-periods' & fabricated 'future scenarios' (from behind a 'censorship fence') rather than 'Now' with this 'attitude' well noticed by the public. 'NOW' is however what IS relevant in 'Politics' and the 'greenhouse platform' is only playing 'scientists' in the Political Arena... 'Advocates' in 'white coats' are still only Advocates & not 'Scientists'...

It is that the general public would hold greater 'climate knowledge' that the 'few' being platformed as 'experts' far too often, as there are isn't such a 'climate' as these 'few experts' would opinion on with the materials within the Environment NOT presenting properties & behaviours consistent with these 'experts' opinion ON 'Climate'. The public are not convinced by the 'doom and woe' propaganda either, as it is commonly seen for what it is, lobby propaganda & no number of politicians, actors or musicians will make any Movie to the 'general betterment' of 'greenhouse opinion' or 'climate doom as reality' to the public.

This current 'warming climate period' is only ONE of many within the last ~3 Million year 'Primary Trough' period tween the 60 or so 'Glacial Age-like Events' there in contained, and it could well be the last of this present 'Period' without any need to allude to 'humanistic greenhouse alterations' with the processes involved well beyond 'human tinkering' still & fortunately so. All Humanity has done is move where the Rain might fall, but it will still be falling...just elsewhere than 'now', see link '**' below. It is as such not UNNATURAL to see Ice melting.

The 'greenhouse platform' efforts to 'discuss from behind a censorship fence', this is WHAT the 'RS' ploy is about being not 'so to validate' what 'is mentioned' but only effort to control WHO should 'speak'. The 'greenhouse focus' seems anywhere except 'Now' also, with this 'attitude' well noticed by the public. With 'NOW' being what IS relevant in 'Politics' and the 'greenhouse platform' only playing 'scientists' in the Political Arena it is little wonder that people mention that, as example, the UK Public remains sceptical of climate danger. It is that the 'greenhouse few' attempt to hide from notice the 'IS' of 'NOW', but successfully it seems only from themselves. There has not been seen as such 'action', this is commonly mentioned in discussion with 'Kyoto targets' not even being noticed it seems, so 'policy action' is to date near non existent thus one would ask "What 'success' then is being 'un-negated' even by supposed 'denialists"? The answer would appear to be NONE... Politics IS about NOW it seems, you see.

Should it not also be seen as to WHO benefits from persistent platforming of 'greenhouse opinion', all those BOOK and MOVIE deals, whilst the ENVIRONMENT continues on un-interested in 'greenhouse supposition' and whilst Humanity continues to build itself into the situation of 'suffering' under a period of 'perfect storm' productions 'Tokyo Tom'? Seems being a 'greenhouse expert' is very lucrative...

Your's,
Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
(*)- http://hartlod.blogspot.com/
(**)- http://hartlodsgallery.blogspot.com/

The RS were happy enough when the consensus on stomach ulcers was broken by just 2 scientists:

October 2005

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4304290.stm

Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said: "Their results led to the recognition that gastric disorders are infectious diseases, and overturned the previous view that they were physiological illnesses."

Lord May wrote to newspapers asking them not to publish articles that were sceptical about global warming, before he retired.

A few thoughts:

1. Exxon's savvy seems to have done a great job at deflecting public attention away from their $ and onto the RS.

2. While I think the RS does have a purpose to discredit scientific fraud, they are doing an amazingly poor job at saying so, if indeed that is their purpose.

3. As a result of 1 and 2, I think that the RS's actions are being percieved as being more reproachable than what they probably intended.

If a big Palladium miner stared spending millions of bucks on astro-turf roots publicity touting the benefits of cold fusion, then the RS would be perfectly right in calling them on it. Similarly, if Exxon spends money on similar qualitatively convincing but quantitatively wrong arguements against the existance or severity of global warming, the RS has a duty to out them.

But the political and scientific facents of the global warming issue are so hard to seperate that it looks like in this case, the RS aimed for bad science but got caught in a political snare.

