« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 23, 2007
Blogroll addition
by Sylvia S Tognetti
After all of the blog commentary there has been about the infamous article in the New York Times, I really wanted to hear what Al had to say about it, and it sounds like he was in fact prepared and eager to respond to it until Inhofe so rudly cut him off and prevented him from answering Inhofe's own questions. Now that Al has a blog, maybe he can answer it there.
Welcome Al! If you happen to read this, you too have an open invitation to join the Post-Normal Times Advisory Board.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 8:29 AM | TrackBack
March 22, 2007
Elections have consequences!
by Sylvia S Tognetti
In case you didn't spend much of yesterday watching the Honorable Al Gore testify, here is the exchange between him, Sen James Inhofe, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, who had to remind Inhofe that he no longer holds the gavel:
Later in the evening, Stephen Colbert challenged the Democrats to go a little further:
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:44 AM | TrackBack
March 21, 2007
Not Normal Times
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I have a question for Kevin Vranes, who maintains that Gore is "representing scientists in a more prominent way than any scientist": How could anyone represent "scientists"? Has he ever heard the phrase "herding cats"? (It was my informal job description when I worked at the NAS.) When you need a herded group of cats to then agree on a report, there is a lot that is going to be left out, which can be much more interesting than what stays in. Writing those reports is an art.
There is a good reason for this. Scientists have an incentive to be conservative and skeptical. Professional reputations are at stake and are at greater risk from accepting a false correlation than from rejecting a true one - as was explained in greater detail by Jerry Ravetz in this earlier post, but he credits Kristen Shrader-Frechette for first bringing this to public attention. In basic scientific research, chances are, nobody will ever hear about what was missed. Not so in the use of science to inform policy.
Assuming the objective of policy is to avoid harm, the greater risk is that of rejecting a true correlation. In a policy context, use of the more stringent standard used in laboratory research makes it more likely that danger will be overlooked. Those who have to actually respond to a crisis will therefore have a greater incentive to consider a worst case scenario as the basis for decision-making, at least in theory. In practice, sometimes it takes the actual occurrence of a worst case event to start planning for one. For example, according to Pat Mulroy from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, who was among the speakers at the symposium I recently attended regarding the Colorado River Compact, water planning for SNV had been based on models that demonstrated a zero probability of a drought of the magnitude of the current drought in the western US. Now they plan based on worst case scenarios, and will never believe probabilities again. The drought also provided an opportunity to put in place permanent water conservation measures for which western water law notoriously creates a disincentive. (The water used to maintain a virtual reality in Vegas is considered an investment).
The notion that Gore exaggerates is consistent with the stories told about him by The New York Times in their continuing War on Gore, and by Sen. Inhofe who defines anyone who believes the debate is settled that humans are causing global warming, as an alarmist. But Gore did not say the sighting of one manatee far up the Atlantic coast is a sign of warming, any more than I proclaimed 73 degree weather in January in Muddy Spring (in the DC area), and the flowers in my yard to be a clear indicator of it. (I'm not the only one who noticed.) Nor is every statement that comes from the mouth of a scientist a scientific one. We read about such abnormalities now on an almost daily basis. When Gore referred to out of place manatees, more fires in the west that have accompanied the warmer temperatures and drier soils, and to other unusual things, he was making general observations, and was probably just voicing a common perception that these are not normal times, rather than making a scientific statement. Actually, these are Post-Normal Times, and if we had to have a full study for every statement, policy would be irrelevant - we would probably all be dead first. This was among the points made most forcefully by the Native Alaskan speakers at the Climate Crisis Action Day rally yesterday - if you want to find out what is going on, just ask their hunters! Even scientists come to them to find out what is going on. So, while valuing good science, lets give some credit to the local and experiential knowledge that we all have, which can also serve to validate science.
My thoughts on the hearings overall - I was glad to hear greater emphasis on bold response options. I hope it doesn't take a worst case scenario to make them feasible to implement. I was disappointed not to hear more emphasis given to improving public transportation infrastructure, which he did not address until the very end, when asked about it by our new Maryland Senator, Ben Cardin. Thank you Ben. And thank you Al. I don't see anyone else up to the challenge of making it all happen...
If you are still with me, go to DraftAlGore.com and sign the petition... 
