You raise a crucially important point, but not one easily addressed in just a few words. But I will make some comments and refer you to a few resources where this is discussed in more depth.

There is both a supply side to science in policy, as well as a demand side. One area of our research to understand the relationship of the supply of science and the demand for science, see this descripion:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/sparc/research/themes/supply_demand/

You mention “the global warming problem” but exactly what this problem is and how it ought to be defined is not given. See these two papers:

Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf

Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000. Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf

Definition of “the problem” is important because it directs attention to what “policy relevant” actually means. For instance, if the hurricane problem is a matter of modulating hurricane behavior through greenhouse gas emissions, then you will probably want to focus your attention on energy policy. If the hurricane problem is one of development and exposure then you probably want to focus on local decision makers, etc. The scientific needs of each will obviously be different.

Finding out what scientific information policy makers need can be difficult. You can (and should) ask them, but there is no guarantee that the information that they want is actually what they need, or that they have a good sense of what science is available or possible. So most of the literature in this are has focused on developing an iterative process for understanding the information needs of deicsion makers, typically modulated by “boundary organizations” at the science-policy interface.

OK, that was a lot. For the sort of science I think would be useful to decision makers, please read the “Misdefining Climate Change” paper cited above which I think answers this question.

Also, we are just embarking upon a special journal issue on reconciling the supply of and demand for carbon cycle science, stay tuned for that.

If this doesn’t answer your question, ask again. It is a good one. Thanks.

To advise on policy, would it not be useful if scientists had specific policy-related questions to answer? If you had to formulate those questions re:the potential global warming problem, what would they be? I think it would help your readers (well, me, at the very least…) if you could give such specific examples.

Thanks, a few responses.

1. I didn’t think that you would Are you aware of funding trends on ozone depletion pre-post Montreal Protocol?

2. New policy options don’t come from public debate any more than new scientific advances come from public debate. We have to get past the assumption that policy options arise spontaneously. They don’t.

Thanks!

Here are some thoughts about your questions:
1) No, I would not support a reduction in funding for climate science. If we adopted a policy right now, it is unlikely that it would be good for all time. Rather, it would need to be periodically adjusted as we learn more about the science and economics of climate change. In this light, continued research is essential.

A good example is the Montreal Protocol, which was adopted in 1988. Research on ozone depletion did not stop at that point, and in fact subsequent research played a crucial role in the follow-on Amendments. One of the real successes of the Montreal Protocol was its review mechanism.

Back to climate change. Let’s say for arguments sake that we adopted a middle-of-the-road GHG mitigation regime. If we suddenly find one day that the climate sensitivity is 4.5C, or if we find that we are on the brink of an abrupt climate change, that research might spur policymakers to change whatever policy is in place. On the other hand, if we find that the climate sensitivity is 1.5C, policymakers might decide to loosen the regulation of GHGs.

2) Options. First, I think there are lots of policy ideas out there — I just finished David Victor’s excellent book, for one. Your implication is that the AGW policy gridlock is caused by a lack of ideas. I just don’t see that.

However, to answer your question: policy ideas should come from the same place all policy ideas come from: a public democratic debate between think tanks, academics, interest groups, concerned citizens, elected politicians, etc. Note that by “academics,” I do not mean climate scientists, but people with specialized knowledge of international environmental policy, economics, ethics, etc. The IPCC assessments can and shoud play a role in development of a policy by providing authoritative statements of scientific knowledge on key positive points.

Regards.

Thanks as usual for you comments. A few replies:

1. You write, “I claim the scientific community has fulfilled its responsibility to provide policymakers with relevant scientific information.” So would then be fair to conclude that you would not object to a dramatic reduction in funding for climate research, given that science has done its job?

2. You characterize a potential policy maker’s response to this as , “the scientific community has not provided us with policy options, and without them we cannot possibly do anything”. But what if this is a correct interpretation of the situation? Where in fact do policy options come from? Scientists point their fingers at politicians and say that it is their responsibility, politicians point their fingers right back. Having some experience working with both communities, I am pretty confident that experts have the time, resources, and knowledge necessary to generate new policy options that policy makers often do not. Someone has to be responsible, no?

Thanks!

I believe that the reason there has been little progress on the problem of climate change is that it’s a really hard problem that will be expensive to solve. Politicians find it easier and better for their career to “kick the can down the road” by funding more research than angering entrenched interests by proposing a real policy.

Blaming the scientific community for this gridlock is therefore misplaced. As you said in your “Wanted …” article, we know enough right now to make a legitimate policy. I claim the scientific community has fulfilled its responsibility to provide policymakers with relevant scientific information. However, the world’s politicians have failed to produce a long-term solution to the problem — and have used science as an excuse. I can already hear politicians using your argument as justification to continue to do nothing (“the scientific community has not provided us with policy options, and without them we cannot possibly do anything”).

Regards.

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you 100% about the knowledge of many scientists about policy issues. But it is also true that economists and policy scholars are equally ignorant of climate processes and other aspects of climate science.

Understanding the significance of science for action requires that we rethink how we do science in support of policy. Not only does it have to be interdisciplinary, broadly across the physical and social sciences, as well as the humanities, but problem oriented and focused on the information needs of decision makers.

From this perspective the “stovepipes” of the IPCC are hopelessly inadequate for meeting the information neeeds of decision makers. A more fruitful place to look is in the US NOAA RISA (Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessment) program, which we are currently studying.

If governments do indeed move away from reliance on physical scientists as a source of guidance on climate policy, then it is in the interests of those scientists to make their work more relevant to policy as I have suggested. Claims of ignorance of policy by these scientists will only speed along the process that you describe.

Thanks!

You seem to suggest that climatologists should help decision makers to “understand the significance of science for alternative courses of action.” This sounds like a good idea, but I doubt that climatologists are the appropriate addressees. While they may be able to help policy markers understand some aspects of the science of climate change, they are entirely unskilled to provide any policy options or ‘alternative courses of action.’ Most climatologists have neither the expertise nor any certified qualifications to provide professional *policy* advice. That’s why they are essentially unable to say whether it would be more cost-effective for governments to adapt to rather than to stop future warming. In order to provide this kind of policy advice, you would need to know how to calculate cost-effectiveness – which is not something climatologists normally learn during their study.

In fact, most climatologists are completely ignorant of the intricacies of decision making which is, let’s not forget, a science in its own right. Most climatologists have no idea to cost any policy option let alone assess their cost-effectiveness. Why should any government listen to such incompetent counsel? It’s as if governments would base their health care spending on the advice of doctors or clinicians, most of whom are totally unacquainted with the science of medical decision making or health care spending. It’s for this reason that medical and health care decision making – which often poses some of the biggest economic and political dilemmas for governments – is directly assigned to the professional bodies of health economists, health risk managers, health care technology analysts and pharmaco-economists. These are the appropriately qualified researchers with the right credentials. It is these experts who can help decision makers “understand the significance of science for alternative courses of action.”

I believe this is going to be the direction more and more governments will take when it comes to expert advice on climate change policies. I expect decision making to become less reliance on the views of climatologists and much more based on expert advice by cost-benefit analysists.

Benny Peiser

Meantime, please repost your comments if you’d liek or email to me. Thanks and apologies for any inconvenience.