Titling a post “Values vs. Data in Environmental Care” is misleading in that it suggests that data comes from a value-free position.  The choice of data, methodology and other factors of experimental design are made for reasons that – intentionally or not  – support particular values.  By asserting data to be value free, you allow the values to sneak in.

The linkage of the discussion to explicitly religious values, while allowing for a good hook to the story, also supports a common assumption that when speaking of values you are speaking of religious values.  That is unnecessarily narrow, and likely inflammatory, if the attempts at discussions over evolution might suggest.

I don’t think Revkin subscribes to these faulty premises.  But I see this kind of thinking all too often not to call it out in places I don’t expect to see it.

The questionable language is most of the second to the last paragraph, which you can read after the jump:

Far more important is this: Science is a way of governing, not just something to be governed. Science offers a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence, kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method. Science is a lens through which we can and should visualize and solve complex problems, organize government and multilateral bodies, establish international alliances, inspire national pride, restore positive feelings about America around the globe, embolden democracy, and ultimately, lead the world. More than anything, what this lens offers the next administration is a limitless capacity to handle all that comes its way, no matter how complex or unanticipated.

(The embedded links are in the original endorsement, and connect you to pieces which the editors seem to think support or at least speak to their arguments.  I’m not as persuaded by them as the editors were, but that’s another side issue about this endorsement.)

I have a real problem with the implied suggestion that scientific thinking should dictate policy or political decisions.  Inform them, absolutely, but there are way too many other, legitimate concerns for a polity to consider when it makes decisions about what to do.  All of the processes described in the paragraph quoted above can be informed by scientific processes, but there are values embedded within each of those processes – what solutions are sought, what the organizations and alliances are intended to do, what a nation should be proud of, what the world should be led about or to, etc.  Encouraging the use of scientific thinking and the rational thought usually associated with it is fine.  By ignoring the values inherent in politics and policy, the editors of SEED are under the impression that they are encouraging, in Roger’s terms, Honest Brokers, the editors are really being issue advocates.

The problem in this is not in being issue advocates, it’s in being disingenuous about it.  It is a perfectly acceptable value choice to advance the kind of things that are found in this endorsement – and often in the pages of SEED.  The tone of the piece, implying a value-free (and presumably uncrazy) governance, hides the value choice within and runs the risk that other ascientific values are subsumed under the umbrella of science and undercut the reputation that allows science to maintain a standard of objectivity that must be constantly questioned and refined.

The only way we’re going to get action [on climate change], I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.

This strategy of characterizing one’s political opponents as immoral is of course is part and parcel of the debate over abortion (which is why I call such politics “abortion politics” in The Honest Broker). In the climate debate the litmus test for having the proper morality (i.e., defined as not “standing in the way of action,” by being a “denier” or “delayer” or [insert derisive moral judgment here]) is by holding and expressing (and not questioning) certain acceptable beliefs, such as:

*Not questioning any consensus views of the IPCC (in any working group)

*Not supporting adaptation

*Not emphasizing the importance of significant technological innovation

*Not pointing out that policies to create higher priced energy are a certain losing strategy

Deviation for these beliefs is, blasphemy — heresy! Or as Paul Krugman recommends . . . immoral.

Climate change is the new locus of the U.S. culture wars. Unlike the abortion issue which was turned into a referendum on morality by the political right, the climate issue is fast becoming a referendum on morality by the political left. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

He writes:

. . . in truth, the scientists are bit players in this whole drama. What congressional staffers, civil servants, presidential advisors, journalists, media talking heads, and politicians at all level do is far more significant. Pielke worries that scientists who are not savvy about their role are likely to be used by these players as “stealth issue advocates.” He shouldn’t fret about this; he should accept this.

On this point Smith and I will disagree. However, the review will be useful for many scientists to read to see how completely irrelevant they are seen to be by at least this widely published and senior science policy scholar. Who does Smith recommend policy makers turn to for expert advice instead of scientists? Lobbyists. Smith’s complete lack of concern for and depressing cynicism about the role of science in the policy process, ironically enough, actually reinforces the importance of the focus of The Honest Broker. If scientists want to improve their place in decision making, they aren’t going to get much sympathy or help from folks like Smith.

Unfortunately, Smith’s review is marred by a number of factual errors which suggests that he may not have actually read the book carefully in his haste to talk about what he thinks the book should have been about instead. For example, he suggests that the IPCC actually functions as an “honest broker of policy alternatives” when I clearly explain in the book that the IPCC has a formal mandate not to discuss policy alternatives. In another egregious error, he asserts that I present the role of “honest broker” as a value-free, heroic individual, when in fact I say much the opposite — values are inescapable and honest brokering is best done by diverse committees or organizations. Bizarrely, Smith complains about the “plenty of charts” in the book, however there is only one figure in the entire book! These errors, small and large, leave the review widely missing the mark of constructive engagement.

