I reviewed Roger A. Pielke, Jr.'s The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science and Policy in Politics in the summer issue of The New Atlantis. The review is now available on-line here. Pielke makes many interesting points in the course of his discussion of science politicization (and policy scientization), and the threat posed to science by "stealth issue advocacy." At one point, he makes an interesting comparison between the politicization of science in environmental policy with the politicization of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
Pielke draws a provocative and somewhat persuasive parallel between the reliance upon the precautionary principle in environmental policy and the doctrine of preemption in foreign policy, as advocated by the Bush administration with regard to Iraq. In each case, uncertainty itself is not a reason for inaction. To the contrary, uncertainty can be a reason for action—it was the possibility that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that justified preemptive action, just as it is the possibility that anthropogenic emissions might cause tremendous environmental harm that justifies precautionary climate policies. Preemption and precaution are policy responses to uncertainty, but when the potential costs of such actions are high—as with the Iraq war or global climate change policy—the argument for preemption or precaution may be difficult to make, so policymakers attempt to shift the debate to safer terrain.
Framing these policy debates as questions of science or intelligence can create incentives for the misuse of information. In the case of Iraq, “the quest for certainty required by a commitment to preemption elevated the role of politics in policy and diminished the actual role of information and intelligence,” Pielke argues. “It transformed intelligence into a form of advocacy.” Much the same phenomenon occurs in the debate over global warming. In each case, the expert information has been oversold and the underlying value judgments upon which the policy decisions rest are obscured. In this context, information becomes “an asset to be used to achieve victory in the debate over values, rather than a source of enlightenment.”
When scientific or technical information is presented in order to advance a predetermined political agenda, it can undermine the credibility of those who provide the information, as well as those who rely upon it. The overselling of pre-war intelligence about Iraq damaged the credibility of both the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence agencies, and handicapped the administration’s “subsequent ability to make similar decisions by discrediting its own intelligence agencies,” Pielke observes. In much the same way, overselling scientific evidence in support of dramatic climate polices risks undermining the credibility of both the policy advocates and the science agencies, such as NASA, that produce or support the underlying research.
I should also note that Cambridge University Press is apparently offering a discount on The Honest Broker. Details here.
In a death penalty debate at Seattle University last February, my opponent claimed that all the studies I was citing finding a deterrent effect were funded by right-wing groups with a pro-death-penalty agenda. It was a bald-faced lie. I subsequently checked with each of the authors and none received any external funding for his study.
Which global warming is real?
> whereas Saddam's WMD and Al Qaeda connections were false.
Umm, there were WMD, they just weren't what everyone thought there were. And, there were connections, they just didn't have certain properties.
However, this distinction is actually irrelevant because one always has to make some decisions based on incomplete information, even if those decisions are "do we act or do we wait?" Note that decisions can't depend on the future - the "best decision" can be wrong.
But the reason the parallel fails is not just that one group of advocates happens to be right and the other wrong. Rather, it is that one operates in a context where advocacy is productive whereas the other operates in a context where it is fatal.
The problem with the Bush administration was not that just they were advocates for the war and spun the data to make their case, but that they manipulated classified data to make their case and then acted on it without real debate, internal or external. In contrast, the global warming debate is based on public data, and scientific and public policy debate is raging. In that context, the dangers of advocacy are infinitely less.
Your reference to global warming being “fatal” is one of those statements that not only assume the conclusion, it ignores the fact that much of the data used in the warming studies is now shown to be incorrect. And there is genuine debate – or there should be – of the effects of a warmer climate on the global ecology. No amount of shouting “where’re all going to die” is proof of your thesis.
I’m sorry, showing me a computer model of climate in 50 years is not proof in any sense of the word. Fudging the data in climate science has been well established.
AF/rarango: I do not compare intelligence in Iraq and global warming. I do compare Bush's preemption and the precautionary principle.
Kent- Amen. That hits close to home.
Rarango- I try to clearly distinguish the four categories in the book, as you guessed. The difference between the science arbiter and the honest broker, is that the science arbiter seeks to answer positive questions (i.e., factually based, insofar as that is a coherent category) posed by decision makers. An honest broker presents a range of action options to the decision maker.