Sorry, it was the VP, Sir david Wallace who wrote to the press in May 2005:

I've had a letter from Sir David Wallace, CBE, FRS. In his capacity as treasurer and vice-president of the Royal Society, he writes: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/05/16/do1602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/16/ixopinion.html

Responses to Tokyo Tom

Some great questions here. My replies follow.

-----------------
1. You stated that you endorse Dr. Whitehouse’s letter 100%, but as others have indicated, the pertinent parts of the RS letter consist of requests for information and not demands. Do you still agree with Dr. Whitehead that the RS letter is “hectoring and bullying [and] demanding adherence to the scientific consensus”, and is “using its authority to judge and censor”? If not, perhaps you can clarify what parts of Dr. Whitehead’s letter you agree with, and which, if any, you do not endorse.
-------------------------

I don’t think I’ve ever used the terms “hectoring and bullying” but I agree with the spirit of Dr. henson’s views, especially when he writes, “However the Royal Society sees its role in debates about science, is it appropriate that it should be using its authority to judge and censor in this way?” This question perfectly captures my concerns and is the message that I endorse 100% from the letter. Thanks for the chance to clarify.

-------------------
2. You have stated that you think that by its letter to Exxon, "the Royal Society is seeking to use the authority of science to limit open [political] debate," but you have also noted that “other interest groups out there taking a hard look at Exxon-Mobil's activities, and appropriately so”.

If it is appropriate to seek to clarify when corporations that have a vested interest in the status quo (of incomplete and ineffective GHG regulation) are seeking to block policy changes through the paid use of undisclosed pundits, and to provide more information to the political debate on the behavior and motivations of participants in that debate, in what way can you conclude that the RS is seeking to LIMIT political debate?
-----------------------

RS is trying to change how Exxon funds interest groups. They are trying to limit the flow of resources to certain interest groups. This is indeed trying to limit political debate. Whatever the remit of the RS, I do not think that it ought to include passing judgment on what interests in society are acceptable recipients of funding. There are many, many groups that stretch and misrepresent science, including many notable environmental groups. I do not think that science academies should be engaging in their funding based on how they interpret their use of science.

---------------------
3. You assert that “the RS is seeking to advance political positions under the cover of science” but nowhere can I see in the letters at issue or this thread what “political” positions you or others consider the RS to be trying to advance. Can you clarify why you consider the RS’s actions to be directed at political positions, rather than at clarifying the climate change science? In what “overt advocacy” is the RS engaging and how does it negatively affect the scientific enterprise?
---------------------

“Politics” is about bargaining, negotiation, and compromise. “Science” is about the systematic pursuit of knowledge. The RS actions focused on Exxon funding are about the former, using the authority of the scientific community to adjudicate who should be able to speak on issues of climate politics. And lets be clear, the organizations that Exxon is funding at the focus of the RS letter are political entities, not research organizations. On how advocacy hurts the community, see:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2002: Policy, politics and perspective. Nature 416:368.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2002.05.pdf

An my new book, the Honest broker, will discuss all of this in depth.

-----------------------------
4. You state that “[t]here are precious few places of honest brokering of policy alternatives. National science academies should be one such place.” I am not sure I share your premise; since national science academies are preeminently scientific organizations without particular policy expertise, they do not seem well-positioned to “broker” policy alternatives, but perhaps you share my view that they should be providing scientific advice as to the nature of problems and in vetting the scientific aspects of policy proposals made by others.
--------------------------

Two replies.

1. Science and politics can only be cleanly separated in the most trivial of circumstances. There are no purely scientific elements of issues like climate change.

2. Science academies are often called upon to weigh in on important policy issues. If it is indeed that case that they have little policy expertise, then this says something quite revealing about asking these organizations to offer policy guidance. I do not think that science academies have any shortage of available policy research expertise in the academic community on which they draw their expertise.

----------------------
In any case, can you help me to better understand how you think it is that an “honest broker” (or a science academy, in general) undermines its position when it acts to promote a more forthright and honest discussion of climate science (which of course would be the effect of identifying pundits who are funded by Exxon)?
----------------------

I encourage you to read the following paper, which suggests the same question that you have in its title.

