« Science Policy: General »

Your 1. leads one to ask whether it is OK to take an advocacy position on non-politicized issues.

If so, then if actions to de-politicize are successful, is it then OK to advocate after the issue has ben de-politicized?

What is the time frame to wait? What is the metric to indicate the issue has flipped?

To your bottom line: if there is another layer added between scientists and policy-makers (say, by an advocate), effectively removing the workers from the results of their work, to where will the advocates be attached? To an academy? Will the advocate's separation mean the academies are separated from advocacy?

Best,

D

Dano- Thanks for your comments. First, there is some semantic confusion here (my fault, jargon, sorry!). By "politicized" setting I simply mean one in which different groups in society beyond the scientific enterprise are engaged in bargaining, negotiation and compromise. By contrast, for example, the NRC "decadal surveys" of astronomy or earth science are no doubt political exercises, but because the relevant stakeholders are represented by those on these committees, I would not suggest that this is highly politicized in the same manner as climate change. So if the NRC wants to advocate a particular set of priorities for astronomy research, then this would seem to be an entirely appropriate sort of issue advocacy for the NRC to engage in. For issues that go beyond decisions about science to decisions with or related to science that involve a broader set of societal stakeholders, I think that science academies should not seek to replicate or join the ranks of special interest groups advocating a particular solution. There are already plenty of such groups on all sides of issues. Instead they should support the needs of decision makers by clarifying or even expanding the set of options available. (see this post: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html)

There are at least three reasons why this makes sense. One is simply practical -- science academies have much to lose (stature, funding, etc.) if they take on the characteristics of an advocacy-oriented NGO (also, where does it stop? Should science academies put forward approved candidate lists for elections or position papers on pending legislation?). The second reason has to do with the needs of policy making -- sometimes all of the available options on a particular issue are bad ones (e.g., climate change) and effective policy making requires that someone work to introduce new and innovative courses of action (e.g., think HCFCs on ozone, or tradable permits on acid rain) that might help the political process to move forward. By reinforcing the FCCC definition of climate change the science academies are arguably hurting chances for effective action on climate change. I can think of no better way to get new and innovative policy options than with the participation of the broad scientific community. The third reason has to do with democratic accountability. In the US at least the NAS is supported in large part with public funds in support of common interests. But when taking advocacy positions who are they accountable to? The way to deal with these issues is to ask the NAS to engage in policy issues explicitly and transparently, not as an issue advocate, but as an honest broker.

Dr. Pielke,
Very interesting post. I appreciate your concern for the independence and integrity of scientists.

However, one question still nags me. At what point do we, as scientists, decide to take our case to the people, after watching an administration like President Bush's repeatedly distort the science to fit HIS agenda?

I realize that this question, as worded, is somewhat inflammatory... but my good faith was lost two years ago when White House meddling forced scientists at the EPA to seriously limit their treatment of climate change and air quality issues in their State of the Environment report.

I'm sure you recall: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0619-01.htm

In short, when our own government's good faith can be reasonably questioned, at what point should the scientists push back?

James- Thanks for your comment. On this issue I do think that it is important to distinguish institutions from individuals. For individuals, I think that the decision to "push back" -- to become political -- is an intensely personal one. I have complete respect for any scientist who decides to become politically active (though we do have to remember that "facts" don't dictate "values", i.e., science doesn't say what actions we should take). The scientists who worked against nuclear proliferation in the 1960s are a good example. But as I caution my students, such decisions should be made with very careful thought, because once you become characterized as an issue advocate that will stick with you, perhaps forever, for better or worse, and may color how your science is viewed and the opportunities that you have. Perhaps the decision is akin to a choice to resign from a position in protest -- it can be a strong statement, but you probably want to carefully balance the pluses and minuses as there is usually no going back. I encourage my students to understand the choices that they have as experts in engaging their expertise in policy and politics, and the consequences of those choices (described in my various "honest broker" posts).

