Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies

[clv101]

This article (and resulting comments) is rather thought provoking:

I became a climate scientist because I care about the environment, but we have a moral obligation to be impartial.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

[Little John]

This article (and resulting comments) is rather thought provoking:

I became a climate scientist because I care about the environment, but we have a moral obligation to be impartial.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

There is no such thing as impartiality. It is a (arguably necessary) BBC-esque mythology centred around public service broadcasting. Even in science, although the experimental results and field observations are impartial (that is to say, objective), the choice to direct research in one direction or another is not. Nor is the choice of action to embark upon on the back of those results.

If climate scientists come up with findings that indicate that if we do not embark on a given course of (political) action, bad shit will happen, then they should be at liberty say so.

If you are human you are political.

[BritDownUnder]

This article (and resulting comments) is rather thought provoking:

I became a climate scientist because I care about the environment, but we have a moral obligation to be impartial.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

I hate to lighten a serious matter but that building reminds me of the cover of a popular ELO single from the 1970s. Maybe the band should sue for copyright theft.

Come to think about it maybe the people who had their emails stolen and stored should sue because I am sure there there is something about things not being allowed to be stored electronically.

[biffvernon]

This article (and resulting comments) is rather thought provoking:

I became a climate scientist because I care about the environment, but we have a moral obligation to be impartial.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/poli ... s-policies

I can't find much to disagree with Tamsin Edwards about, but there are nuances and where one places emphasis where we might differ.

She's right to draw the distinction between what the scientist, speaking as a scientist can say and what a poitical economist, well versed in science, might properly say.

Some things the scientist can say quite clearly. The Earth is round not flat. Adding greenhouse gasses will, sooner or later, cause the planet to be warmer. One cannot be impartial on such matters. But when Tamsin asks questions such as "How do we weigh up economic growth against ecosystem change? Should we prioritise the lives and lifestyles of people today or in the future?" then she is right to declare that's not her job, as a scientist, to answer.

But then the difficulty arises. I can see Tamsin's argument and it has merit. However, her case rests on the assumption that the non-scientists, the politicians and their electorate, are able to make the right policy decisions based on the information provided by the scientist.

When one meets a man standing on a railway track oblivious of the oncoming train, one might assess distance and speed, do a calculation and inform him of the result and probable consequences, leaving the responsibility for action based on the evidence to him. Or one could grab his arm and give it a good yank.

I guess Gavin Schmidt has decided it's time for the latter. I tend to be pleased when a scientist moves into politics.

[woodburner]

I tend to be pleased when a scientist moves into politics.

Margaret Thatcher did that, a disaster.

[biffvernon]

That's why I said I tend to be...' rather than 'I am always...'

There are a lot of very thoughtful comments both on the Guardian article and on Tamsin's blog.

One theme that is, I believe, often neglected by Tamsin's supporters is the assumption that the policy makers are any good at their role. They're not. They may need to be shoved off the train-track by less than theoretically desirable means.

[woodburner]

The current lot certainly does.

[clv101]

...is the assumption that the policy makers are any good at their role. They're not.

It depends what you mean by good. They are meant to represent us, all of us. If a third of the UK population think it is the right thing to do to trash the environment for economic growth, the policy makers are doing their role by accurately representing those views.

The relative value of this afternoon, next month, next year and a century from now is a purely political/policy decision. It is a perfectly legitimate view to hold to discount the value of the 22nd century's environment to zero as "I wont't be here, hell even my kids might not, and in any case, by then humans will be living in totally artificial biospheres on the moon, Mars, bottom of the ocean etc."

When someone comes along suggesting a tax, or a limit on today's consumption motivated to "save the 22nd century's environment" the policy maker is doing a good job to fight against it, representing the views of their constituency.

[JohnB]

It depends what you mean by good. They are meant to represent us, all of us. If a third of the UK population think it is the right thing to do to trash the environment for economic growth, the policy makers are doing their role by accurately representing those views.

But not if the policy makers have given the population misleading, or downright dishonest, information to help them think that way.

[biffvernon]

It depends what you mean by good.

Absolutely correct. It is an ethical question. My ethics are correct. Lord Howell's ethics are false. That's the fundamental truth that mediates between science and policy. Or it would be if I were King. Democracy has serious limitations.

But we are where we are so we have to do what we think we can get away with. Mine and Tasmin's goals may be identical. She thinks the best tactic is to ensure that scientists are seen to be impartial. She has a point and that's why this is an interesting and difficult debate, with good people on either side and more good folk perched uncomfortably on the fence.

[emordnilap]

Here's an article from five years ago detailing not just 'scientific' bias but downright untruths.

The first claim, if read carefully, is not inaccurate. GM companies are trying to produce crops that are drought, flood and saline resistant, and although none are available for commercial use, in theory such crops could increase food production in Africa and elsewhere – if you make a number of assumptions.

These assumptions are not scientific, they are political, subjective and highly contested.

(And, purely incidentally, this and many other studies demonstrate that non-GM plant breeding is way ahead of GM.)

[Billhook]

There's a good article in the Guardian in response to Edwards' blinkered critique of scientists' public discussion of policy, at:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... f-comments

I've put the following post near the start of comments, and would be interested to see responses here or there.
_______________________________________

Scientists’ right to speak out on matters of policy is supported both by law and by common sense, but there is more to it than that. As the only people with the arcane technical understanding of the potentially terminal hazard of climate destabilization, they also have the duty to speak out, which is both moral,
in terms of preventing a genocidal scale of loss and suffering as agriculture heads towards global crop failures and resulting geopolitical destabilization,
and is contractual,
in that they have been educated and funded by society to serve society’s interests.

Dr Edwards’ prescriptive orthodoxy demands that scientists refrain from public advocacy of policy, but it also carries the unspoken edict that they must also refrain from criticizing policy that is not commensurate with the problem. It is an apologia for the extant paternalistic system of science privately informing government and corporate paymasters of policies’ outcomes, but not the public who actually fund its researches. It is a recipe for a continued reckless stasis as the establishment awaits the catastrophic climate impacts on the US-China balance of power, before resorting to emergency action in hopes of controlling the global damage.

To serve society well science needs to gain greater independence both of the state and of the corporations and to report formally to the public on its researches, for like the judiciary, the church and the press, it cannot function effectively as a mere arm of the state and corporate power.

The failure of the present system is exemplified by the 5yr IPCC reports, which are dishonestly promoted as expressing the scientific consensus but are nothing of the kind; they are merely the consensus of established senior scientists after being edited, on a line by line basis, by the veto power of all UN member states including the likes of Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc. And those censored reports are then used as the formal scientific findings on which UN negotiations must by mandate rely. The fact that they have failed even to report the observed acceleration of the seven interactive mega-feedbacks over 20 years, have failed to project the critical loss of Arctic sea ice in the right century, and are patently out of date long before they’re printed, are actually secondary issues compared to their formal censorship by vested interests.

Dr Edwards is to be thanked for voicing such a feeble and perverse argument against scientists informing the public directly of what policies are required to be commensurate with the hazard. Far from suppressing those who recognize their duty to speak out, she has brought the issue into public focus, where all scientists are now exposed to the question of whether they will serve society by identifying commensurate policy, including the prerequisite treaty framework of "Contraction & Convergence", or whether they will serve the priorities of the present power structure by remaining silent.
________________________________________

Regards,

Billhook

[Ralph]

If scientists are even thinking this, let alone saying it in public, it just adds one more layer which must be worked through to determine if we are getting their honest and objective estimate, or them selling a scary angle because we are all too stupid to understand the nuance. Or worse yet, because without the scary part, how are academics to get noticed, right or not?

In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996