If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, then …
If Lady Chatterley’s Lover, then … :
The first paragraph of Sheila Jasanoff’s book, The Fifth Branch, starts
“Scientific advisory committees occupy a curiously sheltered position in the landscape of American regulatory politics. In an era of bitter ideological confrontations, their role in policymaking has gone largely unobserved and unchallenged. …” (1990, The Fifth Branch, Chapter 1, Rationalizing Politics; 2009 Interview with Professor Jasanoff)
The first chapter of The Fifth Branch is something that I think that all managers of science in the U.S. Agencies should read. The book, quickly and compellingly, describes the role of scientists in the U.S. political environment. There are references to and case studies of many instances where scientific investigation is motivating and informing policy. There are examples from environmental science, from waste management, and from approval and management of prescription drugs. The book makes it clear that if scientific investigation suggests a need to change, to regulate, or to restrict a certain practice or behavior, then there is a response to oppose that change, that regulation, or that restriction. The depth and vigor of the opposition depends on the wealth and power of those who perceive themselves as impacted; there is often the funding or the advocacy of “opposition science.”
As part of the opposition, there is the tactic of searching for, finding, and amplifying any weaknesses or indiscretions of the scientists. Occasionally, there is revelation of true fraud. (Previous blogs on all of this are listed at the end.)
Building off of the opening sentences quoted above, since 1990 bitter ideological confrontations have become more bitter. There is little evidence that this trend will change until some sort of catastrophe forces the change. The evolution of political tribalism has entrained the scientific advisory panel into politics and brought the role of the scientist out of obscurity.
As background, Professor Jasanoff describes the Fourth Branch of the U.S. government as the Agencies, which have evolved to carry out the functions of the government. This includes the pursuit of scientific investigation for the benefit of the country. These agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NASA, are formally in the Executive Branch. There are political appointees in the agencies, and there is a standing force of civil servants and associated private-sector contractors. The agencies fund research outside of the government. The staff and longevity of the agencies gives them a life that extends far beyond the term of any particular President. (these are perhaps D.H. Lawrence’s “... good sort of society of people in the government who are not tip-toppers, but who are, or would be, the real intelligent power in the nation: people who know what they're talking about, or talk as if they did.” Lady Chatterly’s Lover)
Last week I wrote that in the absence of comprehensive policy to address climate change in the U.S. the 2007 Supreme Court Decision that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide becomes more important. As the EPA plans to move forward with the authorization to address carbon dioxide as a pollutant, some legislators are moving to block the EPA. ( see also) This is a classic political push and pull, with the argument that the regulation power of the agencies is out of the hands of voters, because the agency is not an elected representative (see Wall Street Journal Review and Outlook) Interestingly, the sponsors of the bill are, in fact, bipartisan, which shows the ultimate rule of their constituencies, which include coal mining, automobiles, and oil.
If there is any doubt that climate science has moved from a discipline of science to, de facto, an element of politics, then Senator Inhoff’s Minority Report should remove that doubt. Aside from amplifying the political positions about the EPA in the previous paragraph, this report implies the criminal investigation of a set of scientists involved in the IPCC Assessment Reports. The increasing role of point-of-view journalists and public relations professionals is discussed in this The Daily Climate Article. These are disruptive and, often, intimidating political tactics in the tradition of, well, unsavory participative politics. (see also, Climate Science Watch).
All of this has motivated a series of open letters by Ben Santer. The last in the series is an eloquent statement that the sustained political attacks does not stop the fact that the Earth will warm, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. (Santer’s Open Letter # 6, The List of 17).
What’s the purpose of my article?
At this point we have established that, going forward, “climate change” is a political issue, and it is subject to both the well founded and the pernicious aspects of the political process. This is nothing new; in fact it is ancient. Scientific investigation has challenged, with dire consequences to scientists, that the Earth is at the center of the universe and many other tenants of nations, religions, and corporations. The ramifications of their investigations rarely enter the minds of young people motivated by the scientific process. Therefore, not only are scientists not well positioned to participate in the realm of bitter ideological confrontation, scientists are, I assert, by both training and predisposition, easy foils for savvy political strategists.
This leaves the scientist in a lose-lose situation. They are required to defend themselves, but their self-defense perpetuates and amplifies the political confrontation. The confrontational process is not one, as one of my readers more eloquently stated, where we are looking for knowledge-based reconciliation of an issue. Knowledge-based reconciliation is the scientific instinct.
The knowledge that this is a political process that has been repeating itself for centuries, that there is always a community motivated by factors other than knowledge, and that we are in a world of nuanced language of words like “consensus” - this knowledge, derived from social scientists, does offer strategies. First the scientists need to think, individually and collectively, that their responses are, by definition, political. We need to adopt a position, not of defense or isolation, but to do no damage. In a political process certain individuals evolve to the point that there is nothing they can say that serves to advance their position. Nothing. I have been there. This is a difficult-to-accept powerlessness. There is a need to learn, at times, to be quiet – to do no damage.
There are other voices in the community of science, and their voices bring new strength and perspectives to the body of knowledge. Often these voices are young, the next generation, and if we have confidence in our efforts, then we should have confidence in those who have learned from us. There are voices outside of the community, from other fields, those who study the process of science, those who are impacted by the results of scientific investigation, those who use the results of investigations – these are powerful, independent, and supportive voices. They provide informal external review; they could provide formal, external review.