More generally, if most scientists decide to play politics (and I'd argue that we are seeing a trend in this direction), then we have a situation where we risk scientific debates becoming political debates (see the work of Sarewitz on this point). In such cases, instead of bringing science to policy, we have simply brought politics into science. The public face of climate change science, as frequently discussed here, has reached such a state in my view. This underscores why it is criticially important to nurture and protect institutions that serve as "honest brokers" of policy options (e.g., science academies, NRC committees, IPCC, presidential advisory committees and commissions, the CIA, the OTA (RIP), etc. etc.). There are plenty of avenues for scientists to express their political views, but exceedingly few places where the emphasis is on expanding/clarifying policy options in a manner distinctly different than issue advocacy.

Dr. Pielke,

I ask the following question here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/6/7/155959/0682

I'm generally sympathetic with your position, but all your comments seem at a pretty high level of generality. What I'd like to see you address is why this issue, in particular, has done so much to drag scientists into the political realm. I have my own ideas, but I'd be interested to hear yours.

Thanks much Dave for your comments and discussion of this topic at Grist. I actually don't think that the issue is at all limited to climate change, though climate change is a fully developed and very public example. Here are some examples we've discussed here over the past year related to various issues of small and large significance and from across the political spectrum:

Council on Bioethics:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/biotechnology/000373politics_and_bioethi.html

Hubble Space Telescope:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/space_policy/000288two_points_on_the_nr.html

Perchlorate and Human Health
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000315nrc_perchlorate_repo.html

Stem Cells
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000391science_versus_socie.html

Evolution
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000391science_versus_socie.html

FDA and Drug Approval
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000272wanted_honest_broke.html

AAAS on several issues
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000230its_time_to_clarify.html

And there are more. I'd be less concerned about the issue of honest brokers versus issue advocates in science if it was in fact limited to climate change. But it seems pretty clear that what we see in climate change is more symptomatic of changes in science more generally.

You'll have to go a bit slower for the hard of understanding here. You seem to take it as axiomatic that anyone who actually advocates a policy thereby has a conflict of interest and cannot give unbiased scientific opinion.

Let's take the climate science out of this for now, just to make sure I understand what you are trying to say.

The WHO strongly advocates mass immmunisation to eradicate polio. This is (at least if you happen to be in Nigeria) a highly political and contentious issue. So in your view, this means that the WHO has a conflict of interest - sorry, "at least the appearance of a conflict of interest" and by advocating a policy they are "threatening their own authority and legitimacy".

Instead, you suggest that the WHO should act as an "honest broker". I'm not entirely sure what you mean in practice by that, although I guess it is something along the lines of the WHO saying

"We can (a) try to eliminate polio, which will save X deaths/disablements per year, or (b) not bother with immmunisation, which will cost Y deaths/disablements per year". Of course I simplify, there are a range of approaches which will all have (expected) costs and benefits. But I'm sure that if the WHO were to say such a thing, politically-minded commentators (not thinking of anyone in particular...) would be quick to jump on this statement as advocacy disguised as impartial advice. Which is of course even worse than straightforward "honest" advocacy.

Perhaps you already think that the WHO is a political advocacy body which has no credibililty as a source of scientific advice. In that case, I'll have to try to think of a better example. But otherwise, what steps do you think the WHO, or anyone else who is concerned over the issue, could or should take?

Hi James- Thanks for your comment, and yes, you have accurately anticipated my reply. WHO is an international agency whose job it is to promulgate and implement policies. Scientific societies have a different role (as do, for example, scientific advisory committees).