Sarewitz, D., 2004. How Science makes environmental controversies worse, Environmental Science & Policy, 7:385-403.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/sarewitz_how_science_makes_environmental_controversies_worse.pdf

-------------------------
5. If it is a “trap” and unsupportable to think that skeptics have had the effect of delaying action to solving the climate problem, then how can you at the same time state that the “appropriate” efforts to take “a hard look” at Exxon’s activities “have had an effect”? Obviously these positions are inconsistent – if Exxon and others have not delayed action, then their own expenditures have themselves been wasted, and efforts to clarify their use of pundits meaningless.
-----------------------

Great question. Skeptics on climate science have had little effect on public opinion, emissions reductions, or adaptation. So if influencing these are the goals of Exxon’s past funding of interest groups, I’d maintain that such money has been mostly wasted. When I say that interest groups have had an “effect” this is with respect to Exxon’s funding, which hs changed in recent years away from these organizations. Anyone who thinks that changing Exxon’s funding patterns will affect public opinion, emissions reductions, or adaptation is in store for a disappointment. For many, a battle with Exxon over funding is a proxy war from climate policy.

-----------------------
. . . SNIP . . .

But even if you are correct - and that skeptics have had no success in delaying policy action - can you confirm whether you agree that it is useful when discussing policy to identify those who benefit from the status quo and who the interests of various parties would be affected by different policy options?
-------------------------

Absolutely.

One of the lessons of successful political movements, with only a few exceptions, is that you progress not by overturning the status quo but by presenting new options that allow for an evolutionary divergence to some new political consensus. The lesson of ozone depletion is that corporate interests we refocused on goals of environmentalists when substitutes for CFCs were invented. Progress on climate policy will be made not when one side “wins” (whatever that means) but when someone comes up with heretofore unavailable options that redefine the political dynamics.

Peter Hartlod-

Please do not continue submitting duplicate and lengthy posts that are off topic. The first we allowed, but now we will delete them.

Thanks!

Well after reading the comments of Tom Dreves and Tokyo Tom, I can safely say that I've learned a lot from this discussion -- primarily that others are much more eloquent than I am and can clearly express arguments that would take me days to write out.

On this point, Roger, I think that you should also consider you're own writing on this blog. I immensely enjoy reading your posts and the ensuing discussions and certainly appreciate the effort that you put into it. Having said that, I do find that more often than not, I have a hard time trying to understand exactly what it is that you are trying to say and what arguments you are trying to make. In fairness, I'm not sure if the reason that I find your writing somewhat impenetrable is simply because I'm not as familiar as some with the S&TS literature that seems to underpin many of your arguments.

But if that's the case, then I also have to ask who your primary audience is in all of this. Because if it's primarily non-specialists, then I would suggest you change your approach somewhat. Here are two suggestions:

1. Shorter isn't necessarily better. Many of the arguments that you make seem to require an appreciation of subtle points. Take the time and put these in your posts up front (instead of making us drag them out of you :)) since many of your readers don't come to these issues with the same kind of background knowledge/perspective as you.

2. Avoiding argumentation by linkification (or deluge). This is a personal pet peeve of mine. While I enjoy reading blogs, I don't necessarily have the time to sift through endless papers to find the one point that is relevant to the discussion. I can understand that you don't want to have to constantly repeat yourself. As a compromise, let me suggest that you simply cut-and-paste relevant parts of articles that help support your argument. Sure it takes a little bit more time, but it also helps advance the discussion by avoiding the "is this what you mean" back and forth posts.

Those are my suggestions, for what its worth.

cheers,

Marlowe-

Thanks much for the constructive feedback. A few replies:

1. As your 2 suggestions show there is a trade-off between conciseness and comprehensiveness. We're learning about how to achieve this mix. One function of the comments is to help achieve greater clarity that may not be present in the original post. With some luck some of that will sink in my brain for the future application;-)

2. Guilty as charged. By I have come to more fully appreciate that policy research is not unlike any other area of specialized knowledge -- it often requires appreication for the details and the specifics, much like chemistry, physics, sociology, philosophy or any otehr area of study. I provide links to more fully developed peer-revewed articles for those who want such details. For others, I realize that such knowledge may not be desired.

With some luck, all of this will be made clear in my forthcoming book (ahem;-)

Thanks!

