In this essay, I present an argument for scientists to withhold their personal value judgments when reporting scientific results to policy-making organizations. A few months ago, I was the shipboard geologist on an ecocruise to Antarctica. My responsibilities were to give a few lectures and explain the geology to the guests at our landings. I gave a couple of lectures on the geology of the Antarctic Peninsula, the part we were going to see, and also one on my specialty, which is climate change in deep time (Earth history before the Ice Ages). For the latter, I started by explaining how climate works (to the extent we know it) and how we know what we know about past climates. This was an hour-long lecture and I’ve written a whole book on the subject of how we know what we know, so naturally, this was a highly condensed summary. I also wanted to walk the guests through the history of climate on Earth as we currently understand it, another huge topic. As part of this narrative, I presented a summary of the evidence for human influence on climate. Then I prepared myself for what I’ve come to think of as “The Question”, that is, what I think of climate change and whether humans are causing it.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Caught by the double negative! Thanks, and yes, you may translate it, so long as you also attribute the original to me.
"Anyone who denies politics is not an integral part of the entire discussion of global warming (now climate change) hasn’t been paying attention."
I assume you mean "Anyone who denies politics is an integral part [...]"?
I find this article very relevant in the public discussion about climate change. Do you mind if I translate it into German? I have several German speaking friends I would like to share it with.
Thank you, Judy, for this thoughtful, helpful, and much-needed contribution to our off-kilter public discourse about the role of science in politics and society. The great sociologist (and political theorist) Max Weber would heartily agree, I think!!
"I am simply arguing that science and scientists should not act as, nor should they be held up as, any more authoritative than anyone else nor should their views be regarded as of higher priority or greater weight than others."
Well, I do think that your article should be regarded with a higher priority and a greater weight than most people's views: You are somewhat of an expert in the field. I especially appreciate your discussion about the "time-scales" of Climate Change. Is the Temperature changing by ~1K over decades-centuries or over million years? Is the time-derivative a sharp "spike" or a smooth "bell"? That is surely an important Question.
Yes, but it's still a scientific question. Obviously, I can be authoritative on the science. But not on all the other factors that go into public policy decisions. Yes, my views should be perhaps given more weight than others' _on the science_. But the science is only one part of what goes into decision making.
"I am simply arguing that science and scientists should not act as, nor should they be held up as, any more authoritative than anyone else nor should their views be regarded as of higher priority or greater weight than others."
Good piece but above quote needs to be qualified. Scientists should be held up as more authoritative and given more weight in matters of science. Which I suspect is what the author meant.
Having just argued for authoritativeness in science--and only science--in several places, I guess I felt it would be unnecessary to drive the point further, but evidently not. You divined my meaning despite my imperfect prose.
Excellent thoughtful piece. Everyone shoudl re-read David Hume for the distinction between facts and values. Science ias about fact. Action requires values.
Bravo, Judy! The argument of “unprecedented” change is a hallmark of my lectures as well, when students are asked to evaluate the ways we measure how fast climate changed in the past. By climate most people also mean temperature … would it be great if the average temperature did not change for the next century, but we had rain every day? Constructs like “combatting climate change” are classic Soviet-style slogans giving meaning to a young graduate with an irrelevant degree, backed by their parents who now feel guilty about their “carbon footprint” being larger than that of a small undeveloped country (where burning firewood, of course, is eco-friendly). This issue has been extremely politicized and when funding or publication is denied to scientists who do not tow the catastrophic meltdown line, true science takes a back seat. I am much more concerned about a botched nuclear test in Siberia than a warming by 0.1 C in the next decade. Excelsior!
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Caught by the double negative! Thanks, and yes, you may translate it, so long as you also attribute the original to me.
"Anyone who denies politics is not an integral part of the entire discussion of global warming (now climate change) hasn’t been paying attention."
I assume you mean "Anyone who denies politics is an integral part [...]"?
I find this article very relevant in the public discussion about climate change. Do you mind if I translate it into German? I have several German speaking friends I would like to share it with.
Thank you, Judy, for this thoughtful, helpful, and much-needed contribution to our off-kilter public discourse about the role of science in politics and society. The great sociologist (and political theorist) Max Weber would heartily agree, I think!!
"I am simply arguing that science and scientists should not act as, nor should they be held up as, any more authoritative than anyone else nor should their views be regarded as of higher priority or greater weight than others."
Well, I do think that your article should be regarded with a higher priority and a greater weight than most people's views: You are somewhat of an expert in the field. I especially appreciate your discussion about the "time-scales" of Climate Change. Is the Temperature changing by ~1K over decades-centuries or over million years? Is the time-derivative a sharp "spike" or a smooth "bell"? That is surely an important Question.
Yes, but it's still a scientific question. Obviously, I can be authoritative on the science. But not on all the other factors that go into public policy decisions. Yes, my views should be perhaps given more weight than others' _on the science_. But the science is only one part of what goes into decision making.
Great article which should be read, and reread, daily by our elected officials and the population, at large...
"I am simply arguing that science and scientists should not act as, nor should they be held up as, any more authoritative than anyone else nor should their views be regarded as of higher priority or greater weight than others."
Good piece but above quote needs to be qualified. Scientists should be held up as more authoritative and given more weight in matters of science. Which I suspect is what the author meant.
Having just argued for authoritativeness in science--and only science--in several places, I guess I felt it would be unnecessary to drive the point further, but evidently not. You divined my meaning despite my imperfect prose.
Excellent thoughtful piece. Everyone shoudl re-read David Hume for the distinction between facts and values. Science ias about fact. Action requires values.
Bravo, Judy! The argument of “unprecedented” change is a hallmark of my lectures as well, when students are asked to evaluate the ways we measure how fast climate changed in the past. By climate most people also mean temperature … would it be great if the average temperature did not change for the next century, but we had rain every day? Constructs like “combatting climate change” are classic Soviet-style slogans giving meaning to a young graduate with an irrelevant degree, backed by their parents who now feel guilty about their “carbon footprint” being larger than that of a small undeveloped country (where burning firewood, of course, is eco-friendly). This issue has been extremely politicized and when funding or publication is denied to scientists who do not tow the catastrophic meltdown line, true science takes a back seat. I am much more concerned about a botched nuclear test in Siberia than a warming by 0.1 C in the next decade. Excelsior!