Also, I do suggest that the "pure scientist" may be more myth than reality.
Thanks all ...
My comments are directed toward Prof. Adler's review; My apologies for directing them toward your book, which I have not yet read.
There is an interesting current example of how the predelections of most posters here is being manipulated on the Nude Scientist blog
I did not say global warming was "fatal." I said that biased advocacy about global warming is "productive" -- since it has triggered a debate on policy responses to climate change which everybody would agree we ought to be having -- whereas biased advocacy prior to the Iraq war was "fatal" -- because it led to an unnecessary and ill-advised war on incorrect premises.
As for whether the debate is raging, the debate over whether global warming exists is over, but the debate over its consequences and proper responses certainly isn't.
Because he doesn't toe the catastrophic AGW line, Dr Pielke has been accused, like many other credible scientists, of taking money from ''oil companies.'' Those same accusers, however, never seem to mention that certain proponents of global warming catastrophe take hundreds of thousands of dollars from leftist foundations.
The current politicization of science sucks. There is a good reason why society looks up to highly educated experts from the best universities for answers to these extremely complicated questions. Unfortunately, non-scientists with their propaganda pictures of polar bears on ice floes get most of the media attention.
You're confusing Roger Pielke Sr. with Roger Pielke Jr. The blog you cite is run by the former. The latter wrote The Honest Broker and contributes to Prometheus.
Rabett --
You are misrepresenting the origins of Africa Fighting Malaria. The tobacco lobby did not "found" AFM. Rather, AFM's founders sought funding from tobacco companies because they believed tobacco companies would be sympathetic to aspects of their efforts (specifically their critiques of WHO and arguments that some environmental policies compromise public health). This is not the same thing. You may believe AFM is misguided, but there is no question that AFM, and its founders, devote substantial time and effort to sincere efforts to improve public health and reduce malaria incidence in Africa.
JHA
AF: your dogmatic statements about the status of any number of factual questions is about the best demonstration one could ask of the problem Roger mentions.
Roger does not seem to have an appreciation for the lessons of public choice theory, or of Austrian perspectives into the factors that fuel the growth of government and its misuse by insiders or the consequences when decisions over resources are made governments rather than by owners by means of private decisions and transactions. But you do, so it`s a puzzle that you make no remarks about the increasingly obvious rent-seeking that ends up driving or stifling policy, as the case may be, and how the insiders naturally are interest in spinning science, both to justify the policies they desire while avoiding open discussion of their objectives, to mask their rent-seeking and to bash those who disagree with their favored policies.
In this context, this misuse of science or intelligence in the cases of the endless war on terror and climate change are clearly different. The first case is a clearer one of political opportunism (with the aim of increase domestic political control) and rent-seeking by various well-connected lobbies, not least of which is our huge defense establishment. The second also involves domestic rent-seeking, but exists in the context of an international, multiplayer negotiation about establishing terms of use of an important shared resource for which there are no property rights and thus subject to tragedy of the commons-type abuse.
I agree with you that Roger seems to be blaming the scientists themselves for the scientization of policy and the politicization of science. While he does have some wise words that may help them to avoid being made tools to others`s agendas, scientists themselves are largely not responsible for the political environment, nor can they be fairly expected to have a nuanced understanding of it, even while they may feel that, in light of their own knowledge, they have a moral obligation to participate in the public debate. This may leave them in a very difficult situation for which some sympathy may be appropriate.
Doesn`t the real answer to the politicization of science, if there is one, lie in better understanding rent-seeking and the inevitable battles for favor when the government supplants private transactions over owned resources with public decisions, and in trying to constrain rent-seeking - by more carefully defining the matters to be addressed in the public sphere, restoring vitality to transparency, checks and balances and federalism?
Regards,
Tom
Rent-seeking is clearly what drives the politicization of science, and I see very little that scientists can do to change these dynamics.
Tokyo Tom, could you clarify two things for me?
Are you saying that science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW? And if so, are you saying this is ok because their goals are laudable?
The way I read the bit I'm quoting, it would appear your answers to these questions are "Yes" and "Yes". But, if not, could you clarify what you mean?
AFM was established as a wedge and there is evidence that Philip Morris contributed to the founding of AFM funneling the money through other organizations Bate was associated with.
