Like Lackey, my job is to interpret natural resources related data so that resource managers can make informed decisions. Over my career I’ve learned to watch for my own values creeping into the work I do and try to keep them out. Yes, it can be a fine line, and my colleagues and I frequently discuss the role of science in public policy. We take our jobs and our unbiased role very seriously. Most of us are fully cognizant that there are other factors in natural resources decisions, including both human and economic, and to be honest we’re happy we’re not the ones that have to make the decisions.

But we are also all human, and staring in the ticking time bomb of climate change (for instance) certainly gives us pause. My own feelings about climate change (and this is not my field) are that (a) the evidence is overwhelming that we’ve altered several fundamental processes in the functioning of the climate, (b) the response is going to be very complex, so calling it “global warming” is probably an invitation to be discredited — “climate change” will be far more accurate, (c) many of our predictions will end up being wrong, though in what direction I have no idea. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were underestimating or overestimating the effects. Thresholds could be important. But I’m worried.

I give you my viewpoint, which for climate change is irrelevant, only to make a point. That is, Holdren’s job is to use the scientific results provided by Lackey (and me, and others) to help frame the results of choices made by Obama and others in his administration. If he’s good and does it well, and those of us supplying him with scientific information are similarly competent, then Obama and the administration will have at least a fighting chance of understanding the repurcussions of their decisions. And yes, I fully recognize that there are also political repurcussions

But science isn’t Holgren’s job. His job is ensuring that the decision is as well informed as can be. Our collective job as citizens is to hold him and the administration responsible for the results of their decisions. Speaking for myself, I’m thrilled to finally have the prospect of a president who wants to make his decisions on the basis of information from both sides of the coin rather than ignoring information that doesn’t suit his worldview.

Holdren is just one example. Lubchenko, for another, is noted for her leadership in getting George Taylor, Oregon’s long-time State Climatologist, fired from the Oregon State faculty because of his reasoned “Denier” conclusions. She is also known for the apocalyptic “Dead Zones”: an oceanographer’s cash cow whose “scientific’ basis has been discounted by the observations of knowledgeable coastal fishermen and by 150+ years of historical documentation. Yet the hysteria and funding continue unabated — now the fear is massive ocean reserves that will function in much the same way spotted owl “science” has killed the Northwest forest industry. With little, if any, apparent effect on spotted owl numbers.

Scientists are not resource managers or elected officials. Global Warming science is the only discipline in which “proof” is attained via voting. Let us hope that Obama turns out to be as intelligent and as open-minded as his supporters claim. So far his appointments appear to be more suited to an oligarchy than a team of advisers.

Robert Lackey is an ethical, credible scientist with a respect for his fellow man and for existing institutions. These attributes are in contrast to John Holdren.

“If you are a scientist, then you have to figure out what you think about the relation of science in policy and politics. If you think that science compels political outcomes then you will follow the lead of John Holdren. If you think that science does not compel political outcomes, then you’ll follow the lead of Robert Lackey. But you do have to choose.”

I imagine that Holdren and Lackey would both agree that science doesn’t in general compel particular political outcomes. Where they may disagree is about what scientists ought to do – with respect to issues that particularly concern them.

On this, Lackey, as a career government scientist who has been a close witness of the long-term decline of the West coast salmon fisheries – an issue that obviously concerns him and that he has invested energy in trying to play midwife to political progress on – not only displays an awareness on his own limited effectiveness (and the risks to his job in aggressively taking a policy position) but also seems to be emotionally distancing himself from the collapse of the fisheries. It’s hardly surprising that in this case Lackey recommends self-restraint among scientists, but Lackey certainly hasn’t established that self-restraint by scientists actually helps to promote better policy.

On the other hand we have Holdren, who is not a bureaucrat and is certainly no one’s Lackey (forgive the horrible pun). He has greater freedom to argue that climate policy action is justified – even though he certainly didn’t lay out any policy agenda in his op-ed – and to hope that, by arguing that the science supports taking action, he might help to persuade the public and politicians to act.

Accordingly, the question for scientists is, if you are interested in pushing for certain policy outcomes on science-related issues, how can this be done most effectively, without damaging one’s own credibility or career.

The fact that this debate (and no, the debate isn’t over…it is only just starting) often breaks down between those who favor social engineering and one-world socialist government political views and those who don’t should be the next topic of drivel from Holdren. Because it is pretty darn obvious to me.

For the loopy political libs, science is just another anvil against which to hammer out their social objectives. And the more heat the better.

Otherwise, this discussion would be much cooler and more collegial.

……………….

But his point about the various academies is good. However, my best attempt scientific understanding just does not match the consensus view. What should I do? Just pretend I agree with everybody? Trust their authority, even though I my scientific experience tells me otherwise.

Still, it’s a valid point, and one which troubles me.

How is this relevant to this thread? Well, policy response is just another example of “application”. While climate scientists may be good at explaining the reasons for climate change, it is a stretch to believe that they are also good at finding solutions to the potential problem. This is quite obvious, listening to their ever stringent call for “emission reduction”, as some sort of universal and unique solution, which most people think is hardly feasible in practice (as we are witnessing anyway).

In fact, often in history when scientists became the promoters of specific policies, they turned out to be wrong, sometimes tragically wrong. But I don’t expect them to learn from history, for the simple reason that most scientists know nothing of history, if not for the myths that comfort them in their special social status…

When scientists become political activists they run the risk of undermining their own credibility because they are no longer objective seekers of facts and knowledge, but just another partisan in the debate.

Politicizing science will ultimately undermine the public’s trust in science, and that will have significant detrimental effects for all of society, especially the scientists.