So this is really going to be a post about global climate change, but my feelings extend to other areas of science as well. As you’ll see in a second though, the main points of my gripes are reserved for those areas where science and politics overlap. Most of the ideas here, and some of the text (where noted) will actually be coming from Roger Pielke, Jr, a policy scientist at CIRES/CU. I had a chance to hear him talk a couple of times and I talked with him once while I was at CU. This is really just gratuitous name-dropping however, as our conversation didn’t really consist of much. However, seeing as I am no longer a practicing scientist (sounds funny huh?) I need to give you a reason to trust me (I took a communications class in college, doesn’t it show?).
I guess my main gripe is that scientists are getting drug into the debate arena when it comes to climate change, and I think that this is absolutely the wrong way to go about things. We have people in place that are there to make policy, they are called politicians. We also have people in place to interface with those politicians and explain things to them. What I don’t like to see is scientists espousing certain courses of political action. When this happens, they immediately are put on a side of the debate and all their work becomes suspect. Science is a lot more biased than I think a lot of people like to believe. You can take two scientists, show them the same graph and they will come to different conclusions. Now this isn’t always the case, and there is such a thing as ‘bad science’, but I think that this is generally true. With all the complexities in modern science, there aren’t a whole lot of cut and dry answers.
So to my way of thinking, scientists should generally try and be apolitical to the public at large. I guess you could say that this would allow them to keep their opinions secret and to kind of sabotage their science. And I suppose that’s true to a certain extent, however there is still a peer review process. The merits of their claims need to be based on science and not on personal feelings. If their science is so terrible because they are stepping outside the realm of responsible interpretations and merely publishing some sort of propaganda, then I would not expect their papers to make it through the process.
I recently read two articles (I guess actually 5), that dealt with this topic. The first was a series of responses to an article in which a scientist claimed that climate models aren’t as good as everyone thinks they are. The general consensus was that they are indeed flawed but that they can still be useful. The second article was basically an echo of what I kind of intended this post to be about. As scientists, you need to take care not to mislead people or overstate what you know. To do that is to risk the trust of the public. And really, that’s all that really keeps people listening to scientists. There is an idea, and it’s mostly true, that science is really hard and that most people couldn’t really do it. They trust other people to do it for them and report back to them. But if those reports are biased, what good are they? You can find the series of articles here and the related single article here.
So why are we in this predicament? Well the political connection is no surprise. The effect that adaptation and mitigation to climate change would have is massive and widespread, both to the good (for some people) and to the bad (for others). But why are climate scientists expected to know these things for certain anyways? Why do they have to be so certain about everything that they put out there? Why were astronomers mocked when Pluto’s status was changed from that of a planet. This I would say is due to the poor state of science education in America. I think that a lot of times we teach children not to think, but rather to memorize. Having taught, I know that it’s certainly an easier way to teach. Give some definitions, show some pictures, test on the definitions… The students know what you are going to test them on, it’s simple, clear and they don’t complain. There are so many fundamental scientific facts that we aren’t completely certain about. You try and tell this to a student, and their eyes just glaze over. You try and explain to them why we think what they do and a lot of them don’t really care. What are they going to be tested on if I don’t even know the answer?
We’ve produced a society where I think a lot of people look towards scientists as a group of people who have all the answers. They don’t really care about all the complexity, just give them the answer. But if scientist try to give an accurate assessment, they are viewed as being uncertain and then their work becomes null. It’s of course easier to punch holes in an argument if the other person is telling you up front what all the problems and uncertainties are. But this is good science. You need to present all the facts and caveats right away, so that they can be discussed and worked over. To hide them or misrepresent them is going against what I think science should stand for. I saw Al Gore testify on the Senate floor that we, ‘understood climate change as well as gravity.’ Oh really, that was news to me? And while I am not in the field, I think that may be news to some climate scientists as well. Al Gore just completely misrepresented the state of knowledge to get something to happen. I guess he was assuming that the ends justify the means. To that I would respond much in the way Roger Pielke, Jr. did in the aforementioned and linked article.
I have been asked by some of my colleagues why I raise these points, since action on climate change is a good thing and those questioning climate models typically are opposed to action. So what, I am told, if action on climate change is based on some exaggerations and false claims to certainty, isn’t the end goal important enough to justify bending the truth just a bit? After all, those opposed to action often show no hesitation toward exaggeration and hyperbole.
My short answer to such questions is that false claims to certainty were exactly what got us into the Iraq war. A somewhat longer reply involves explaining how both science and democracy flourish when we are open and honest about what science can actually deliver. Effective action on climate change is more likely when we fully appreciate what science can, and cannot, do. We should expect more from our scientific community.
An open and honest dialogue is what we need. Scientists can not seem to have a ’stake’ in climate change. When all the information is honestly reported and reviewed, the balance of the facts should point towards a global climate change. Science has never been about only listening to the popular ideas, or completely disregarding ideas that may lead to unfavorable outcomes. When this has happened in the past, it has happened to science’s great detriment (Copernican revolution, quantum mechanical paradigm shift).
So I guess my overall point is that there needs to be a fair and balanced (oh God, I just quoted Fox News, but apparently people trust them) discussion present in science for it to move forward. If someone brings up scientific points that you don’t agree with, argue the science. If you can not successfully explain to them why they’re wrong, then there is something wrong with your argument, your knowledge or there is significant complexity in the system that you need to wait for more data. Bringing up an alternative explanation is not a crime, rather I feel that sweeping those criticisms under the rug and dismissing them out of hand is far more detrimental to the field.
Hope that makes up for a lack of a post recently. Happy almost Thanksgiving!
November 24th, 2008 | Category: Thoughts | Leave a comment |