In all of this, there is just one reference to the offending information that the RS is rallying against. Defenders of the RS are assuming that the information in question is undoubtedly false by any reasonable measure of scientific certainty, and that this alone justifies the actions of the RS.

The one example given is in the transcript from the BBC radio broadcast, citing the co2science.org website stating: "There is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in carbon dioxide." Has this statement been proven wrong? Is there no doubt that this statement is in fact and without question ‘disinformation’, or is it possible that this view might be reasonably held by a well-informed scientist?

Since this statement is not in context, it is difficult to discern what is meant by ‘the rise in temperature’. Are they referring to the entire change in average global temperature over the last 120 years? If so, then the statement is absolutely correct, for legitimate, well-meaning scientists have identified other factors that appear to be responsible for about three quarters of the observed warming, leaving only about 25% (or about 0.15 degrees C) for CO2. So there is no compelling reason to believe that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming (the IPCC doesn’t even make that claim), and that the statement from the website may, in fact, be fairly accurate!

My point is that all of the above contributors defending the recent actions of the Royal Society do so with the assumption that the RS’s current interpretation of AGW science is absolutely correct and anyone who disagrees with them is absolutely wrong! The assumption is that the ‘disinformation’ will be harmful to society and that it is the responsibility of the RS to protect society from harmful verbiage. But the lone example we are given, does not support these assumptions!

Assume, for the moment, that CO2 is NOT the primary driver of global climate change. Then any ‘actions’ suggested or supported by the Royal Society may be far more harmful to society than the CO2 emissions themselves! While not in the majority, there are many in the scientific community that believe this to be the reality. Should they come together and write the media, asking them not to print the ‘harmful disinformation’ coming from the Royal Society? Would not you RS/AGW supporters view this as an attempt at censorship? Without a doubt, for that is exactly what it would be!

Do scientists wish to influence society by providing scientific information or suppressing information they disagree with? Do the ends justify the means?

Dr. Pielke:

Thanks for your response. Allow me to make a few observations to your numbered paragraphs:

1. You clearly disagree with the RS letter, but I fail to see how you can give Dr. Whitehouse`s letter to BP your 100% endorsement unless you agree with his view that the RS letter to Exxon amounts to the RS “using its authority to judge and censor”. I`m sorry, but I fail to see how asking Exxon for information is in any way either judging or censorious. Browbeating, perhaps, but given Exxon`s size and the lack of any authority of RS over it, hardly bullying.

2. You say that “Whatever the remit of the RS, I do not think that it ought to include passing judgment on what interests in society are acceptable recipients of funding.” I agree that the RS should not be telling Exxon whom it should fund, but surely you can see that the actions of the RS do not rise to that level? While the RS would clearly like to see all SCIENTFIC comment by Exxon above the board and identified – so that the source of such comment can be better weighed - the RS is being careful simply to request information, and is not at all seeking to limit POLITICAL debate by Exxon. RS simply wants to better understand when Exxon is choosing to AVOID political debate by seeking to cloud the scientific debate through the use of unidentified proxies.

I`m puzzled that you do not find this effort to clarify the debate be separating out the separate strands of it to be either important or an appropriate concern of the RS. I guess I fail to fully understand your concerns, but in any case I do not see a foundation for your conclusion that RS is trying limit political debate.

3. & 4.　 You say that assert that “the RS is seeking to advance political positions under the cover of science” and is engaging in “overt advocacy” that negatively affects the scientific enterprise. You further clarify that “`Politics` is about bargaining, negotiation, and compromise. “Science” is about the systematic pursuit of knowledge. The RS actions focused on Exxon funding are about the former, using the authority of the scientific community to adjudicate who should be able to speak on issues of climate politics.

