Comments on: How Science Becomes Politics

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:23:05 +0000

Dear AHW- Thanks much for your comment. I have tried to clearly distinguish between “honest broker science” and the “honest broker” of policy options. You are absolutely correct that in some instances there is incontrovertible scientific evidence. And such consensus is indeed one of the factors that allow honest broker science to be effective (the other factor being low political conflict). But absent low political conflict a consensus or lack of uncertainty on science is not a sufficient criterion to compel a particular action. For example, scientists might conclude with certainty that, say, trasfats cause heart disease. However, this information does not tell us at what restaurant we should eat. This is for several reasons, most importantly is that some decision makers may value a meal today rich in transfats over its contribution to their chances of getting cancer in the future. (And it gets more complicated when we consider that the individual’s decision may have broader societal impacts.) Such values disputes are at the heart of many issues (like climate change) that are putatively about science (I discussed this is a paper last year on ‘Abortion, Tornados and Forests”). Climate change is a great example of this dynamic. Many act as if winning a scientific debate will compel a particular set of actions. The irony here is that the scientific debate has been won (at least in the eyes of many scientists, the public and policy makers), yet the issue remains in gridlock. Even with such experiences, many persist in asserting that a particular set of scientific facts should compel a certain action. The reality is that action is determined by many factors other than science, and continued efforts to compel action through science is an important factor in the politicization of science. On the relationship of science and action, see the special issue of Environmental Science & Policy that I co-guest edited last year with Steve Rayner.

By: AHW

AHW — Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:16:27 +0000

The logical flaw in your ‘honest broker’ paradigm is when an issue has overwhelming evidence that one side is correct. For instance, an honest broker might set out both sides of an arguement that the world is flat. One can find plenty of evidence on either side of that so-called debate. However, the overwhelming evidence is that the world is round. Entertaining the flat-world theories with equal importance is a disservice to the sound science of round-worlders. Similarly, there are truly some scientific arguements that have compelling one-sided evidence that is not trying to be issue-advocacy.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 02:54:46 +0000

Blogs are better than memories. It has been pointed out to me that last January we made reference to the Independent article that cited Dr. Pachauri’s comments about human survival. Clearly in the Democracy Now interview Ross Gelbspan is accurately quoting Dr. Pachauri. This whole episode of Dr. Pachauri’s statement, its amplification by an issue advocate making a partisan, political argument (and at the same time playing fast and loose with climate science, e.g., claiming attribution of damaging 2004 hurricanes to CO2), and a prominent IPCC scientist favorably citing the issue advocate should raise some questions about the profoundly mixed messages being sent by the climate community about the role of the IPCC in supporting climate policy and politics. Is the job of the IPCC to compel a particular political action or to inform decision makers about their available choices and cthe onsequences of those choices? Who exactly does the IPCC serve?

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:34:09 +0000

Bob- Thanks for the link. It is quite amazing really. I am less troubled by the fact that Dr. Pauchuri made these remarks (I am sure that he sincerely believes in their substance) than I am about the overall silence about the way that IPCC science has become transformed into issue advocacy among the rank and file in the broader community of IPCC scientists. Any reactions from IPCC scientists?

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:42:49 +0000

Try http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0123-01.htm (originally published in the lndependent/UK).