When I say that climate involves "domestic rent-seeking" I`m acknowleding that, among the various agendas relating to climate change, there is no insignificant amount of jostling for private or commercial advantange on the domestic stage, and jostling among politicians to capture a portion of the value that government can provide. Fossil fuel producers and major users who benefit the free use of the atmosphere as a dump for emissions of CO2 or other GHGs naturally have invested in blocking any moves that might lead to a federal regulatory program that would create costs for behavior that is now free, even though it shifts costs to others. Likewise, those who would benefit from federal programs to abate climate change - those with cleaner or greener technologies to sell, who think that there may be a profitable business in acting as advisers or brokers, and those who would like to see some regulatory certainty so they can make investment decisions - are pushing for action, for subsidies or for other policies that would provide them with maximum benefit.
I do NOT justify these fights to extract benefits from government policy, but recognize that they are inevitable whenever government gets involved in making decisions.
In this way, domestic climate change policy is quite similar to other uses of national government.
My point was that domestic climate change policy is quite different from other purely domestic policies or other international policies that we can determine and conduct unilaterally (such as policies to wage expensive wars): due to the nature of the atmosphere and climate change, no single nation can either implement effective mitigation policies unilaterally or dictate those policies to others. Rather, it is painfully clear that effective policies require meaningful buy-in and participation from ALL major contributors to climate change.
So rather than a single government getting to decide which favored rent-seekers obtain benefits at the costs of others, the situtation is one of open negotiation between significant parties - a prisoners` dilemma relating to open-access resources that no one owns (i.e., the classic "tragedy of the commons"). This negotiation provides a check on rent-seeking at the international level - even while it still obviously is a factor domestically, viz., does ethanol get subsidies? Coal sequestration? Fusion? Do we have a tax or a cap and trade system? What exemptions are they and are emissions rights auctioned or allocated free of charge?
Unfortunately, skeptics of all stripes have to be aware that the words of others (including explanations of climate science) are likely to be influenced by the self-interest of those speaking. It goes without saying that we should be very careful about what politicians say.
I do not excuse shallow or skewed explanations of the climate science by anyone, of whatever goals. Simplification, of course, is unavoidable, given the complexity of the climate, the limits on our own abilities to understand it, our different agendas, our tribal nature and our sheer pigheadedness and cognitive cobservativism. However, I would point out that climate change is a problem that requires international cooperation, which cooperation the international community (including the US) have been at work at for several decades now. This cooperation includes efforts to build a common scientific understanding of our climate, coordinated through the IPCC and vetted by the US and others governments that are party to the UNFCCC.
Did I get close to answering your question?
All you offer to dispute my comment is conjecture -- somewhat surprising for an aspiring "techno-bunny" with scientific training. you also seem obsessed with ad hominem arguments. Should we hold all the misdeeds of your funders against you? Of course not. We should evaluate your arguments on their own, and focus on the actual evidence at hand.
JHA
They were:
Are you saying that science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW? And if so, are you saying this is ok because their goals are laudable?
One sentence in your response anwers my second question. That would be this sentence: "I do not excuse shallow or skewed explanations of the climate science by anyone, of whatever goals.
However, you did not answer my first question which was "Are you saying that science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW?"
In your answer, you did seem to suggest that scientists, politicians, and various people compete for funds, attention, and so there is an incentive for climate scientists or others to misuse science to advance an agenda they prefer.
But, what I'm asking is this: In your first comment, were you seemed to be saying that science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW.
Did you mean that? Or not?
It's a pretty simple question. I think an answer like "Yes, I think science is being misused to make the case for AGW." or "No. I don't think science is being misused." Or, possibly a more nuanced one like "I think some are misusing it and others aren't" would fit too.
Sorry that I gave a long answer to a simple question - it`s just that I do not have a simple answer, as both the climate science is extremely complex, as are human motivations and perceptions.
It clear to me by how you posed your suggested answers that you are predisposed to a particular view, and it`s well^known that these predispositions do affect our perceptions.