I have reviewed the two papers you referenced and it seems to me that your position is entirely contradictory to the positions taken there. In general, you`d like to see the limits of science recognized and not to allow decision-makers and advocates to stymie political decision-making by engaging in “scientized debate” that “suppress[es] the open discussion of value preferences.” Well, isn`t that EXACTLY the expressed concern of the RS? It seems to me that what the RS is trying to do is to clarify that Exxon’s so-called scientific positions, and the political organizations that Exxon funds, are essentially political, and not scientific. In this the RS can fairly argue that it is simply policing the scientific discussion by trying to draw a sharper distinction between what is political and what is scientific. Is this not what you and Dr. Sarewitz profess to desire as well? It seems to me to be quite within the legitimate interests of the RS, if not one of its core interests, to seek to keep what is political from muddying what is scientific.

Allow me also to refer to the two papers you cited. Dr. Sarewitz states that

“Even if science brings … a controversy into focus (for example, by documenting a rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases), the controversy itself exists only because conflict over values and interests also exists. Bringing the value disputes concealed by—and embodied in—science into the foreground of political process is likely to be a crucial factor in turning such controversies into successful democratic action … Moreover, the social value of science itself is likely to increase if scientific resources relevant to a particular controversy are allocated after these value disputes have been brought out into the open, their implications for society explored, and suitable goals identified.”

Sarewitz further suggests that “progress in addressing environmental controversies will need to come primarily from advances in political process, rather than scientific research,” and that “such advances will require the formal or informal imposition of a sort of “quiet period” for scientific debate … [d]uring [which] … those who make scientific assertions in fora of public deliberation would have to accompany those claims with a statement of value preferences and private interests relevant to the dispute.”

Sarewitz notes that “The technical debate—and the implicit promise that “more research” will tell us what to do—vitiates the will to act. Not only does the value dispute remain unresolved, but the underlying problem remains unaddressed. The point is not that stripping away the overlay of scientific debate must force politicians to take action. But if they choose not to act they can no longer claim that they are waiting for the results of the next round of research—they must instead explain their allegiance to inaction in terms of their own values and interests, and accountability now lies with them, not with science or scientists. To the extent that our democratic political fora are incapable of enforcing that accountability, the solution must lie in political reform, not more and better scientific information.

Your own paper states that "In the third corner is the advocate, looking for scientific data to provide a compelling justification for his political, societal, environmental or business goal. … Science brings with it an air of impartiality and being ‘above the fray’ but, ironically, its use in such advocacy actually undermines impartiality. … Political advocates will always selectively use and misuse scientific data to support their agendas.” You further note that, “to guard against the politicization of science, the independent scientific community must take responsibility for assessing the significance of scientific results for policy."

Would you agree that it is EXXON, not the RS, which is trying to achieve political objectives through politicized science, precisely to vitiate the will to act, while dodging an open discussion of policies and values? If so, what`s really driving your strong disapprobation of the RS, with nary a peep about Exxon`s disengenousness? And isn`t the RS doing the right thing in clarifying the differences between scientific disputes and value disputes?

BTW, I fail to see how either paper answers my question of how you think it is that an “honest broker” (or a science academy, in general) undermines its position when it acts to promote a more forthright and honest discussion of climate science (which would be the effect of identifying pundits who are funded by Exxon).

5. You state that “Skeptics on climate science have had little effect on public opinion, emissions reductions, or adaptation. So if influencing these are the goals of Exxon’s past funding of interest groups, I’d maintain that such money has been mostly wasted. … Anyone who thinks that changing Exxon’s funding patterns will affect public opinion, emissions reductions, or adaptation is in store for a disappointment.”
Allow me to split a few important hairs. Exxon benefits from POLICY inaction, and, while paying attention (and adapting) to its own business environment, is basically neutral to the voluntary emission reductions and adaptation efforts by others. Thus, the question is not so much whether the efforts by Exxon (and other fossil fuels companies and industry groups) have had any effect on emission reductions, adaptations or even public opinion per se, but whether they have managed to stymie policies changes. I fail to see how an honest answer to this question can be anything but yes.

Exxon and others quite clearly benefit from the status quo policy logjam by getting a free ride in using the global atmospheric commons as a dumping ground, a la Garrett Hardin, and passing the costs off onto the all of us generally. They invested quite carefully, deliberately and extensively in political campaigns and PR misinformation campaigns for this purpose, and they found willing takers in the Bush administration and Republican party, spearheaded by Exxon and Frank Luntz, who took joy in using a mockery of climate change and fear of “enviros” as a political club. (That a number of conservative pundits have been complicit by ignoring the obvious property rights failure at the core of global warming will be to their own lasting discredit.)