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 20, 2007
Is science getting framed?
by Sylvia S Tognetti
Today is Climate Crisis Action Day. I stopped by the rally at the Capitol just in time to hear Sen. Barbara Boxer, followed by some native people from Alaska the the Yukon, who are literally on the front lines of climate change impacts. Among them was Lorraine Peter who talked about changes they are witnessing first hand, which has led to close collaboration with scientists. She was followed by Bob Corell, who chaired the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Among other things, he encouraged blogging! Unfortunately I missed the earlier speakers, which included Rep. Waxman, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Sanders. I also neglected to bring a pen so I can't provide much more detail.
If you haven't yet, go here to become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the Sanders/Boxer Global Warming bill, and here to sign a card Boxer will present tomorrow to Al Gore to thank him for his leadership, and here, to sign a message that Al Gore will present to the Congress tomorrow. As you probably know, in the morning, at 9:30, he is scheduled to testify before 2 subcommittees of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce - back to back with Bjorn Lomborg. In the afternoon, at 2:30, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Boxer - where he will also be questioned by Sen. Inhofe.
Predictably, Inhofe, who previously relied on Michael Crichton's fiction, is now using the New York Times article hit piece on Al Gore as a prop - to make the case that his case is closed and that "we are all skeptics now." For background on that case, see the previous PNT post and links therein, and this additional post about it by Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler, who directs his scorn this time at liberals who have kept their mouths shut about this media assault - and he isn't just referring to the two bloggers quoted in the NYT. I'm really glad RWOS got widespread attention but it is only part of the story. Mooney's reactions to the New York Times narrative about the new middle stance (here and here and here)
have had me wondering lately if he is trying too hard to position himself in this fabricated middle ground. And then there is Matthew Nisbet, at Framing Science, who edited his post, which originally referred to "Bill Broad's excellent NYT article"- now it says provocative.... He also lists Broad as a "framesetter" in his blogroll - which only helps Broad to get away with this dishonest and irresponsible journalism that is indeed setting a frame. Now I appreciate information brought to my attention on the blogs of Pielke Jr, Kevin Vranes, Chris Mooney, and Matthew Nisbet. But if they are serious at all about improving science communication and constructive framing - the subject of which they preach, they would take on Inhofe's media enablers - which we all need to do more earnestly. Without integrity and good faith negotiation, there is no middle ground. I'm going to refrain from further comment until after the hearings. Here is the C-Span link.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:26 PM | TrackBack
The news that didn't fit - into the Broadly misleading NYT article
by Sylvia S Tognetti
There is a reason journalism is unraveling. And there is a reason discussions about An Inconvenient Truth can, sometimes,"very quickly turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Al Gore" as Roger Pielke Jr. is quoted saying, in last week's Broadly misleading New York Times article hit piece, and why Gore has become a "very polarizing figure," but, in the science community????? I would like to know which "science community" Roger was referring to. As the article also states, Al Gore received "a reception fit for a rock star" at the last AGU conference, which is where most of the climate science community meets, and is always spoken of admiringly among scientists I know. And even though I am not in academia, as a long time science and policy wonk, I know a lot of them.
The reason Al Gore has become a polarizing figure is not for any of the reasons given by Broad, who makes a crude attempt to paint him as an alarmist, but because of the kind of media invented tales found in the article itself, which is among the most irresponsible pieces of journalism I have seen. Lest Broad be unfairly singled out at what is considered "the newspaper of record" let us not forget that this report is "sadly typical of the work the New York Times has done on Gore for the past dozen years" and why, as Bob Somerby asks, "does a dimwit sit in the White House:"
we all have lived in the Land of Bamboozlement since the earlier 1990s. Our politics has run on bogus stories... which are widely believed by bamboozled citizens. Such bogus stories drove the politics of the Clinton years... And in 1999 and 2000, these bogus stories finally changed the world's history. Two years worth of invented tales about Gore finally sent George Bush to the White House... From The Daily Howler, 3-16-07
This is well documented in the incomparable archives of The Daily Howler, where, in a recent two part series on "Global Dumbing," Somerby digs up the beginnings of the fabrication of narrative about Al Gore at the NYT during the 1999-2000 campaign, reserving particular scorn for Maureen Dowd, who just a few weeks ago, gave us a reminder in the"Ozone
Man Sequel" - now saying:
Surely the Goracle, an aficionado of futurism, must stew about all the time and money and good will that has been wasted with a Vietnam replay and a scolding social policy designed to expunge the Age of Aquarius.When he's finished Web surfing, tweaking his PowerPoint and BlackBerrying, what goes through his head? Does he blame himself? Does he blame the voting machines? Ralph Nader? Robert Shrum? Naomi Wolf? How about Bush Inc. and Clinton Inc.?