I am coming to realize more and more that the knowledge generated over recent decades in the comnunity of scholars who study science, technology and society (i.e., STS) has little saliency among practicing scientists and scientific leaders. This is not the fault of scientists, but of those of us who study science in society -- thus consider Prometheus an experiment in trying to share such understandings and their possible significance for science (and technology) policies. For more see this post:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000403sts_contrarianism.html

I would argue that the suggestions made in this letter are not advocacy. to see my point, let's take them one by one:
1) climate change is a real threat: this is a positive statement and self-evident to anyone who's looked at the IPCC third asessment report. it does not advocate a policy, but simply says that there's a possibility of significant, negative impacts from climate change. this is an absolutely bullet-proof statement. anyone arguing that there is NO CHANCE that climate change might bring significant impacts has simply not looked at the data.
2) launch an international study ... this is just a call for more research. every scientific report I've ever read does that. while I guess this is technically advocacy, I don't count this as advocating a climate policy.
3) identify cost-effective steps ... this is again a call for more research.
recognise that delayed action ... this does not advocate a policy, but is a statement of fact that is generally agreed upon by those who've looked at the models.
4) work with developing countries ... this is perhaps a policy statement, but it clearly includes both adaptation and mitigation, so I would argue it's not really advocating a particular policy.
5) show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy ... I'm not sure this is an advocacy statement (because of the odd use of the word "leadership"), but if you count this as advocacy, it is it's so weak and so general that I don't think it precludes or enhances any particular options.
6) mobilize the science and technology community ... again, a call for more research. much like #2, I don't count this as advocacy.

while perhaps this letter approaches advocacy, I don't think it crosses the line.

Andrew- Thanks, these are fair points and worth discussing in specificity. However, the letter (a) calls for "targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable," and (b) adopts the FCCC's politically- (not scientifically-) based definition of climate change. These two points inevitably lead one to Article 2 of the FCCC, and not to any other possible approaches to climate change. This effort to limit options is clearly advocacy. Whether it is an appropriate role for science academies is another question.

Thanks for your response. my sense is that you're reading more into the letter than I do. while it talks about "targets," it says we should investigate them. this seems an entirely sensible step, and the results of such a study, along with studies on adaptation, would dictate what mix of mitigation vs. adaptation we adopt. I do not read this as advocating any specific mitigation policy, or even mitigation in general. as far as footnote 1 goes, my reading is that they're simply providing a definition of global warming (that it's manmade and not natural variations they're focusing on this paper). perhaps I'm showing my lack of expert knowledge here, but I don't see how defining global warming this way advocates any particular policy.

Ok, swap WHO for the British Medical Association, then. They have also advocated various health-related policies.

Anyway, I still don't really get what you are saying. It seems that you alternate between saying things like:

"I think that it is fair to expect that scientific leadership requires a greater engagement with policy and all of the messy, interdisciplinary, applied realities that go along with it."

with comments such as

"By presenting themselves as issue advocates scientific academies are threatening their own authority and legitimacy. As we have written here frequently, one effective way for scientific organizations to serve as honest broker is not to hide behind science, but instead to openly engage and discuss a range of policy options."

A "range of policy options" that says: "(a) business as usual and the climate will change rapidly, or (b) do something that might delay/avert the change" (where b of course potentially includes a wide range of options) is PRECISELY the "honest brokering" that many of the climate scientists have been doing. Some people who prefer business as usual clearly do not believe that this policy is defensible with our current state of knowledge, which is why they lie...erm..."disassemble".

In the face of a vocal lobby who deny that GHGs have any significant effect at all, even suggesting that emissions have any relevance to policy is itself "issue advocacy".

So, I guess you just advocated an issue, and as a result have no credibility left :-)

We recognize roles for different types of body in science. Most deal with scientists as workers and as professionals but academies are different – they speak for science as a whole. It would be nice to be able to divorce the broad issue of the role of science academies as advocates for one side of a political debate from the specifics of the issue. The range of views expressed in this thread on what constitutes politicisation demonstrates that this is hardly realistic - the strength of the case for and against climate change being an urgent reality is too central to the issue to omit from the debate.