Smith may believe that scientists are irrelevant, lobbyists can take care of expert advice, and thus my book is unnecessary. However, having spent the past two decades working closely with scientists in scientific institutions, I give them far more credit and importance in decision making.

I’ll end on Smith’s positive comments:

The Honest Broker by Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, has many strengths, including lucidity, refreshing common sense, and a good instinct for the relevant point in a complex discussion. The author is an experienced observer, and on occasion rises to the level of a wise and reflective commentator on the complex scene of science affairs, maybe even qualifying as the honest broker he admires and whose putative virtues he extols in the volume.

RK Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), on Tuesday slammed developed countries for asking India and China to cut greenhouse gas emissions while they themselves had not taken strong steps to cut down pollution.

“India can not be held for any emission control. They (developed countries) should get off the back of India and China,” Pachauri told reporters here.

“We are an expanding economy. How can we levy a cap when millions are living with deprivation? To impose any cap (on India) at a time when others (industrialised countries) are saying that they will reach the 1990 level of emission by 2025 is hazardous,” Pachauri said.

He said countries like the US and Canada should accept their responsibilities and show leadership in reducing green house gases like carbon dioxide and methane.

Pachauri said millions of Indian do not have access to electricity and their per capita income is much less. At this point, you cannot ask a country to “stop developing”.

Who does Dr. Pachauri speak for as head of the “policy neutral” IPCC?

It is as if the head of the CIA (or any other intelligence agency) decided to publicly criticize the government of Iran (or other country). Such behavior would seriously call into question the ability of the intelligence agency to perform its duties, which depend upon an ability to leave advocacy to other agencies. The United States has a Department of State responsible for international relations. The CIA collects intelligence in support of decision makers. These agencies have different roles in the policy process — hoenst broker and issue advocate.

The IPCC seems to want to both gather intelligence and decide what to do based on that intelligence. This is not a recipe for effective expert advice. Leaders in many areas would not stand for this conflation of advice and advocacy, so why does it continue to occur in the climate arena with little comment?

Scientists and those in the business of science policy should read this book and consider its message carefully, because it has the potential to both bolster the legitimacy of the scientific enterprise and improve policy making. STS and social studies of science scholars are likely to find his argument familiar, but Pielke has developed such an incisive framework that even these audiences will find new and valuable contributions. Furthermore, his book is exemplary in its clear, jargon-free accessibility, which makes it an excellent pedagogical tool for initiating students into issues of science and society.

Pielke’s discussion of climate change politics is excellent. He seizes on the central issue in climate change politics: that those opposed to action (based on value decisions) raise scientific uncertainty as a reason for delay or inaction. In response, scientists focus on reducing or eliminating uncertainty to undermine grounds for opposition to action rather than focusing on the merits of the argument, which is really a values-based decision irrespectie of the science.

The conclusion to the review is very positive:

The basic framework of the book and its discussion of the importance of considering values and uncertainty are strong. the numerous examples he offers are instructive. Anyone engaged in policy, even on the periphery, would benefit from this discussion.

Get your copy today!! Now 20% off at CUP!!

Today the national science academies of the G8+5 issued a statement on climate change (PDF) advocating a greater pace of action on adaptation and mitigation in response to climate change. We have discussed advocacy by science academies here on various occasions, and in this post I’d like to highlight two issues endorsed by the Academies that are still being debated among scientists and advocates, and ask, who do the academies speak for?

1. Clean coal. Carbon capture and storage is a contested technology, for example, by various environmental groups. However, the national science academies endorse its development and use.

Technologies should be developed and deployed for carbon capture, storage and sequestration (CCS), particularly for emissions from coal which will continue to be a primary energy source for the next 50 years for power and other industrial processes. G8+5 economies can take the lead globally to further develop CCS technologies. This will involve governments and industry working collaboratively to develop the financial and regulatory conditions needed to move CCS forward and international coordination in the development of demonstration plants.

2. Geoengineering research. Similarly, geoengineering research (as a separate issue from actual geoengineering) is a contested issue, for instance the recent Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biodiversity proposed a moratorium (receiving broad international support) on certain geoengineering experiments.. The national science academies endorse geoengineering without such reservations.

There is also an opportunity to promote research on approaches which may contribute towards maintaining a stable climate (including so-called geoengineering technologies and reforestation), which would complement our greenhouse gas reduction strategies.

Separate from the merit of the policy recommendations advanced by the academies (and for the record I support both CCS and geoengineering research) is the question of who the national science academies speak for and the basis for their endorsement of particular actions.

Do they represent the scientific community within their countries? Their members? Their executive bodies and leadership?

What of public concerns and those among members of the scientific community about CCS and geoengineering?

If the science academies claim to represent a special interest, then whose interest? If they claim to represent common interests, then on what basis is their advocacy to be viewed as legitimate (e.g., is democratic, consensual, authoritative, elite, etc.)?