One might note that this pattern of behavior bears some resemblance to the Bush administration`s war on terror, which is another huge giveaway to special interests that looks like it will run for any number of years.

Please note that I consider Exxon`s rent-seeking behavior to be perfectly rational. That does not make it any less of a giveaway from the national treasury and our collective heritage. Although I am happy to hear rumbles for policy changes, I fear that instead of rational policies aimed at resolving institional failures regarding climate change, the administration and Congress are going to foist on us another set of hugely expensive pork-barrel projects to benefit special interests. This is ever the way of government, especially when there is no effective opposition.

Sincerely,

TT

TT-

Thanks for the thoughtful follow up. Limited time at the moment will not allow a more comprehensive reply, but let me quickly address one point that you have made:

"Would you agree that it is EXXON, not the RS, which is trying to achieve political objectives through politicized science, precisely to vitiate the will to act, while dodging an open discussion of policies and values? If so, what`s really driving your strong disapprobation of the RS, with nary a peep about Exxon`s disengenousness? And isn`t the RS doing the right thing in clarifying the differences between scientific disputes and value disputes?"

Of course Exxon is trying to achieve its politicl goals using the authority of science. Just about all etablished interests try to have the "science" on their side.

My concern is that the RS is doing the exact same thing. I believe strongly that in a healthy democracy there must be a division of responsibility among experts. Some should actively engage in political combat seeking to advance their particular interests. Such advocacy has an important role in democratic systems.

Some people believe that such advocacy (called "interest group pluralism") is all there is in a democracy, and that "if you are not with us, then you are against us." I have been convinced that there is another role that is needed beyond advocacy, which I have called the "honest broker of policy alternatives." On some issues all of the options being debated are bad ones. Climate change is a perfect example. We battle over Kyoto, hockey sticks, and Exxon's funding because there have yet to be viable options intrioduced into political debate. (Compare my earlier comments on how technology changed the political dynamics of the ozone debate.) This notion of democracy is more along the lines of that proposed by political scientist EE Schattschneider. Such honest brokers of policy alternatives are hard to come by -- they aren't individuals but institutions, with high standing and political legitimacy to speak for common interests -- i.e., not Exxon or otehr special interests.

So I fully understand it when people read me suggesting that the RS should adopt a honets broke role concluding that I must be somehow in support of Exxon, as you have suggested. Such people simply see the role of the epxert in democracy in different terms than I do. A recognition that there are different roles for the expert (or at least that people see different roles), beyond simply taking sides, is the key to understanding why it is that I focus my attention on institutions like the RS.

To understnad my perspective, it is necessary to recognize that I do not see Exxon and the RS as equivalent institutions. By its actions the RS has presented itself as somehow equivalent (as reflected some of the comments here). Were that to occur, that would be a shame because we need the unique attributes of the RS (and institutions like it for the long term).

I have no worries that plenty attention is being devoted to Exxon's advocacy. I am worried that in the excitement of the political fray very few are interested in much less concerned about the long-term sustainability of the unique aspects of institutions like the RS.

I hope this adds some useful context, apologies for the typos (and taking Marlowe's advice to say more with no reading assignments;-). More later as time allows ... Thanks!

Jim Clarke raises good points. I find it impossible to judge the statement allegedly made by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change "There is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in carbon dioxide" without knowing the context.

I do think it worth noting that if one goes to the website, http://www.co2science.org, one sees reference after reference to peer-reviewed studies.

Jim Says, "'There is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in carbon dioxide.' Has this statement been proven wrong?"

This is an example of policy and science getting wound together so tightly that they are hard to separate.

Can you give a scientifically or statistically meaningful definition of "compelling"? If not, then the statement is unverifiable, and therefore unscientific.

As for co2science.org, that site filters CO2 related publications and only links those which show possible benefit (or reduced harm). Thus, it is not very useful for determining the net effects of increased CO2. The obvious analogy is trying to balance one's credit card statement after crossing out all expenditures.