When an academy dips its toe into this particular policy arena, as they have certainly done with their open letter to the G8, they are signalling that science has no problem with billions being spent and ways of life disrupted. Okay they don’t actually mention the K-word, presumably so as not to damage the career prospects of the signatory from the US NAS, but there is plenty there that does commit science to a settled view that climate is changing (sensu UNFCCC). To my mind the single most offending phrase is the one in the third paragraph about understanding being adequate to take action – that leap is pure politics in anyone’s definition.

Here is where the science behind the specific case comes in. You need a massive dose of Precautionary Principle to convert the actual state of knowledge and strength of evidence to the state of alarm that is everywhere being promoted. Part of the problem is that the main science underpinning - IPCC-TAR – is already loaded with what would be called in engineering “factors of safety” through the handling of the scenarios and the modelling choices in the chain of computations from climate through to impacts and adaptation modelling. This tends to get forgotten and the upshot is that top-of-range assessments are presented as middle-of-the-road ones.

It may be that the actual pronouncements in the open letter are rather anodyne, but by the time they’ve passed through the filter of the press (see this morning’s Independent in the UK) it’s turned into another obstacle to rational debate. And isn’t that the bottom line – science should be the bedrock for conducting rational debate; the dose of precautionarity that is appropriate to the case is the stuff of politicians?

James- Thanks for the further comments. The BMA, as a trade association, is a special interest group, and in this case as well I don't think that the analogy holds with national science academies. Keep looking!

If you want to understand my call for scientists to engage with policy but to exercise caution when acting as issue advocates, I'd encourage you to read these two (lengthy, sorry) posts that seek to clearly define the terms "issue advocate" and "honest broker":

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000407honest_broker_part_.html

You suggest that "business as usual" versus "do something" represents a set of policy options. I disagree. This debate between BAU and "do something" is about problem definition, not specific policy actions. Further, this debate has been overwhelmingly won (as we've documented numerous times here). Right now we are seeing the consequences of winning the "do something" debate with no good options on the table for what to do -- we instead engage in symbolic actions and unending replays of the problem definition debate. The question that remains unanswered is, given that we should "do something," what is it, exactly, that we should do?

Many advocates and scientists see to prefer to spend their time debating the problem definition, rather than discussing in some detail what range of options are available that might make sense practically and politically.

Dr. Pielke,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my earlier comment. I realize, now, that my concerns are slightly different from the main concerns being discussed in this thread. However, they are related. The main question here is how scientific academies should be involved in the process of choosing the best path for society to take on the issue of climate change, without compromising their scientific integrity. I agree that this is a very important issue.

My concern is related to the role that scientists *may feel forced* to play, as watch dogs (or fact checkers), when scientific facts are being rampantly misrepresented by those with vested interests in BAU. My understanding is that RealClimate.org was created by scientists who felt their website was a necessary response to certain media commentators, energy industry PR representatives, lobbyists and politicians (hard to tell the difference sometimes) who have effectively misled the public into believing such talking points as, "The science isn't settled" (a la Frank Luntz). To be clear, I would also like to see RealClimate.org take on environmental advocacy groups as well, to correct their misstatements when they are not based in science or are unduly alarmist (I commend you for your efforts in this regard).

So, my point is not to place blame by saying, "He started it!" My point is just to illustrate that the politicization of climate change science has been dramatically escalated by forces entirely outside of the realm of science and scientific academies. While this can be expected to result from propaganda issued by advocacy groups... I am very concerned by what appears to be deliberately misleading propaganda coming from elected officials in government. To illustrate my point (in addition to the link I provided in my earlier comment), I'm sure you saw today's NYT's article on this issue (link below). In my mind, such activities mark a fundamental breach of public trust and effectively challenge scientists to "push back."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?hp&ex=1118289600&en=54e7b911a5d025aa&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Now, getting back to the distinction between institutions and individuals and the question of whether or not "facts" can dictate "values." When the science is being questioned by public relations-style propaganda campaigns, as opposed to by evidence or facts, I wonder what a "non-political" scientist, who knows better, should do. Here, I am distinguishing between scientists who are inclined to express their political views from those who simply want to "set the record straight." Do we keep out heads down or do we speak up... and if we do speak up does this mean that we have made that fateful leap from "honest broker" to "issue advocate?" The problem is that if we remain silent, then the absence of protest can be understood by the public as an endorsement of the misinformation. Finally, under these circumstances, where the facts seem to need constant reiterating and clarifying, the voice of a national science academy (or group of academies) can obviously broadcast a message much more effectively than the voice of one individual. It is the dilemma.

