On Having Things Both Ways

February 15th, 2006

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

From James Hansen’s talk at The New School, 10 February 2006 (here in PDF).

I do not attempt to define policy, which is up to the people and their elected representatives, and I don’t criticize policies. The climate science has policy relevance, but I let the facts speak for themselves about consequences for policy-makers.

But then the very next sentence says:

I intend to show that the answer to the question “Can we still avoid dangerous human-made climate change” is yes, we could, but we are not now on a path to do that, and if we do not begin actions to get on a different path within the next several years we will pass a point of no return, beyond which it is impossible to avoid climate change with far ranging undesirable consequences. Why we are not taking actions to avoid climate change relates to the topic of this conference, which I will address in the latter part of my talk.

I have a lot of respect for Dr. Hansen’s stand against being muzzled in NASA, but his statement on policy suggests that he is either woefully uninformed about the nature of policy and politics or he is willfully couching political advocacy in the cloth of “science.” Further into his presentation he is explicitly political, and sadly misinformed about how politics works:

It seems to me that special interests have been a roadblock wielding undue influence over policymakers. The special interests seek to maintain short-term profits with little regard to either the long-term impact on the planet that will be inherited by our children and grandchildren or the long-term economic well-being of our country. The public, if well-informed, has the ability to override the influence of special interests, and the public has shown that they feel a stewardship toward the Earth and all of its inhabitants. Scientists can play a useful role if they help communicate the climate change story to the public in a credible, understandable fashion.

The public is in fact made up of special interests, which includes groups such as Democrats, Republicans, environmentalists, industrialists, academics, and NASA employees. Politics is not about “overriding special interests” but balancing them. Dr. Hansen would do well to read Federalist 10. After that he should read Sarewitz. With all this talk about scientific literacy of the public, perhaps we might start talking about politcal literacy among scientists. I have no problem with Dr. Hansen talking about policy and politics. I do have a problem with him talking about policy and politics and framing his comments as “science.” This is what politicizes science.

Dr. Hansen aside, perhaps one of the obstacles to developing effective climate policy is that we as a society have placed “Working Group 1” expertise in charge of leading the debate on climate policy when what we really need is the expertise found in “Working Group III” and beyond.

15 Responses to “On Having Things Both Ways”

    1
  1. hank Says:

    I don’t think a scientist should accept the common political tactic of drawing a line between “it’s too early to tell” and “it’s too late to do anything” — as a legitimate political decision.

    Until science came along that was often the best politics could do.

    Now, working scientists may know there’s a possibility of anticipating choices no politician could ever imagine — it’s entirely new in the past century or less. It has to change ethics.

    This I think is a great example (large file)
    http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/Icecore/lonnie_highspeed.mov

    This slide talk (11/4/2005) includes yet unpublished research, discusses information provided to Dr. Hansen from their research, and talk about choices coming up in the next few years. Before science started providing information about the world, this didn’t happen.

    Until recently, politics has been in the driver’s seat — and always in sole control.

    Now – for a few decades — science has been riding along — and speaking up about what science sees up ahead that the politician never considered because it couldn’t be anticipated.

    This is hard for a driver to handle who’s always done it alone. This is hard for a politician — or a political system — to handle, that’s never had scientific information available to the voting public.

    Few political systems of the past could have coped with having science done and done publicly. I hope ours will.

    I always ask whoever’s riding with me to help me navigate. I want to be told what choices are coming up that I can’t yet see, and in time to signal and change lanes when I decide to go one way or the other. I need the help.

    I think politics needs the help, but doesn’t want to cope with the burden of possible futures that scientists point out.

  2. 2
  3. hank Says:

    19 years ago:
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=sr054&dbname=105&

    [1997]
    “Dr. ROBOCK. ” …I have sort of taken off my scientist hat and given you my opinion based on my knowledge of the political process and what should be done about it…. The climate is going to change in the next few decades even if we stop emitting all greenhouse gases now. It would still continue to change based on that. There is a long time lag. So we cannot wait until we see terrible problems. Then there is nothing we can do…. We cannot reverse it if we come to a point where we say oh, yes, it really is a problem now.

    “Dr. [Pat] MICHAELS. “But Al, … if you really believe in the gloom and doom models, you have to reduce emissions by about 60 to 80 percent. No one knows how to do that…. if you believe the 4 degree warming [for doubled CO2] … how much would it change the temperature by the year 2050? The answer is probably somewhere around a tenth of a degree or so. These policies are not credible … The magnitude is just simply too small. I believe that that is the crux of the issue, isn’t it?

    “Senator SARBANES. No. Part of the crux of the issue is whether you think there is any problem at all, and I take it you don’t think there is a problem. … Do you want to reduce greenhouse emissions?

    “Dr. MICHAELS. I want efficient technology.