The problem for scientific organizations is that deliberate disinformation is a terminal offense in science. As such, no means is too harsh in the identification and persecution of it. However, in policy, disinformation is at worst a misdemeanor. So when retaliation against support for bad science is seen in a political light, adn not a scientific one, it seems to be an overreaction.

"As for co2science.org, that site filters CO2 related publications and only links those which show possible benefit (or reduced harm). Thus, it is not very useful for determining the net effects of increased CO2."

Can you point me to the chapter(s) in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) dedicated to the benefits of CO2 and global warming?

If not, do you agree that the IPCC TAR is also "not very useful for determining the net effects of increased CO2"?

"The problem for scientific organizations is that deliberate disinformation is a terminal offense in science."

What about the IPCC deliberately trying to pass off their "projections" in their TAR as scientific? Or do you think that something that "projections" that are unfalsifiable can still be scientific?

Lab,

Thank you for your response. You are absolutely correct when you point out that the word ‘compelling’ is not statistically meaningful and, therefore, unverifiable and unscientific. This is similar to the word ‘discernable’ as in “discernable human influence”, and the concept of ‘future scenarios’. Neither has been quantified, yet they are said to be so ‘compelling’ that we all must sacrifice or face impending doom!

If you want to use semantics to dismiss a ‘compelling’ argument from co2.science, then the same rule must apply to the IPCC, which would make AGW a non-issue. Otherwise, we have to accept the idea of ‘compelling’ as a legitimate concept in the discussion of science.

Similarly, the faults you find with the co2science website are also found in the IPCC reports.

You wrote: “…that site filters CO2 related publications and only links those which show possible benefit (or reduced harm). Thus, it is not very useful for determining the net effects of increased CO2.” I would certainly agree that the Idso’s search the literature for peer reviewed science that indicates potential benefits from increasing CO2. They also search the literature for indications that CO2 is not the main driver of climate change and that natural climate variability is much larger than the IPCC indicates. The volume of referenced papers indicates that they have been quite successful!

Likewise, the IPCC has filtered the climate change publications for those papers that support the assumption that CO2 is the main driver of climate change, that natural climate change is small and that increasing CO2 is, by definition, harmful! The fact that most of the information on the co2.science website is either ignored or given scant coverage in the IPCC publications is evidence of this. Another example is the whole ‘hockey stick’ fiasco, where a relatively isolated and seriously flawed study was picked as the icon of natural climate variability and placed on the front page of secular publications around the world!

The difference between the two is that the Idso’s are running a ‘response’ website. They are not claiming to present the full summation of climate change science and should not be faulted for there focus. They are simply responding to the IPCC’s one-sided presentations of the science. The IPCC, on the other hand, does claim to be the summation of the existing scientific evidence of human induced climate change and should be criticized for its failure to weigh the evidence equally!

Returning to my original point and the focus of this thread…The Royal Society’s actions are based on the assumption that their ‘science’ is correct beyond any reasonable doubt. While they can not prove this, they have ‘faith’ that it is so. There actions are not those of a group claiming scientific authority, but of a group claiming moral authority! This notion that they have a moral responsibility to censor and intimidate opposing voices, can only come from faith, not science.

Science may refute an argument if it can, but it holds no power to suppress it!

Dr. Pielke:

I appreciate your response, but find it unsatisfying and misdirected, as well as unsupported in the present case by the language of the actual RS letter.

Despite the awareness you show (in both your response and in the essays you linked to and which I quoted in part above) that the reason climate change policy has been deliberately stymied because the science has been intentionally politicized by fossil fuel providers and users, including but not limited to Exxon, the National Association of Manufacturers, and by their spokesmen in Congress and the Administration, who have chosen to avoid a direct discussion of policies and values and of their respective interests, you choose to focus on the scientific bodies (RS and the IPCC), even though those bodies do not formulate or determine policy, and can do nothing to move the debate forward as long as politicians remain unwilling to act - except to continue to try to summarize and clarify the science, which I think would include clarifying when interested parties and politicians are deliberately spreading inaccuracies or overstating uncertainties, whether directly or through proxies.