Failing of course to admit her own role and that of the media. Somerby also makes a good case, with links, that "Dowd and Coulter have the same message. They just send it to two different groups." But don't take my word for it - go read all of it! And make sure to click the link to this Tom Toles cartoon. She isn't the only one who made a joke out of Gore during the 2000 campaign - there was also Richard Cohen, who now says "his colleagues" did it, and Arianna Huffington, who repeated many of those tall tales but now says she could support Gore because she believes in political redemption. And several others. To which I would add, those who believed enough of them but should have known better, i.e., the environmentalists, who were disappointed that, as vice president, Gore did not live up to the expectations he had created in his first book, Earth in the Balance. But lets not forget the climate created by Republican spun media narratives, and that, as Vice President, he was not the one setting the agenda, and did not have the power of the bully pulpit, as he does now. I swear I was saying this in 1999-2000 to my colleagues- if blogs existed then, I hadn't yet heard of them. But I heard of Gore when he was a congressman in the late 1970s, and have wanted to see him in the White House ever since. As far as I'm concerned, his mistake was putting Lieberman on the ticket but if I'll forgive him for that if he will accept a draft, to be the Democratic nominee.
Coming back to the NYT article, Somerby also has 4 posts on that so far, with more on the way (Daily Howler 3/14, 3/15, 3/16, and 3/19). See also: RealClimate/Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, Gristmill/David Roberts and Andrew Dessler, Deltoid/Tim Lambert, Environmental Journalism Now/Tom Yulsman,and Rockridge Nation. Most of the experts Broad cites have opinions that have been reviewed and rejected by the scientific community, based on scientific criteria, or are total crackpots, like Benny Peiser. I'm surprised none of the critiques said much about Benny, who sticks to his conclusion even after finally conceding to errors in how he reached it, and who continues to get quoted to cast doubt that there is a scientific consensus - now even in the NYT! And now that the NYT has picked this up, it will undoubtedly take on a life of its own, providing reinforcement for that parallel universe. (Perhaps this is what Baudrillard meant when he proclaimed the death of the real?). Peiser's so-called study, was even quoted to me by someone sitting across from me at the dinner table last Thanksgiving! In case you need a reminder, Peiser is someone who can't tell the difference between uncertainty about whether or not humans are changing the climate, and uncertainty about impacts, and policy uncertainty, not to mention several other kinds.... In his "study, any mention of uncertainty in anÿ of the abstracts he reviewed skimmed was used as a basis for his conclusion, that there is no scientific consensus about the first kind "- that humans are changing the climate. Those who cite him aren't going beyond skimming "news" headlines. I would have expected Broad to, at the very least, ask Peiser to give an example - that hasn't been discredited.
As for the quote by Kevin Vranes, also quoted in the NYT, he makes a valid point about the possible overselling of certainty but in the wrong context (more fully explained here and commented on by me here). Gore did stick to the science. There will always be differences in nuance, and uncertainty about details, even with general agreement on the basics. Assessments by the IPCC and the NAS are conservative in that they represent what can be agreed upon by scientists, based on a broad process of scientific review. There is a difference between sounding an alarm, and being alarmist. The estimated 20 foot rise in sea level that would occur if the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt would be in addition to the IPCC estimate of sea level rise of 23 inches that is expected to occur regardless, as a result of current melting and warming trends.
There is however legitimate argument about whether a presentation of the science alone is sufficient to motivate changes in policy and behavior. A study conducted for the AGU in 1999 found that most of the American public is in fact aware of global warming but is skeptical that there is a solution or that there is anything they can do about it. Articles such as this NYT piece serve only to paralyze and prevent policy debate about options, through obfuscation and by creating confusion. There are many more reasons that people fail to act on climate information - I just received a copy of an excellent new book I will be reviewing shortly, Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change
edited by Susanne Moser and Lisa Dilling which has an impressive collection of papers, some of which I have been waiting to read since hearing about the 2004 workshop it is based on.