    “Senator SARBANES. Do you want to reduce greenhouse emissions?

    “Dr. MICHAELS. If that reduces greenhouse emissions, so be it.

    “Senator SARBANES. If it doesn’t?

    “Dr. MICHAELS. No comment.

    “Senator SARBANES. So be it. All right. That’s my answer. Thank you.”

  4. 3
  5. Steve Bloom Says:

    Roger, just as with your novel redefinition of McCarthyism, you’ve taken what Hansen clearly meant when he said special interest, which is special *economic* interest, dropped the adjectives (actual and implied) to make it mean somthing entirely different, and then heaped derision on him.

    In a similar vein, it’s interesting that you seem to think part of being an “honest broker” is to present a range of options that include some you don’t think will work, but then neglect to point those out. I call that being more like a dishonest broker. Hansen takes as a given the adopted U.S. policy on climate change (the UNFCCC — as I like to say, “It’s not just a good idea, it’s the law”), points out that our present course is in conflict with it (in that “dangerous climate change” will not be avoided), and suggests that we need to do things differently.

  6. 4
  7. Steve Bloom Says:

    Thanks for that excerpt, Hank. Let’s see, .1 degree by 2050? That’s not quite Pat’s current position, if I recall correctly. Well, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, as they say. I doubt we’ll be able to get any elucidation from Pat himself, him being so busy with his state climatological duties, cashing his coal industry checks, etc., but maybe Chip has a cloud o’ ink to contribute on this point.

  8. 5
  9. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    Steve-

    Thanks for your comments.

    Please re-read my post. My point is not whether Hansen is on the side of right or wrong in his advocacy, but rather that he is indeed arguing a policy case and saying he is not. This is what politicizes science.

    Also, I suggest you take a look at the words that follow “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference” In Article 2 of the FCCC. The fine print matters, and even gives a nod to those special economic interests.

  10. 6
  11. Chip Knappenberger Says:

    Steve,

    Although it is a bit hard to tell from the excerpt of the questions and answer session extracted by Hank, what Pat is saying is that emissions reductions would only lead to a temperature savings of about 0.1C by the year 2050 (assuming a sensitivity that produces a 4C rise for a CO2 doubling). Pat is just citing some preliminary calculations that we had done which proved ultimately to be similar to the temeprature savings calculations published by Wigley in GRL in 1998.

    So I don’t think this is a sign of any inconsistency on Pat’s part.

  12. 7
  13. Lurker Says:

    From CNN yesterday (2/15):

    DOBBS: It’s at the very least troubling. It is an opportunity for us to take a look and find out what is going on because Dr. James Hansen is our guest here tonight. It’s good to have you here. He’s worked for NASA for nearly four decades.

    He first warned Congress about the dangers of global warming two decades ago. He’s now director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and joins us now. It is good to talk with you. It is unfortunate that we’re not talking about some of the great, great discoveries that are made. All that NASA accomplishes.

    The idea that a 24-year-old political appointee has the sway to influence whatever you say or do not say about science, it just infuriates me to tell you the truth.

    JAMES HANSEN, DIR. NASA’S GODDARD INST.: Yes, it’s good to be here. I have to first note on the advice of counsel that I speak on the basis of my 39 years of NASA but I don’t speak for the agency.

    DOBBS: So stipulated and understood.

    HANSEN: And I don’t specify policy or criticize policy. I let the data and its policy implications speak for themselves.

    DOBBS: Your feeling is, after studying the data for a mere 400,000 years, would that be about right?

    HANSEN: Yes, we have good data for 400,000 from the ice scores in Antarctica.

    DOBBS: And your conclusion is?

    HANSEN: Well, the conclusion is the earth has warmed about .08 degrees Celsius, which is about one and a half degrees Fahrenheit in the last century, most of that in the last 30 years, while greenhouse gases have been increasing very rapidly and the main point that I was trying to make is that we’re getting very close to a point of no return.

    If the planet warms more than two degrees Fahrenheit additional, we will begin to have a very different planet.

    DOBBS: And why did the Public Affair’s Office not want you to share those concerns?

    HANSEN: Well, global warming is a sensitive topic. Yes. And the public should know about it. My job, the first line of the NASA mission is to understand and protect our home planet and that’s the reason that I’m speaking out.

    DOBBS: And the public affairs office? Didn’t understand the mission?

    HANSEN: Well, they apparently feel that it’s OK to filter the information going to the public. Which is, from a scientific point of view, you have to present all the data. Not filter it. But from the public’s point of view, they’re the ultimate policymaker. So they have to have the information. And so they have to get the whole story.

    DOBBS: They have to get the whole story. Michael Griffith, a scientist himself, a man I personally respect, his background is extraordinary, the administrator. How has he reacted here in your judgment and has he been supportive of you and the need to have one of our leading scientists be able to openly speak? I mean taxpayer pays your salary.

