The Post-Normal Times

Why would anyone pay $10,000 for an essay about the weaknesses of climate models for policy purposes when all they need to do is get a couple of modelers in the same room, each trying to demonstrate that their model is bigger, better and more policy relevant than the other one or anything else out there? One does not need to be skeptical or in denial of the science that supports the findings of the IPCC to have concerns about whether or which Global Climate Models are relevant and useful for policy purposes. However, “normal” skepticism and disagreements within the scientific community, which are inherent in the process of science, tend to be downplayed in the policy arena where consensus based on information available at the time of decision-making is necessary to inform policy – the reason for having bodies such as the IPCC, to conduct a more extended process of peer review. A second reason for downplaying normal skepticism and uncertainty is fear that it will be exploited and distorted by denialists of human induced climate change, whose main purpose is to foment doubt and confusion, by challenging scientific findings in the media, thereby circumventing the IPCC review process – (a topic addressed also in this previous post).

I was going to write a longer piece about the Guardian story “Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study – that received almost as much if not more commentary than the release of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, but David Roberts and Andrew Dessler have
just done that in an excellent post at Gristmill that explains why “bashing climate denialists still makes good copy but is increasingly beside the point.” Since they have nicely summarized all of the background information and I wholeheartedly agree with their argument, I’ll just add a few points. But read their article – and also comments on it by Ken Green from AEI, who, with Steve Hayward, made the offer on behalf of AEI.

What is upsetting is not so much the amount offered – ok, $10,000 is more than I usually get to write a review paper but is not exorbitant by standards of pay for journalists, and it is no surprise that the generation of empty soundbites and predictable narratives are more highly valued than substance…Or even the critique of models. The real problem is the way AEI is expected to use the critiques they solicited. But intended or expected use isn’t news. Even less fitting into news narratives is a problematic assumption inherent in the wording of the original request, that scientific models are some sort of a crystal ball:

we are looking for . . . a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy.

Although AEI does appear from its list of climate-related publications to engage at least some credible scholars, some of whom even support a carbon tax, Green’s and Hayward’s intent can be inferred from the title of another website where they posted a personal rebuttal, The
Great Global Warming Myth, subtitled Consensus does not = science. The site also prominently features a picture that ridicules Al Gore. So their claimed motive, made in a second letter, about wanting to “break out of the straightjacket” in which debate about climate policy is framed as being “between so-called ’skeptics’ and so-called ‘alarmists’ doesn’t pass the laugh test:

First, in the public mind at least (which is to say, the news media) climate change has tended to be caught in a straightjacket between so-called “skeptics” and so-called “alarmists,” with seemingly little room left in the middle for people who may have reasonable doubts or heterodox views about the range of policy prescriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimension. This perception is mistaken, of course, as Andrew Revkin’s recent New York Times article on “an emerging middle ground” on climate change made evident. Nonetheless, we would like to attempt to break out of this straightjacket and see if it is possible to create a space for an identifiable “third way” of thinking about the problem that is similar to the various “third way” approaches to other social policy problems that were popular in the 1990s.

The original letters, and the response of AEI president Chris De Muth can be found here.

Regarding the use of models in policy – I would gladly accept even just $5,000 from AEI to write an essay on the utility or not of mega-models for purposes of informing policy and on what kind of information is most useful for decision-making. But with a caveat: they would have to convince me that they intend to engage in “good faith” negotiations of climate policy, and make arguments on their scientific merits. They could start by actually disavowing the “so-called” skeptics, cease and desist from labeling Al Gore, or anyone presenting well established scientific evidence as “alarmists.” Ken Green and Steve Hayward could also start by withdrawing their post from The Great Global Warming Myth website.

Bashing denialists is not simply beside the point but is not an effective way to respond to Global Dumbing – which does nonetheless need to be responded to. To learn more about sources of Global Dumbing, see this Special Report by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler. For more on the consequences, stay tuned.