Now I realize that journalists need a hook to tell a story, and that conflict and conflicting opinions provide it ready made. They might look instead to areas of legitimate disagreement, i.e., the unsettled issues that could not be agreed upon within the IPCC, playing by the rules of science. Explaining those would actually provide a public service. Crackpots still make an amusing story as a political conflict - the post in which I spotted Benny Peiser's admission of error may be the one that has drawn the most traffic on this blog, and it continues to do so... And while newspapers decline, writing about the use of crackpot science to further political agendas has even propelled some bloggers to stardom.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 1:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 16, 2007
Excerpts from The No-Nonsense Guide to Science
by Jerry Ravetz
[Editor's note: In follow-up to the last post, and others commenting on Post-Normal Science, we are posting some excerpts from Jerry's new book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Science
The decline of the illusion of objectivity
Over the last half-century, science has experienced great transformations in its scale, size, power, destructiveness, and corporate control and social responsibility. There is lively debate over many policy issues concerning health and the environment, and over proposed innovations such as those in the GRAINN set. But until we get over the illusion of objectivity of science, as embodied in its supposed certainty and value-freedom, those debates will be hindered and distorted. So long as each side in a debate believes that it has all the simple and conclusive facts, it will demonise the other, and dialogue will not be achieved. We need not fall into some nihilistic philosophy of total subjectivity or power-games. That is not the only alternative to the lost illusion of perfect objectivity of science. To find a viable alternative we will need to examine why scientific objectivity is no longer common sense.
The process is already well underway. Towards the end of the last century, just too many things began to go wrong for science. First we discovered how mankind has been polluting the environment. And sometimes the pollution was worse when the science was the strongest. The first big pollution scare came in 1963 with Silent Spring, where the death of the songbirds was explained by their being poisoned with agricultural pesticides. Then we had the accidents in civil nuclear power. Of all industries this was the one most completely based on science. We might have expected that an industry created and run by scientists would not be vulnerable to sloppy workmanship and elementary blunders; but we were wrong. In both those cases, as in many others, the pattern was that even where science had defined the situation, something would unexpectedly go wrong, leading to an accident or disaster. Then science would be brought it for the attempt to understand the accident and to prevent its happening again. It was as if science was chasing after itself in the cleanup jobs, retrospectively correcting its own mistakes.
The public's experience of values, priorities, choices and exclusions has come through debates on science in fields relating to health and the environment. For a very long time, supporters of 'alternative energy' have pointed to the vast disparity between the meagre funds doled out to them for research and development, and the huge sums still lavished on the moribund nuclear power industry. In medical research, patients' groups have observed how the lion's share of the resources, even those collected and allocated by charities, goes on that 'basic' research which someone hopes and claims will solve the problems of cause and cure of the disease. At the same time, research on the quality of treatments and of care is left on the margins. The reasons are plain: everyone hopes for a 'magic bullet' which will kill the pathogen that makes us sick. Also, that sort of research is also useful in building a career in the relevant research science. By contrast, treatment and care are the 'soft' sciences, in which there are no Nobel prizes. It doesn't take much imagination to see how particular sets of values are built into the ruling criteria of quality in science.
Why science is now post-normal
In all these ways, the public are becoming aware that values influence both the shape of what we know, and the selection of what we might know. And this can happen because science can no longer promise to deliver certainty when we need it. The old illusion of objectivity is passing into history. We should not reject it completely, for there is a good core of truth there. Instead, we should explain why it works where it does, and then present a modified, enriched version of objectivity for those other cases. The need for understanding is urgent. In an ever increasing number of policy issues we find science where the uncertainties are gross and the value-commitments are dominant. Looking at issues like global climate change, gender-bending pollutants, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and species extinction, to say nothing of the GRAINN technologies like reproductive engineering, we have the shape of the new policy predicaments. In such issues, we can say that in total contrast the to objectivity we once thought we had, the facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent. Indeed, whereas for generations we contrasted hard objective scientific knowledge with soft subjective values, now we have policy decisions that are hard in every way, for which our scientific knowledge is irremediably soft. Where do we go from here?
…. (Description of Post-Normal Science)
Post-Normal Science isn't a theory; we do better to see it as an insight. The image of that rainbow-quadrant tells us something about our current predicament. There are hosts of urgent policy problems involving science, for which routine expertise is totally inadequate, and for which even the best professional knowledge and judgement are insufficient. This is when, as in the outer strip, either or both of systems uncertainties and decision stakes are large. But if all the trained people can't tell us what to do, how are we ever to make good, correct decisions on these difficult and urgent issues?