There are organizational steps we can take. In the United States we need to use our principles of checks and balances to have different organizations that generate science-based knowledge from those which use it – perhaps a provider-customer relationship. Or for the scientist, setting up a “validation process” that is independent; an organization that affirms value. This would help to break the perception of a conflict of interest, where scientists are often viewed as both provider and customer. As a matter of practical policy, scientists are pushed into this position by the requirement that “they prove what they have discovered is important.” (If we develop a Climate Service, this service should NOT be responsible for the use of the information they provide, for example, climate adaptation. Perhaps we need an organization made up of Agriculture, Interior, the Centers of Disease Control, etc., that are users of the Climate Service.)
We, scientists need to learn, better, that scientific knowledge is used and misused in both the political process and in all forms of decision making. And that misuse is part of the process - knowledge, once released, is no longer controlled. We need to learn that uncertainty is part of all decision making processes, and that systematic reduction of uncertainty in a complex problem like climate change is not the natural evolution of investigation. We need to learn that promising reduction of uncertainty is both scientifically and politically naïve.
Most of all, there are those, and this is perhaps what is really happening, what the majority will do – there are those who will take the knowledge that the Earth is warming, sea level is rising and the weather is changing and act on it. They will think about the investments of their companies, the management of our resources, and the incremental development of policy, that will take advantage of the tremendous and unique opportunity offered by the projections of climate change. These are the people who can keep their head when all about others are losing theirs … (If, by Rudyard Kipling)
r
Strength in Many Peers
“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
Trust, but Verify
Scientist as Advocate
Science, Belief and the Volcano
Opinions and Anecdotal Evidence
And here is
Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 — Blog Index
You post some great stuff on other blogs. I didn't put words in your mouth, you said #1-6 in post #278 were wrong and I asked how #6 was wrong.
#1 is very wrong. The Earth has a heat budget of shortwave energy in, and long wave energy out. CO2 absorbs and reemits the long wave that would otherwise go out, therefore more stays in. It is basic physics and you can easily test CO2 energy absorption in a lab. Susan explains it better than I do in her video below.
this link is a great NOAA site.
http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch/videos
Here is a neat link to explore IPCC model results. From the Nature Conservancy
http://www.climatewizard.org/
water vapor has increased 5% in the last 100 yrs being 4% in the last 30 yrs. therefore, over the past century, global average surface temperatures have warmed by about 0.75C. Much of the warming occurred in the past half-century, over which the average decadal rate of change was about 0.13C
WV content increased throughout the ATM layer
Science 5 March 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5970, pp. 1219 - 1223
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming
Susan Solomon,1 Karen H. Rosenlof,1 Robert W. Portmann,1 John S. Daniel,1 Sean M. Davis,1,2 Todd J. Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
And More
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2010) — There's been a rich debate in marine ecological circles about what happens to a key food source along rocky coastlines dominated by upwelling. The literature is filled with studies suggesting that the larvae of simple prey organisms such as barnacles and mussels hitch a ride on the coast-to-offshore currents typical of upwelling and are thus mostly absent in the coastal tidal zones.
That theory is getting a major challenge. In a paper in Ecological Monographs, Brown University marine ecologist Jon Witman and colleagues report that a key thread in the food web, the barnacle -- the popcorn of the sea -- flourishes in zones with vertical upwelling. Working at an expansive range of underwater sites in the Galapagos Islands, Witman and his team found that at two subtidal depths, barnacle larvae had latched onto rock walls, despite the vertical currents. In fact, the swifter the vertical current, the more likely the barnacles would colonize a rocky surface, the team found.
Link
We? What do you mean we? We are still in our first one.
The data and peer reviewed Info clearly shows the situ.
Enjoy a FRESCA on me...and enjoy da Video.
The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 is an international satellite mission that will extend into the next decade the continuous climate record of sea surface height measurements begun in 1992 by the joint NASA/Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) Topex/Poseidon mission and continued in 2001 by the NASA/CNES Jason-1 mission. This multi-decadal record has already helped scientists study global sea level rise and better understand how ocean circula-tion and climate change are related.
Developed and proven through the joint efforts of NASA and CNES, high-precision ocean altimetry measures the distance between a satellite and the ocean surface to within a few centimeters. Accurate observations of variations in sea surface height also known as ocean topography provide scientists with information about the speed and direction of ocean currents and heat stored in the ocean. This information, in turn, reveals global climate variations.
With OSTM/Jason-2, ocean altimetry has come of age. The mission will serve as a bridge to transition collection of these measurements to the world's weather and climate forecasting agencies, which will use them for short- and seasonal-to-long-range weather and climate forecasting.
Sea level rise is one of the most important consequences and indicators of global climate change. From Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 we know mean sea level has risen by about three millimeters a year since 1993. This is about twice the estimates from tide gauges for the previous century, indicating a possible recent acceleration. OSTM/Jason-2 will further monitor this trend and allow us to better understand year-to-year variations.
The speedup of ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica is a wild card in predicting future sea level rise. Measurements from Jason-1 and OSTM/Jason-2, coupled with information from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) mission, will provide crucial information on the relative contributions of glacier melting and ocean heating to sea level change.
Earth's oceans are a thermostat for our planet, keeping it from heating up quickly. More than 80 percent of the heat from global warming over the past 50 years has been absorbed by the oceans. Scientists want to know how much more heat the oceans can absorb, and how the warmer water affects Earth's atmosphere. OSTM/Jason-2 will help them better calculate the oceans' ability to store heat.
The mission will also allow us to better understand large-scale climate phenomena like El Nino and La Nina, which can have wide-reaching effects.
No my friend you are the one that is lost here. Geological data proves you wrong.
Once again you refuse to look at the global picture.
Viewing: 301 - 323
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 — Blog Index