Not Normal Times
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… 
hey Sylvia — maybe I should write a full post on this instead of a paragraph in a post, but my point is that Gore has become the de facto spokesman/liaison to the public on behalf of the climsci world. He doesn’t need to be asked by the climsci world to “represent” them; there need be no official agreements. He just did it and used his enormous name recognition to get the science of the climsci community out into the open. He is representing the science to the public because the scientists themselves don’t have the name and star power to do it themselves. Maybe your point is that nobody asked him to, so it can’t be said that he is representing scientists? I’d say it doesn’t matter — that’s what happened, and like it or not Al Gore is the face of public relations for climsci’s.
Anyway, you’re right that these are post-normal times, maybe even post-post-normal? even more reason for Gore to not stretch the science when he has the world in the palm of his hand on this. doing so leaves himself open to dismissals based on the stretches and not on the proposals to do something about the problem
Far as saying manatees up the coast is global warming, he absolutely made that connection in a crystal clear way. You can’t let him off the hook by saying “oh, that was just a muse.” He was talking about manatees and fires in the middle of a long riff on global warming and why we know it’s already here.
On the NYT: maybe I haven’t seen all the articles, but other than the sloppy Broad piece, has the NYT really been going after Gore? Media Matters brings up a very very small handful of articles spread out over a few years and selectively ignores the other positive articles written about Gore. People are crying about a NYT conspiracy to hit Gore and I just don’t see it. The whole “Gore hit piece” as a phrase attached to the Broad article came from Drudge. Who the hell listens to Drudge? That dumbass cites articles from the National Enquirer!
[Kevin, thanks for your comment and apologies for not getting back to this sooner. There are a few more potential posts needed to better break down this discussion but in brief, I see Gore as playing a different role from that of the scientists, and a very necessary one which I can relate to because it is not unlike what I do. I speak as someone who started to become a science policy wonk around the time when he had his very first hearings on climate change in the House... and yes, I count him among those who have influenced my career path. I would never call myself a scientist either, but have taken a number of courses in both he natural and the social sciences, and could not do what I do without a very good understanding of it. At a recent symposium I attended, Jeffrey Sachs talked about the need for more emphasis on "interface work" between science and policy, as well as between different disciplines. It is a skill that is little appreciated and that scientists are not very good at. I have remained a consultant because I always seem to lose out to people with narrower disciplinary background - in my case, economists or hydrologists. But when those with a narower disciplinary perspective try to take an integrated approach, they inevitably wind up reducing everything to the framework of their own discipline. It isn't just about name and starpower - it is about putting all of this knowledge into context and communicating in a way that is relevant.
I didn't catch the exact quote about the manatee but unless he was citing a specific paper, he could easily have been making a general observation of the kind we all make about anything unusual.
Re: the media issue - the NYT really did play an important role in spreading the narrative about Gore as an exaggerator, that still lurks (“oh yeah, he invented the internet” by conservatives and even others who dismiss him with a grin and a chuckle – read the Daily Howler for more). I’d really like to see the NYT take reporting actual news more seriously than Gore’s appearance. They are still doing it. And if we bloggers focus on whether or not he got some minor detail of science right or wrong, we give more life to that phony narrative about exaggeration. Science is dynamic and there is always disagreement around the edges. Of greater concern should be the lies told to make that case - i.e., he did not exaggerate about expected levels of sea level rise – he was referring to the expected slr “if” the ice sheets melt, which was not a factor in the IPCC estimate of 23” – I didn’t dig it up but apparently he was citing scientific literature on that one.
I need to write a post that more precisely defines the concept of "post-normal" - coming soon ...]