There is no easy answer. It's most likely that we will make many mistakes, perhaps some of them disastrous. But with the insights of Post-Normal Science we can avoid even worse ones, by refraining from putting our trust in methods that are irrelevant or misleading. In both of the traditional cases, there is an assumption that The Expert Knows Best. It might be the researcher or the professional, or even the technician. He has the training, and he can spout scientific technicalities that leave the layperson totally bemused. In the ideal model of the process, the expert person starts with the science, and then deduces what should be done in practice. This model assumes that the world of practice is sufficiently like the world of science, so that the deduction is accurate. For 'applied science', it works routinely; for 'professional consultancy', it needs some skill and judgement in interpretation. In those traditional cases, those without expert training would seem to have little to contribute to the process of inquiry or decision.
When we come to the situations where Post-Normal Science is appropriate, where uncertainties and value-loadings cannot be denied, that old model of scientific deduction is inappropriate. Instead we need dialogue. In this, everyone has something to learn from everyone else. Of course the experts will have a special command of technical issues. But others can know better how well, or how badly, the scientific categories fit in with the reality that they experience. Many policy debates hinge on 'safe limits'. It doesn't need a Ph.D. to be able to ask intelligent questions about safety tests, and whether they are truly realistic in relation to practice. Thus, we need to know whether the sample populations included (for example) children and pregnant women, or animals that breathe air close to the soil. We need to know whether the specifications for safe use are likely to be respected in real industrial or agricultural situations (in Third World locations, it is prudent to assume they are not). Epidemiological data can be subject to errors and omissions in their collection, and distortion and bias in the definition of their categories. Local people can spot such flaws more effectively than experts from a faraway centre. All such issues can be put by people who have independence and common-sense. They can also query whether lab tests, even if performed quite properly by 'applied science' turn out to be irrelevant or misleading if applied uncritically in a Post-Normal situation.
Instead of an 'objectivity' that requires a denial of uncertainty and of value-commitments, we should cultivate 'integrity'. For our dialogue on policy issues, we just need participants to engage in a 'negotiation in good faith', each advancing their case on the basis of their own perspectives and commitments, but respecting the integrity of those with whom they disagree. Those with a less expert but broader perspective can ask the sorts of questions that never occur to those who are scientifically trained. For the experts work and think inside a paradigm of scientific problems that can be tidily solved, Policy issues are inherently messy, complex and unpredictable are outside their training. The question, "What about ...?" can inject something totally new into the dialogue. It amounts to reminding us all of Murphy's Law, something that is totally absent from scientific training, but totally necessary for survival in the real world.
Appreciating the vital role of those others in the dialogue, we call them the Extended Peer Community. For they are full participants in the process, learning and also teaching. And they bring with them what we might call 'Extended Facts'. For scientists will necessarily and justifiably focus on the information that is certified by their quality-assurance programmes. This is usually publication in refereed journals; but it can also include data produced in-house by respected research agencies. All this is produced under the standardised, idealised conditions that are necessary for successful research. But the Extended Peer Community has other sources. In policy issues, investigative journalism is a key resource, as are documents that were not originally intended for public view. In addition, there is local knowledge, including the place, its inhabitants of all sorts and species, and its history, traditions and special values. All these 'extended facts' are vital to the policy processes. They are excluded from the perspective of the 'normal' experts and professionals; it is the post-normal extended peer community that introduces them as valid contributions to the debate.
As we consider the essential role of the extended peer community, our vision of post-normal science reminds us of a great variety of endeavours to adapt science to the needs of a modern democratic society. People have spoken of 'critical science', 'citizens' science', 'civic science', 'community research', 'action research' and 'open science', as well as 'environmental', 'ecological' and 'sustainability' science. Each title has its own flavour, and its own authentic perspective on the whole problem. We offer 'post-normal' as one in that family. For us, it expresses two key insights. First, that these times are far from 'normal'. Second, that 'normal', puzzle-solving science is now totally inadequate as a method and a perspective, for the great policy issues of our time. Uncertainty now rules political as well as environmental affairs. And the value-commitments of people, reflected in their lifestyle choices, will determine whether the human race makes it through to sustainability, or not.
Finally, by focusing on the science itself rather than on the political processes, our insight brings reassurance and legitimacy to two important sorts of participants. The scientists themselves can be liberated from the confusion and self-doubt resulting from their discovery that some scientific problems cannot be solved by 'normal' methods. The failure to produce conclusive information about pollution or climate change is not the fault of the science or the scientists themselves. It is because we live in a new age where science is necessary but not sufficient. And for the extended peer community, they are no longer relegated to second-class status, and their special knowledge is no longer dismissed as inferior or bogus. They are full partners in the dialogue, who have much to teach as well as to learn. Both sides benefit from the dispelling of the illusion of scientific objectivity. That is the way forward, as expressed in the title 'post-normal'.