Thanks very much for your time,
James

Dr. Pielke,
Hello again. I just read Philipp Steger's excellent article on the politicization of science (via your June 3rd post) and I'm realizing that many people are way ahead of me on this issue (no big surprises there ;-) ). Also, your post today on Revkin's NYTs article was interesting.

Anyway, I'm learning a lot at this site... I'll try to visit more often.

Many Thanks,
-james

Have you acquianted yourself with the actual charter of the NAS? A lot of your beefs with the NAS seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what the NAS is in the first place. The website http://www.nationalacademies.org/ is chock a block full of information including public notice of committee members and the resulting reports once published. It was chartered by Abraham Lincoln to be an adviser to the *government* on scientific matters. As such the majority of its projects are funded by the government.

Oh and Sometimes the best advice that can be given is "Wake up and smell the coffee you idiots!"

The question that remains unanswered is, given that we should "do something," what is it, exactly, that we should do?

You've said before how you believe that climate scientists should get involved in policy development. But I think this point has already been addressed clearly enough by Gavin (I think it was) from Realclimate.

I don't believe that climate scientists have any particular expertise to bring to bear on the policy issue. For sure, there are some who do good work in this area (eg Yohe, Andronova and Schlesinger which I think you mentioned somewhere) - and of course there could be more - but people whose primary interest and expertise is in various aspects of geophysical fluid dynamics have no priviledged information on whether carbon taxes (and at what level) or emissions credits are likely to be useful/affordable approaches.

The policy decision certainly needs input from the climate scientists - tell me what the emissions are, and I'll try to tell you what the climate will do (and these days, you can expect some sort of uncertainty estimate too). That appears to be pretty much precisely what the IPCC has done, and is abbout to do again. But as far as determining sensible policies, that is not my domain (I'm sure that the economics aspects of the YA&S paper were primarily handled by the economist). All I ask is that those who do try to present policy options, should do so informed by an honest interpretation of the current state of climate science. Maybe this is in itself a hopelessly unrealistic goal, but I'm not sure what else I can contribute.

James A.- Thanks for these further comments, which I think make a lot of sense. But let me ask (generally), where should policy options on climate come from, if not the climate science community? (And let me be clear that I view the climate science community to be considerably broader than climate modelers, to include economists, ecologists, sociologists, solar physicists, etc.) Your comments highlight the irony of the current dynamics of the climate debate -- for better or worse the issue has been framed as one in which climate science narrowly viewed is at the focus, yet this narrow perspective on climate science leads us to a situation where the experts at the center of the debate take a pass on discussing policy. Seems to me that we need to open up the debate beyond just a narrow view of science focused on observing, modeling and predicting the physical climate system. This does not necessarily mean that climate scientists need to go back to school to learn policy research skill, but it might mean that they recognize the limitations of the current way that the climate debate is conducted.

I would like to support Andy Dessler's comments. For the climate science community's point of view, the 'advocacy' implicit in Academies statements is strictly motherhood and apple pie. None of the statements advocates for any particular policy option, other than saying that some policy is required.

Maybe it might be useful to set up a taxonomy of advice so that we can agree on what is and isn't to be counted as advocacy. Here is a quick try, but you could probably do a better job.