    HANSEN: Yes, that’s right. And he has said exactly the right things that NASA is open but as yet, Public Affairs does not admit they’ve done anything wrong. And frankly, the story that came out was that as a 24-year-old. But no, in fact, he was doing what he was told by the higher ups.

    DOBBS: By the Public Affairs Office.

    HANSEN: Absolutely.

    DOBBS: Which has had extraordinarily influence unlike any other Public Affairs Office in any other agency that I’m aware, the NASA P.A. Office is very powerful. Do you think you’re going to see a change here? Or do you face, as the charge says, dire consequences if you speak out?

    HANSEN: Right. I think there’s a good chance that, because we do have a really good administrator and he said he’s going to fix problem. But this is not limited to NASA. In fact, the problem more serious in NOAA and still worse in EPA.

    DOBBS: NOAH and EPA two of our most important agencies, if not most important agencies, in point in fact, in terms of looking at our climate, our ecology and what we’re doing to both.

    HANSEN: Right.

    DOBBS: Dr. James Hansen, we thank you for your courage. We thank you for being here. Let’s hope that this administration does the right thing, failing that, let’s hope that Michael Griffin has the courage and the character that I suspect of him of having and we thank you for your display of both qualities.

  14. 8
  15. Greg Lewis Says:

    Roger,
    Seems to me you and Hanson are using different definitions of “special interests”. He is perhaps using the term fairly loosely but I think his point is quite valid.

    G.

    “…some interests are more special then others…”

  16. 9
  17. Dano Says:

    Thank you for that transcript, Lurker.

    Best,

    D

  18. 10
  19. David N. Cherney Says:

    This may be of interest to the discussion on Hansen.

    http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece

  20. 11
  21. hank Says:

    How the other side lives, found here:
    http://effectmeasure.blogspot.com/

    “Science fantasy for hire”

    “In a news article in the current issue of Environmental Science and Technology … the “marketing letter” Thacker discovered puts a spotlight on the shadowy world of hired gun consulting companies whose task is to muddy the waters sufficiently that the regulatory wheels grind to a halt. Those of us in the business know this goes on all the time, but it is still startling to see the strategy spelled out in black and white.”

    Same tactics used against bisphenol-A and tobacco researchers. Details in the original article here:
    http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/feb/business/pt_weinberg.html

  22. 12
  23. McCall Says:

    If a prominent skeptic were to accept a $250,000 award from a fossil fuel company, bells are rung and their views/positions are immediately and forever suspect if not ignored as this fact is disclosed at every turn. Yet a $250,000 award from Heinz Foundation in 2001, and some timely scientific/political announcements attacking this administration, just prior to the ‘04 election gets a free pass almost without mention?

    Seems to me that such facts should be a part of every one of James Hansen’s public pronouncements — after all, it’s the common and repetitive disclosure practice for media parent companies of CNBC, CNN etc; therefore, it should be good enough for him (and let the reader/listener weigh its importance).

  24. 13
  25. hank Says:

    You’re confusing consulting fees — payment for work — with a foundation award. (Steve Wozniak also received a Heinz award on the same day Hansen did).

    The recent NYT article about Hansen mentioned it, it’s no secret; the concern about secret payments is what’s raised such a fuss in journals recently — it’s the people who hid the fact that they’d been paid to take a position, who are somewhat embarassed when the information is disclosed.

  26. 14
  27. hank Says:

    For example, THIS is an award, not a payment:

    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994538

    “The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has presented its annual journalism award to Michael Crichton for his two novels, “State of Fear” and “Jurassic Park.”

    “The first, a current bestseller, profiles global warming as a puffed-up threat imagined by a conspiracy of evil scientists. ….

    “Crichton will be given the award at the group’s annual convention in Houston in April.”

  28. 15
  29. McCall Says:

    I’m confusing nothing — both the “award” and the politically timely critical statements both happened as stated. And I know the NYT mentioned it, but almost no one else did — it’s why I phrased it “almost without mention.”

    I’m all for full disclosure on both sides; it appears you allow exceptions if it’s an “award” instead of a “payment” or perhaps even a “grant” for that matter? If that’s accurate, it’s too bad — regulatory election committees, auditors and we as readers would want it all disclosed too; a corporate as well as foundation money trail can be disguised in many ways (regardless of how it is in this case). It takes a very brave scientist to antagonize funding source on any argument — Dr Hansen bravely did that with this administration; but did he do so entirely without prejudice and without a job/$$$ net? Armed with a complete picture, we’re in a position to decide for ourselves.

    Finally, secrecy/surprise has nothing to do with the repetitive disclosure examples I posted earlier. When money, support or ownership is involved, the public has the right to know and judge for themselves, every time. Full and repeated disclosure is appropriate in this case — it’s the price one pays for accepting such an “award.”