Extended Peer Communities have a vital role in exposing issues that the official establishments do not, or choose not to, notice. A famous case in point is the addictive properties of the diazapam tranquillisers. On their introduction in 1963, they were hailed as the new 'magic bullets', of the sort that our superstitious pharmacological culture seems to crave. There were plenty of voices of caution and concern about addiction and long-term effects, but they were ignored by prescribers and by regulators alike. Then in 1979 a popular British consumers' TV programme, Esther Rantzen's That's Life, told the story of mass addiction, long-term and incurable, to the drugs. She did not need to understand the biochemistry of the drug. It was enough for her to pay attention to, and then verify, the reports that she was receiving from desperate victims. The scandal broke, sales declined immediately, and some nine years later the official U.K. Committee on Safety of Medicines issued guidelines for safe use of the drug.
Posted by Jerry Ravetz at 7:03 PM | TrackBack
March 15, 2007
Some insights from Post-Normal Science
by Sylvia S Tognetti
The piece by Mike Hulme, previously posted here, is now published in the Guardian in a revised form that expands on the discussion of Post-Normal Science. It is also the subject of a post by Tom Yulsman on the blog Environmental Journalism Now, which I have been meaning to add to the blogroll (done). The jumping off point for both is the use of "scientific" arguments by climate change contrarians as a fig leaf for disagreement about values embedded in the science.
Rather than quibble with the validity of arguments that current global warming trends are just part of a natural cycle - arguments already reviewed and rejected in assessments of the IPCC and explained over and over again on blogs such as RealClimate, they use it as an opportunity to discuss the differences between normal science, and science developed and/or used in the public arena to inform and justify policy decisions. They also acknowledge that the narrower more simplistic frame, which assumes that if we just get the science right, the right policies will follow, has been used by both sides, to avoid discussion of more difficult policy questions that science cannot solve for us - for example, whether or not we have confidence that technology will solve the problem, and whether we have obligations to future generations, or even to those in our own time who have been marginalized or"externalized" from participation in the process of making policy decisions, i.e., the poor.
As regular readers of this blog know, the framework of Post-Normal Science was developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, and inspired this blog, the purpose of which is to consider science in this broader social context. Far from being an "anything goes" approach to science, the main concern addressed by PNS is how to assure quality of information, given unavoidable uncertainty and precisely these kinds of value conflicts which have led to the abuse of uncertaintyby contrarians for purposes of obfuscation. In a new book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Science by Jerry (Jerome) Ravetz, fine tunes the distinctions between different kinds of science, reminding us that there is a big difference between the kind of science used to develop the atomic bomb and other technologies that have had unintended consquences, and the science developed to address those unintended consequences - full book review forthcoming. In the meantime...
Yulsman concludes witha constructive suggestion, that "journalists should push them [i.e., scientists] to reveal those underlying factors." He also points out that "that's exactly the opposite of what William Broad did in his story this week - no doubt because of his own undisclosed values and beliefs." When I first read that Broadly ironical and misleading piece, my fingers started sputtering at the keyboard so I decided I would come back to it. Since then, cooler heads have done blow by blow analysis of what is technically wrong with it. I could say more, and I will... but it is the New York Times that needs to "Cool the hype" and start adhering to basic standards of journalism.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 12:09 PM | TrackBack
March 12, 2007
Counterfactual opinions and the peril to the planet: A commentary on Paul Baer's essay 'the worth of an ice sheet'
by Jerry Ravetz
Paul Baer has done great service in reminding us that Stern did not merely warn of possible catastrophe, but that he also effectively set a ‘safe limit’ for CO2. Thus both the environmental and the economics communities can feel satisfied.
It would appear that Stern’s relative optimism derives from a study that recorded a thousand runs of a ‘Monte Carlo’ computer simulation of the economic effects of different temperature increases. These effects are divided into three categories: market impacts, non-market impacts, and “catastrophic” impacts. Paul’s essay shows the results for the last of these three. A glance at the graph shows that in the distribution of possibilities, there’s nothing much to worry about until things hit 3 degrees C. Hence on Stern’s figure showing various possible impacts, on the really serious irreversible global threats (at the bottom) we don’t in practice get into the ‘warm’ orange zone until we are well past two degrees. At a mere two degrees, there might be some local nasties, like coral and glaciers disappearing and the Sahel drying up even more, but otherwise things are generally OK.