I think that everyone has an incentive use science to advance an agenda they prefer - but whether their actual use of science is "misuse" is a value judgment based on an evaluation of knowledge, intent and consequences. However, I do not see that "climate scientists" in general (unlike others) have strong incentives to misuse science to advance an agenda they prefer; in fact, the science is openly published, cross-checked and subjected to rigorous review and discussion, and each scientist has incentives to contribute to knowledge.
No doubt some of those putting forth the scientific case for AGW are spinning the science, but this is occurring on many sides. But there is a clear trend towards accepting the the climate is warming and that man is playing a significant role in it. Are you aware of Exxon`s actual position on the climate science, for example?
Thank you. Despite the complexity of climate science, you seem to have now figured out a rather simple answer to my rather simple question. If I understand you current post, your answer is "No doubt some of those putting forth the scientific case for AGW are spinning the science, but this is occurring on many sides."
Of course, we could put this another way: you might have said this this way: "Yes, I think those working putting for the case for AGW are "no doubt" spinning science — but I think everyone is doing it."
Simple: See? Even someone who knows nothing about climate science can understand those answers!
Granted, you've dropped the term "misused" which you introduced in the bit I quoted and replaced it with "spinning". But other than that change, you seem to have been saying what I thought you said.
In replacing that "misuse" with "spinning," you also suggest "misuse" is a value judgment based on an evaluation of knowledge, intent and consequences."
Sure. Misuse is a value judgement. You chose the word misuse earlier; you now use spinning. Presumably, you think "spinning" is more neutral. I'll say flat out: I think "spinning" science is misusing science.
Moreover, while the judgment of "misuse" may depend on intent and consequences of some action, I think if you are suggesting that scientific truth or the scientific method changes based on intent or consequences, then your idea of science is a bit muddled. (Mathematics also does not change based on intent or action.)
—- ——
But, now, I have to ask you: Why in the world do you think I'm disposed to some particular view? And what about the answers I suggested gave you that idea? My choice of hte word "misuse"? I chose that word because you used the word. (You said "the misuse of science or intelligence in the cases of the endless war on terror and climate change are clearly different")
Also, what point of view do you suspect I hold?
—-
Now, since I insisted you answer my question, I will answer yours. No. I am not aware of Exxon's actual position on climate science. Am not even aware of their non-actual position.
Should I be aware of any particular oil company's position? Should I base my opinions or views on the position of an oil company? Do you?
I generally don't. I happen to have other sources of information.
I realize you have no clue who I am, nor should you. I have no idea who you are.
I don't see how it's relevant, but I happen to know quite a few scientists who have worked in climate science and who are still working in climate science, including this guy. If you click, you will be stunned to discover he is married to someone named "lucia"! And, I just walked over to our coffee table, where I picked up a BAMS vol 88, @6, june 2007, which I suspect my husband brought home so he could read "Cloud profile models", or possibly to read "Cloudnet" since those appear to be articles in his (former) area of interest.
So, yes, I am aware that the issue of climate science is complex, and that it is studied by real scientists. Some even have Ph.D's and publish in journals.
I understand the peer review science fairly well. (Which means I know that some very good articles get published, and some very horrible ones get through too.)
I'm also aware it's warmer now than when I was in high school and etc &etc &etc.
I'm also aware that these tidbits you are dropping are irrelevant to what I asked you, or the topic J. Adler introduced in his article, or the topic you were discussing before I asked you to clarify.
I will refrain from jumping to conclusions about your point of view based on your desire to tell me this sort of thing or ask me questions about my Exxon's position.
Instead, I'll thank you for finally answering the questions I actually asked. :)
You asked "Are you saying that science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW?"; I didn`t view this as a simple question, but saw it as a very broad one covering essentially everyone, starting with the scientists themselves and running through to many others who have positions on the science of varying nuance as well as various views about what policy measures, if any, climate change and our role in it are appropriate.
To further clarify, I don`t think that scientists generally are misusing the science, but no doubt there are some scientists who would disagree and would argue that positions taken by others within the scientific community is spinning and miususe.
Among non-scientists, I see greater misuse of the science among those who mock others who are concerned about climate change. There is of course not two poles here, but a spectrum of viewpoints, but my perspective is that many on the "AGW" side understand that there are institutional faliures at the heart of various global environmental issues, while on the avowedly skeptical side there are powerful groups with vested interests in continuing to receive the benefits of such insitutional failures and clear rent-seeking to do so.
