2007 Office Pool
December 30th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Happy New Year everyone! A 2007 office pool for your enjoyment:
1. In 2007 the space shuttle will fly (a) once, (b) twice, (c) 3 or more times, (d) its last mission.
2. Academic earmarks on non-defense discretionary spending for FY2007 will (a) be held to near zero as Democrats hold steadfast to their year-long continuing resolution, (b) will quietly creep up to their FY2006 levels as supplemental spending bills are laden with pork, (c) will not formally appear in appropriations or reports but will somehow appear out of existing agency appropriations as agency officials seek to keep congressional appropriators happy.
3. The number of hurricanes in the North Atlantic will be (a) less than 10, (b) between 10 and 15, (c) 16 to 20, (d) more than 20.
4. The IPCC will be released in three installments in the first half of 2007. The big news story from the IPCC will be (a) actually nothing, as nothing new will be reported, (b) a change in the IPCC and its leaders to an explicit advocacy role, (c) that it spells the end of the climate convention as it presents “dangerous interference” as inevitable, (d) provides much fodder for those wanting to “go slow” on climate policy by presenting an image of climate change far more conservative than found in the media, (e) will totally botch the issue of economic losses from extreme events, and especially hurricanes.
5. Al Gore will enter the 2008 presidential race (a) in the spring with his speech accepting the Oscar for best documentary, (b) in the late summer or early fall following the devastation of southern Florida by Hurricane Jerry, (c) not at all and Roger will owe Lisa lunch, (d) in 2008.
6. The U.S. budget for R&D in FY2007 will (a) represent the first cut in decades as Democrats hold fast to their year-long continuing resolution, (b) increase from FY2006 level through several targeted supplemental appropriations bills, most notable passage of some version of the ACI/PACE legislation, (c) so frustrate some scientists that they will begin speaking of a “Democratic war on science”.
7. The most notable S&T legislation to be passed by Congress in 2007 and vetoed by President Bush will be focused on (a) federal funding for stem cell research, (b) mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, (c) prohibition of the transfer of nuclear technologies to India, (d) repeal of certain aspects of the Patriot Act focused on surveillance
8. The Supreme Court will rule in EPA vs. Massachusetts that (a) Massachusetts in fact has no standing to file the lawsuit, (b) that EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and leave to EPA’s discretion whether regulation is required, (c) EPA must regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act, (d) that some call greenhouse gases a “pollutant” while others simply call it “life”
9. Internationally, the biggest news of 2007 will be (a) the introduction and then termination of carbon rationing cards in the U.K., (b) Germany’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, (c) the announcement by Hugo Chavez that Venezuela will conduct a nuclear test, (d) China’s devaluation of its currency sending the dollar into a tailspin
10. In 2007, here at Prometheus we will see (a) an angel bequeathing a massive endowment to our Center, (b) the blog reinvented at another university far, far away, (c) new authors and new contributors, and an ever-expanding readership (d) enough on climate change already, .and a shift to The Honest Broker.
My guesses below.
1. (a) 30%, (b) 60%, (c) 10%, (d) 50%
2. (c)
3. (a) 10%, (b) 50%, (c) 30%, (d) 10%
4. all of the above
5. (b), but maybe (d), (c) no way
6. (b), (a) is possible but unlikely
7. (a), almost certainly
8. (a) or (b), probably (b)
9. none of the above
10. (a) were still waiting on this one;-), (b), (c), and (d) – stay tuned!
Happy New Year!
January 1st, 2007 at 4:20 am
Roger’s prediction for the IPCC: The big news story from the IPCC (2007) will be:
(a) actually nothing, as nothing new will be reported, …
(c) that it spells the end of the climate convention as it presents “dangerous interference” as inevitable,
I am uncertain about what you mean.
a) Nothing new will be reported.
Are you predictioning that
a-1) nothing new will be reported by the IPCC in 2007 — Meaning this report substantially reports the same story as the last one or
a-2) nothing new will be reported by the news media about the IPCC report?
For c):
The “climate convention” means the UN FCCC?
Your thinking is that if the IPCC reports that “dangerous interference” is inevitable then the IPCC no longer has a reason for continuing, it’s current mandate having been acheived?
January 1st, 2007 at 11:00 am
Cortlant- Thanks for your question. This one is a bit insider-ish, sorry about that. Answers:
1. Actually I mean that nothing will be reported in the IPCC that isn’t already “out there” in the news already. Most major (and many minor) climate science research articles are already covered in the press. As well the IPCC drafts have been available for a while. So my point here is that there will be little new “news” left to report other than the fact that the IPCC is published.
2. Yes, climate convention = FCCC. If “dangerous interference” cannot be avoided then it means that the FCCC needs to come up with a new goal. See:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000915back_to_square_one.html
Let me know if the above is still unclear. Thanks!
January 1st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“1. Actually I mean that nothing will be reported in the IPCC that isn’t already “out there” in the news already. Most major (and many minor) climate science research articles are already covered in the press. As well the IPCC drafts have been available for a while. So my point here is that there will be little new “news” left to report other than the fact that the IPCC is published.”
I haven’t seen anything definitive on the AR4 “projections” (perhaps, after 15 years, they’ll actually make some predictions?) for methane atmospheric concentrations, CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant temperature increases.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:35 am
Roger,
Thank you for your answers. Continuing to parse out your thinking.
4 (b) “a change in the IPCC and its leaders to an explicit advocacy role”
Wow. That would be (or should be) news.
I read “explicit” in the context of “explicit advocacy role” to mean that the leaders of the IPCC will explicitly state that their role is no longer to be “policy neutral” but to be advocates. Such honesty would be laudable but I would rather expect their advocacy to be role to be implicit.
Do you the think the pending publication of “The Honest Broker” will drive them out in the open?
4 (d) provides much fodder for those wanting to “go slow” on climate policy by presenting an image of climate change far more conservative than found in the media
By implication you are saying that the published work already presents an image of climate change that is is far more conservative than what is found in the media. My thoughts are “boy, are you going to be in trouble now Roger”. But on second thought the idea that media has a bias towards the sensational is a bias that many professors of journalism admit to.
4 (e) “will totally botch the issue of economic losses from extreme events, and especially hurricanes.”
Hum. An optimist I see. Let us hope that making that mistake twice in a row or even more than last time might become a minor piece of news in it’s own right.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:48 am
Cortlant-
Thanks … a few replies
4b- “Do you the think the pending publication of “The Honest Broker” will drive them out in the open?”
Highly unlikely. My book only very briefly gets into the issue of climate change. If it does help a few people see that scientists have choices in how they engage politically, then I’ll be pretty happy with it!
4e- Yes, an optimist;-) We shall see . . .
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Roger,
Thank you for your answers.
My layman’s understanding of organization communication informs me that “explicit advocacy” means that the actors would say something like “we see our roles as advocates”. Is that your understanding?
A related issue would be what they (the IPCC) would be advocates for. One might say that the IPCC already advocates for understanding the scientific consensus.
January 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Cortlandt- Yes, I can envision some in the IPCC saying that the issue of climate change is too important to be “policy neutral”. In practice some associated with the IPCC have already taken this step, and it is built in to the most recent reports, all that is left is to acknowledge it.