1) Statements of pure science: if concetrations of greenhouse gases are X, climate is likely to be Y+/-Z (i.e. IPCC WGI)

2) Recognition of consequences: Significant climate change will have negative impacts. (i.e. IPCC WGII)

3) No-brainer conclusions: Some action to prevent significant anthropogenic climate change will probably be necessary

4) Advocacy of specific solutions: Kyoto, cap-and-trade, regulations, targeted subsidies, carbon taxes, voluntary programs etc.

The letter from the academies (and the IPCC reports, etc.) very clearly only tackle 1,2, and 3. The issues in 4 are political and not scientific and clearly would cross the line you are attempting to draw. Presumabaly the academies agreed which is why no specific policies were mentioned. In our previous discussions, I have also tried to underline the clear difference between 3 and 4. Recognising the need for an (unspecified) policy to achieve a result is not the same as advocating for (specific) solutions to that need.

Thus I, James and Andy above, and the academies draw the 'honest broker' line between 3 and 4.
However, maybe you feel that advice #3 is an step too far? If so, that would appear to endorse 'do absolutely nothing ever' as a valid policy option in this case - a policy option which even the current US administration doesn't agree support.

Gavin- Thanks for this thoughtful post. It deserves top line billing, and I will very soon craft a post to do this. But right now let me ask you a simple question -- The FCCC and IPCC have different definitions of climate change; Is use of one definition over another advocacy (and clearly scientists have to mean one or the other when using the phrase)? (As you know, I argue that the choice of definition is politically loaded, hence there is no "pure science" in this case.) The IPCC uses both definitions inconsitently though its three working groups. Why doesn't the IPCC simply adopt the FCCC definition in its reports to make things easier on policy makers?

I cannot speak for IPCC, but it is open to debate what the actual impact of the different definitions really are. A simple replacement of 'climate change' with 'anthropogenic climate change' in the letter is all that would be required to adopt the other definition. I doubt that would have any political import.

On the more general point, there is a difference between dealing with a growing problem (increasing emissions), and having a policy of dynamic climate management. You raise the point in your article in relation to the 'Bright Sun World', but maybe an analogy will help point out why that might not be relevant:

Someone is in a small row boat, and decides to start rocking violently from side to side. As the size of the swings get larger, the probability of 'dangerous interference' in the boats stability grows. FCCC definitions would imply that maybe he should stop rocking the boat so much. However, the boat is on a choppy sea where there are external forces rocking the boat as well. Conceivably, an intelligent program could be devised so that rocking could be coordinated with the (quasi-random) external forces such that the boat remains perfectly still. This would correspond to reducing climate change by the IPCC definition. However, practical considerations related to the unpredictability of the external forces and the shear difficulty in coordinating a response that would stabilise the situation (rather than making it worse) implies that the 'best' solution is for the person to sit down regardless. The boat won't be perfectly still, but the danger of a capsize is reduced. Thus under either definition, the practical policy solution is the same.

I will concede that given any significant predictibility of the external forces (solar, volcanic), the IPCC definition would provide for a wider range of policy action, but in the actual situation, (with little or no predictibility on timescales that would be required), there is no practical difference.

Thus in choosing one over the other, I do not think that there is an practical advocacy issue.

Hi Gavin-

Thanks for this thoughtful email which I think does much to advance this discussion. Your analogy helps to make my point. First, it is heavily biased against adaptation (I don't know what adaptations even makes sense in the example, e.g., reengineer the boat, get a life vest?). Second, it forces decision making (e.g., sit down or not) to be based on predictions of the future (e.g., will the boat capsize?), setting the stage for a battle over science. Third, it presumes that there is a single overwhelmingly dominant forcing such that we can ignore any other influences. (On this last point Jim Hansen has complained in Congressional testimony that the FCCC definition of climate change deemphasizes attention to non-greenhouse gas forcings, and Marland et al. complain that land use effects on climate are similarly overlooked, see my paper Misdefining Climate Change for details.)