As to what view I suspect you have, it is deducible from your questions: You believe that "science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW" and that "this is [NOT] ok because their goals are laudable". However, it is not clear to me WHO you think is misuing the science - does this cover scientists, too, or only various lay individuals and groups who are involved in the public debate, or to what degree.
Care to clarify, or do you simply like to ask questions?
Yep. Your response did look like a re-iteration of your main points. I just didn't happen to have any questions about those. It reminded me a bit of politicians not answering press questions. :)
TT said: To further clarify, I don`t think that scientists generally are misusing the science,..
I agree that generally, most scientists do not misuse science. I think some do, and I see them spread out rather uniformly. With regard to the whole AGW debate, I see them equally in both pro-and anti AGW groups.
Basically, scientists are people. They have the same foibles as everyone else, and so end up with some misuse everywhere.
I think anyone who has done research at the post-doctoral level, or published in journals has to chuckle when people claim that peer review or scientific training somehow magically makes scientists or even whole fields impervious to misuse. (In fact, I've participated in conversations where such chuckling occurs. )
Misuse happens.
Now in response to this:As to what view I suspect you have, it is deducible from your questions: You believe that "science is being misused by those putting forth the scientific case for AGW" and that "this is [NOT] ok because their goals are laudable".
Let's say the "test" of your deductive powers gets 51/100 points (of these 33 are sort of a "gimme".)
Issue 1: I think science is being misused by some (but not most or even a substantial fraction) who are putting forth the scientific case for AGW.
Getting this correct would gain you 33 points. But you got it barely half right because you seem to deduce that that I think most, or possibly all those who support AGW misuse science. But, I'm an easy grader, so I give you 17 pts.
Issue 2: I also think it is being misuse by some (but not most or even a substantial fraction) who are putting forth the case against AGW. You missed this entirely. For not even considering this important aspect in your deduction, you get O points out of 33.
Issue 3: I think misusing science is not ok by either camp even if their goals are laudable. So, you now get 34 out of 34 points. (Of course, I'm also an easy grader here because I also don't agree that the goals of those in either camp are uniformly laudable. I think, generally speaking, the goals of the ones who misuse science are selfish and not in a good way.)
So, you get a 51/ 100.
Of course, I said I disapprove of misusing science in my previous reply to you, and before you revealed your deductions, so those final 34 points are pretty much a gimme. (Besides, does anyone say it's ok to misuse science? If they think that it is, they always want to change the word to "spinning" and try to make the case that some non-scientific use is not misuse.)
I think other things you don't mention in your theory about my thoughts. For example, I also think that many, on both sides, want to claim that science is misused by the other side and only the other side. (For example, you appear to be in the pro-AGW side and wish to claim the anti-AGW camp misuses. It was my surprise at your apparent admission that it is misused by the pro-AGW side that astonished me and made me ask the question I asked. Of course, I know learn you didn't mean "misuse" when you said "misuse", but rather meant "spinning". )
I think generally, neither side gives even halfway decent evidence of the other side's misuse. (Or when they do, those "mis-uses" are commonly practiced by their own side, where it is explained aways as "spinning", rather than mis-use.)
I also think when stepping into policy discussions, some scientists on both sides want to deny the existence of opinions or interpretations in the middle ground, and, want to suggest there is some sort of whole package of beliefs one must ascribe to to remain in the tent with the good guys. (Roger Pielke appear to be an exception in this. He seems to see a middle ground.)
As it happens, I perceive about similar amounts of mis-use of science in both the pro- and anti AGW non-science camps.
TT said: However, it is not clear to me WHO you think is misuing the science - does this cover scientists, too, or only various lay individuals and groups who are involved in the public debate, or to what degree.
Well, I think I just answered that above. But in case I didn't: I think some (though not the majority) of pro-AGW scientist misuse science. I think some (though not the majority) of anti-AGW scientists mis-use science. I think some lay people (though not the majority) in both groups mis-use science. (That said, I generally don't worry about mis-use of science by those with no scientific training what-so-ever.)
TT asked:Care to clarify, or do you simply like to ask questions?
I always answer questions when asked. Often at length, and including quotes so I can check that my responses address the questions.