“Thank you for posting, “Climate Experts Debating the Role of Experts in Policy”, and for archiving related articles under “The Honest Broker”. Because of you and others publishing on-line, my interest in the discourse on climate science has increased significantly.

Scientists as advocates are and should be part of the political debate on climate change because, as JFK proclaimed, “We all inhabit the same planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And, we are all mortal.”. Within the scientific community, they should remain objective, receptive and responsive to challenges, and open to departures from long held “consensus”. But, when in the political arena, their rhetoric (particularly hyperbolic departures from their scientific writings) can and should be held to a much higher standard of examination by others who participate in that arena.

Climate science is evolving. Disagreements continue with respect to the relative impacts of forcings; the impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions on warming as exponential, linear or logarithmic; observed climate events as recurring or irreversible; bias in recording instruments; faulty data archiving and analysis, and/or questionable peer review; the effectiveness of proposed mitigation strategies and/or adaption responses, to name a few. And these disagreements (presumably, for the “self-correction” of the science) are increasingly available for public viewing and subject to greater familiarity and scrutiny. Thus, an advocate and her view can therefore be identified, I believe, even by an untrained eye, and evaluated accordingly.

As an example, the recent statement by the AGU calling for 50% reduction in CO2 emissions this century is understandable as advocacy in light of the present inertia of a national political will in this country to act. We are already at 385 ppm in atmospheric CO2 (above the Hansen “safe upper limit” of no more than 350 ppm), Michaels concludes that growth of anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are certain to increase by reason of a working Malthusian theory, and the attention of the general public is focused primarily on curtailing emissions. Even the AGU’s scant reference to ozone depletion as another apparent “human footprint”, notwithstanding the recent questioning by Pope et al. about the atmospheric models of polar ozone depletion, can be seen as gratuitous advocacy for continued curtailment of certain aerosols.

If there is concern that such advocacy would be an undue influence on the political process, that concern is misplaced. Sarewitz, on roles of scientists and policy makers in “Science and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity”, writes in part, “Ten years and $600 million later, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program had generated copious quantities of excellent science on the causes and impacts of acid rain, but had failed to achieve any sort of consensus scientific view that could motivate a political solution to the problem. This failure was probably unavoidable — the issue encompasses so many different problems, from the costs of reducing power plant emissions, to the assessment of forest damage and its various causes (including natural soil acidity) — each with its attendant uncertainties — that there is simply no such thing as a “right way” to look at acid rain. When a political solution was achieved, it reflected little of the knowledge gained from the research program, but instead made use of an economic tool — tradable permits for sulfur oxide emissions… Only when this political solution was implemented, as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (PL 101-549) could a new role for science come into focus: to monitor the impacts and effectiveness of the policy decisions, and to provide feedback into a political process that had already decided upon a general course of action.”(emphasis added).

The history of dealing with “acid rain” is instructive, a microcosm of the present political debates on climate change, and a process of being repeated. Scientists will be helpful in developing theoretical frameworks for identifying problems; deciding how and when to act; and, monitoring and reporting (even advocating “correction”) on the actions taken. But, it is the political process, with advocates of all sorts and on all sides, which will determine whether action (and “correction”) is, in fact, carried out.

The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently announced that global investments of $15 trillion to $20 trillion over the next 20 to 25 years may be required “to place the world on a markedly different and sustainable energy trajectory”. Assuming that estimate is realistic, even Clinton’s campaign calls for a $150 billion strategic energy fund over 10 years coupled with higher fuel efficiency standards, reduced consumption, and more focus on energy alternatives demonstrate that action toward mitigation and adaption will be late and marginal. The cumulative impacts of actions more quickly taken locally to deal with regional climate changing events will then more likely occur. That result may be more beneficial long term, especially if “correction” is needed to respond more quickly to further climate changes (if, for example, the recent data on and observations about cooling are precursors to trends) or to the impacts which actions have had on contiguous regions (such as remediating the “dead zone” created in the Gulf by increased corn production “up river”).

There is room for scientists as advocates (more in the general public, less in the political arena, and hopefully next to none in the scientific community). Those scientists risk their own professional standing, especially if the advocacy is about events which may change in the future or is shown to be something other than altruistic.”

I believe it supports my view that, yes, whenever scientists speak on matters that have political ramifications (matters that implicate political decision-making processes as opposed to private ones), their public and back-channel words are in effect political advocacy. Further, it illustrates that scientists are acutely aware of the limitations of their own knowledge and are sensitive as to whether advocacy is appropriate or , if unavoidable, how best handled.

The fact that so little has changed on the political stage since the time of this discussion I think is an indication that scientists have little political weight as scientists, and that focussing attention on how they speak, while interesting, is of little relevancy to an understanding of the real politics that has affected policy-making relating to climate change.

It sounds like you would agree with Tom Wrigley about the wisdom of scientists stepping outside of the science to make policy recommendations. Am I wrong?