Stern’s policy conclusion is a reminder of the folkways of mainstream economists in the management of uncertainties. I have sketched a theoretical explanation of this tendency, in terms of the harmony between the socio-political functions and the methods of mainstream economics. [Ravetz 1994-5] In the study that Silvio Funtowicz and I did on the ‘magic number’ of 2% GDP produced by W.H. Nordhaus [Funtowicz & Ravetz 1994], we analysed his ingenious management of uncertainties (which had been presented quite transparently, enabling our critical scrutiny). These produced the ‘magic number’ of 2% of GDP, something big enough to give the author credibility in the debate, but small enough to keep complacency going for another decade.
In this present case we find that Nordhaus’ contribution again plays a crucial role. But here the stakes are much higher, and the issues of uncertainty more critical.
The ‘effects’ study on which the whole simulation of catastrophic impacts in PAGE is based was organised by Nordhaus himself, and done nearly fifteen years ago, when the scientific debate on climate change, and public awareness of its consequences, were still in their very early stages. Even as information about opinions, it is scientifically obsolete. It is very far indeed from being an established scientific fact. It would be disastrously naïve to make uncritical use of such an unsure data item in a policy argument. For that is the ‘multiplier’ that converts physical data to economic damage. With a different number put into the calculations, the dots on the graph would not lie so tamely near the zero axis, but could jump up and warn us of trouble ahead even at one extra degree of warming. Thus this opinion-based coefficient is even more crucial in the calculation than the ‘social discount rate’ that expresses the value of what posterity has done for us, as assessed either by ourselves or (as Nordhaus prefers) by ‘the market’. [Nordhaus 2007, p. 21]
In the view of the recognised danger that the world climate system could soon tip over into an irreversible destructive process, is that single piece of obsolete evidence about counterfactual opinions sufficiently robust to function as a support for a conclusion that a little bit of global warming won’t hurt too much? What are the error-costs of accepting a two-degree safe limit? Have these been considered by Dr. Stern or his colleagues? Invoking error-costs does not require the radical perspective of Post-Normal Science, but only the elementary prudence that even Rational Actors are supposed to have. But of this consideration, we see nothing. The really serious flames on Dr. Stern’s graph all lie to the right of the critical two-degree line.
As a piece of politically oriented economic analysis, the Stern report is a magnificent success. It has certainly provided the imprimatur of Economics to the growing concerns about global climate change. But as Paul Baer discovered, tucked away inside there is a source of comfort for the ‘skeptics’ who still need to believe that our profit-oriented system can solve whatever global problems it confronts, and will do so in good time. Which aspect of Stern will be more important in the debate?
References
Clark, J., Burgess, J. & Harrison, C. M. (2000) "I struggled with this money business": respondents' perspectives on contingent valuation. Ecological Economics 33(1): 45-62.
Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz, 1994, The Worth of a Songbird: Ecological Economics as a Post-Normal Science, Ecological Economics, 10/3, pp 197-207.
Nordhaus, W., 2007, The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/SternReviewD2.pdf
Ravetz, J.R., 1994-5, Economics as an Elite Folk-Science: the Suppression of Uncertainty, The Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 17/2, pp165-184.
Posted by Jerry Ravetz at 2:49 PM | TrackBack
Re-emergence of Glen Canyon
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I was in Salt Lake City last week for a symposium on "The Colorado River Compact in the 21st Century: Time for Change?"held at the University of Utah Wallace Stegner Center,and am still climbing out of the avalanche of information that landed on me. Another flurry of blog posts is in the works but in the meantime, here is a picture of an arch at Glen Canyon, which is starting to make a reappearance, courtesy of the dropping water level in Lake Powell. The photograph posted with permission from Tom Till, who included this in his presentation on "The Flowing Desert." For many, the reappearance of Glen Canyon was the bright spot in the western water crisis. Even Goldwater is said to have regretted his vote for the Glen Canyon Dam. Nevada was not as enthused. More on that to follow.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 1:03 AM | TrackBack
March 11, 2007
blog maintenance
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I'm redirecting feeds to feedburner - if you do not see any posts after this one by sometime Monday, you may need to reload the feed, or I may need to find out what I did wrong. More soon...