Problem definitions are tools of advocacy because they emphasize some options and deemphasize others. Consider this example: if I say that the problem of water resources in Colorado is that we don't have enough water, it will point to a very different set of solutions than if I say that the problem is that we are using too much water. Similarly, when the FCCC adopts a highly restructed defintion of climate change it favors some policy options over others.

To get back to your lifeboat example, if I changed the problem from "the boat may capsize" to "The occupant is at risk of drowning" it would help to focus our attention to the various causes of drowning, and not a single factor, and open up our discussion of action alternatives. The lifeboat example is so highly simplified that it makes the issue appear as if there is only one reason for concern about drowning (hence it suggests, dare I say advocates, a particular way to think about possible actions). But the reality of climate change is that climate impacts on people and the environment are the product of mutiple causes operating at the same time.

I know these issues are nuanced and probably as foreign to climate science as climate science is to most policy scholars, so I appreciate your perseverence. Here are several papers that make these vrious point in some detail:

On problem definition: Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1997: Asking the Right Questions: Atmospheric Sciences Research and Societal Needs. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(2), 255-264.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-145-1997.13.pdf

On the framing of the climate issue: Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1998: Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 159-170. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-161-1998.13.pdf

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

On the complex causality of climate impacts: Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2005. Bringing Society back into the Climate Debate, Population and Environment, Volume 26, Number 3, pp. 255-268. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-1688-2005.25.pdf

On the policy implications of the different definitions of climate change: Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2005 (in press). Misdefining Climate Change: Consequences for Science and Action, Environmental Science and Policy. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-479-2004.10.pdf

You say "do we want science academies to engage in issue advocacy" Well if those of Germany, Russia,
China, the UK, Japan , the USA, and most specially Canada are going to offer me a heads up on the question of global warming I will say,thank you very much.

I pass over the question of whether anyone in the USA, can set up a "we" on this one that includes all these other countries.

But seriously, who else do you want for this? A single scientist who is selling a line no one else wants to buy, a claque of paid for corporation science stooges, a politician whose eye is on the votes today, or, getting down to it, some guy with a poli sci degree from Colorado?

Of course not. For myself, I am content with the Royal Society of Canada and quite pleased to see that it seems to be travelling in good company.

As for yourself and your disdainful sniff, I am puzzled how anyone can get their nose that high. I mean down below here we have technicians measuring things, then climate scientists, then aggregations of them, then national academies and then clusters of them. Beyond that is a realm of such generalilty that nothing can be checked for sure so anyone can fuss on and on about "policy" without anythng useful being said

The only thing that I see consistently in your writing is that you are anti science in a really sneaky way. There is no longer any safe place left to attack climate science on the ground, so to speak, so we have the flight up into "policy" that is somehow not a question of scientists telling us what should be done, and right away. Your approach seems to me destructive.

garhane-

Thanks much for your comments. I am perfectly happy with any of the following engaging in overt political advocacy: "A single scientist who is selling a line no one else wants to buy, a claque of paid for corporation science stooges, a politician whose eye is on the votes today, or, getting down to it, some guy with a poli sci degree from Colorado." In fact, such advocacy is what helps to make democracy strong and effective. But at the same time I do think that there is also a place in democracy for the "honest broker of policy options" and there are numerous examples of such institutions. To make this concrete, I do not want the CIA to be advocating going to war. That is not their job. I'd be much more comfortable if the CIA collected intelligence and provided a wide range of options consistent with that intelligence to allow policy makers (and in some cases the public) to engage in political debate. In other words, I want the CIA to be an honest broker, not a political advocate. There ought to plenty of room in society for both advocates and honest brokers, but in science of late it seems that the former are overshadowing the latter.

For disucssion of these points see:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000405honest_broker_part_.html

and

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000407honest_broker_part_.html

When discussing the role of experts in society, a topic that goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, there is of course plenty of room for multiple points of view, so I do appreciate that you have a different perspective.