In this, it seems to me that (as I and others above have argued) the case Dr. Whitehouse presents against the RS as acting to “censor” Exxon and which you endorse holds little water given the RS letter itself, and rather beside the point. The scientific agencies can`t force the politicians to act, and if they remain silent when they note that the science is being politicized, they can hardly help to move the debate forward in political fora, and arguably simply enable the further politicization of science.

Thus I find it very puzzling that you seem to argue that the scientific bodies should simply sit idly by when their work is misused, for the sake of being “honest brokers” over the long-run. (BTW, did you take a similar position in response to the reaction by the scientific community to the abusive subpoenas that Joe Barton issued earlier?) It seems instead that you are setting the scientists up to be chumps, and to reward those who are not interested in honest brokers but prefer to achieve their policy objectives quietly in the dark via the misuse of science rather than through an open political discussion.

I acknowledge of course that, as long as scientists work in areas that have important policy implications and such scientists have strong views about their work, the scientists themselves will always be susceptible to accusations by interested third parties that the scientists are also “politicizing” science. However, I think that pointing out when others act anonymously through proxies is a factual matter and thus entirely appropriate. Moreover, trying to flush debates out of science and into political fora is ultimately the only way to openly resolve the relevant policy dispute, even though those benefiting from the status quo may not at all appreciate having light shed on their tactics (as light may demonstrate that certain parties already have their hands in the cookie jar).

It seems the me that those who are really interested in breaking the climate change policy log-jam would be working to propose and analyze the costs and benefits of various possible policy positions (starting with the status quo), on top of trying to clarify:

- the science, the rates of increases in GHG emissions and accumulations, including outreach to citizens, interested parties, politician and scientists who are interested but not directly engaged,
- the legal and economic underpinnings of the problem (viz., “tragedy of the commons” or malfunctioning market due to pricing mechanism for GHG emissions, due to lack of private property rights or other effective regulatory mechanisms nationally and internationally),
- the actual and expected environmental consequences and, last but not least,
- the interests of various parties.

In addition, it would be helpful for such “honest brokers” to work to steer the problem from the science to political fora by shedding light on instances where interest groups act covertly to politicize science. You might think that someone beside RS should be doing this job, but it is honest work and essential to having open political discussion, as your own cited papers recognize. Who else should be doing this, and how (in the UK)? I fail to see how ignoring Exxon and condemning the RS, while failing to make concrete suggestions and how to move the parties to open political fora, are particularly constructive.

Some may think that the debate over the RS letter may damage the RS, but they have my gratitude, and I am sure that Exxon is not pleased with this open controversy. I understand the economic logic of their position, but Exxon and their customers (pretty much all of us in other words) have been getting a free ride on the use of fossil fuels while shifting the significant costs of GHG dumping on to the world`s ecological and economic systems generally and to future generations. We need to change our ruinous behavior - not by destroying our economic system but by fixing a malfunctioning pricing mechanism - and to start adapting to the changes that cannot be forestalled. And we need to get China, India and others on board (for which we have our continued open markets as tremendous leverage).

Respectfully,

TT

TT-

Thanks for these additional comments. A few reactions:

1. You assert that "the reason climate change policy has been deliberately stymied". Again, while various groups are battling over climate policy, often through science, I maintain that the lack of greater action on climate policy has little to do with the scientized debate. Consider that the EU-15 is likely to miss their Kyoto targets by a wide mark, and this has nothing to do with Exxon or skeptics, etc.

2. You write, "The scientific agencies can`t force the politicians to act . . ." In my view nor should they. Consider intelligence agencies like the CIA. It is not their job to force or otherwise compel politicians to act with miltary action. Decision making is best served when there is a clear distinction between advisors, advocates, and decision makers.

3. My views on the Barton inquiry are found here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000480on_the_hockey_stick.html

Thanks!

Dr. Pielke:

1. I thought it was obvious that my reference to climate change policy being deliberately stymied, to which you apparently agree in part, referred chiefly to the US. Yes, other factors are also at work internationally, but I mentioned them previously and Al Gore has described them in his recent speech - we`re dealing with a global tragedy of the commons. As long as the US remains out of the game, we are a