Tamsin and the hornet's nest

I've been otherwise engaged in the last 24 hours so I missed all the excitement over Tamsin Edwards' post at the Guardian's Political Science blog, in which she calls for scientists to steer clear of political advocacy.

I believe advocacy by climate scientists has damaged trust in the science. We risk our credibility, our reputation for objectivity, if we are not absolutely neutral. At the very least, it leaves us open to criticism. I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and interpret evidence. So I've found my hardline approach successful in taking the politics and therefore – pun intended – the heat out of climate science discussions.

Judith Curry has an excellent round up of the responses around the web.

Comments

[not banned yet]

eyesonu - do you ever read here?:

http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

[Jiminy Cricket]

Jiminy Cricket

Currently the person responsible for my funding is my direct boss Tony Payne, not my head of department. And the latter also agrees with me, at least broadly.

P.S. My funding is running out fairly soon: anyone have a job going?

Hi Tamsin, sorry it was "boss" in the loose sense i.e. chain of command, and he was someone I could reference. Your vocation coincides with high profile politics. How that unravels going forward is really unknown. Who leaves the field, or chooses something else when those choices need to be made is unknown.

I do believe if your reasoning is followed then the Climate market will contract. Currently it is not in the interest of many for that to happen.

Jiminy

[John Shade]

I would like to pick up on Ross McKitrick's comment (Aug 1, 2013 at 5:45 PM). He is asking for scientists in learned societies who do not care for policy advocacy themselves, to pay attention to what is being done in that regard by the leaderships of societies to which they may belong and which may be claiming to speak on their behalf, or at least with the authority that a large and qualified membership provides.

A few fellows of the Royal Society managed to get a lamentable document on climate toned down a bit. Chemists in the States created a fuss when an in-house editor went over the top on the same subject. We have also seen an open letter of complaint to Paul Nurse by a fellow in 2012.

There was a short-lived attempt at revolution at the American Physical Society reported on here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/.

Ivor Glaever, another extremely distinguished physicist resigned for similar reasons in 2011. The year before that saw the principled departure of Hal Lewis from the same organisation. In his letter he notes

The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them.

In 2009, there was an attempt by 160 scientists to get the American Association for the Advancement of Science to back off from its facile alarmism, and there was also an attempt, led I think by Will Happer, to get reform then in the APS. Details: Climate Depot

When shall we see their like again? (copyright 'Flower of Scotland' song)

[Richard Drake]

John: They tend to be older guys and I expect there's a reason for that.

[Rob Burton]

Referring to the original quote how do you decide who is a climate scientist is. Andrew did a science degree and wrote a detailed review on the subject. Steve Mcintyre is clearly a climate scientist in my opinion.

' I find much climate scepticism is driven by a belief that
environmental activism has influenced how scientists gather and
interpret evidence. '

Therefore isn't a lot of climate scepticism driven by by different climate scientists regathering and interpreting the evidence differently.

[Theo Goodwin]

"Therefore isn't a lot of climate scepticism driven by by different climate scientists regathering and interpreting the evidence differently."

Aug 2, 2013 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Absolutely. And it is driven by the disdain for empirical research that is all but universal among climate scientists. They have no plans for doing the empirical research that is necessary to get a handle on the "forcings and feedbacks" associated with rising CO2 in the atmosphere (not in the lab). They change the topic: the heat is hidden in the deep oceans. But they have no plans for empirical research in the deep oceans; rather, they will model it.

[Ross McKitrick]

Thanks for digging up those examples John. The point needs to be emphasized that no one who belongs to a modern major scientific society has the luxury of claiming a policy-neutral stance regarding the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change, since the leaders of those societies have already issued advocacy statements on their members' behalf. Silence, ever since, has implied consent. Tamsin and all her colleagues who pay fees and join such societies are made thereby signatories to these statements, as there is no mechanism for them to belong to such societies while not being party to its official statements. You can typically check a box indicating whether you prefer to get a print or electronic version of the society journal, but you don't have the option of holding your own opinions on climate issues.

I have pointed out previously the wisdom of the major economics associations having long maintained in their by-laws an absolute refusal to issue statements on behalf of members. These provisions are explicitly tied to the desire to maintain absolute freedom of thought even on issues of importance to public policy. I'll believe the climate science community is ready to swear off their practice of dressing political advocacy up as scientific studies when they add a similar provision to their by-laws and remove society endorsements from the statements already made.

[Patagon]

Quotes of the day:

"Would Tamsin actually have the budget to be employed without such advocacy?"

"Climate Science is leveraged far beyond its scientific value."

Thanks Jiminy Cricket

"leveraged" is a clear hint to the subprime mortgage bubble, have you read "the big short", I would recommend it

[geoffchambers]

Ross McKitrick (Aug 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM)

The point needs to be emphasized that no one who belongs to a modern major scientific society has the luxury of claiming a policy-neutral stance regarding the alleged dangers of anthropogenic climate change, since the leaders of those societies have already issued advocacy statements on their members' behalf. Silence, ever since, has implied consent. Tamsin and all her colleagues who pay fees and join such societies are made thereby signatories to these statements, as there is no mechanism for them to belong to such societies while not being party to its official statements.

Thank you Ross. Tamsin must anwer this point, or lose all credibility.

[Richard Drake]

Geoff: She doesn't have to answer, she has to resign. But this takes me back to a major conference I attended in London when I was a young man. It was about trends in abortion, infanticide and euthanasia and included a world renowned physician. All the speakers were what came to be called pro-life. I'm sure you get the picture. But in the Q&A one young woman working in the medical profession in some form asked, given what had been taught, what she should now do. I'll not forget this response: "Don't martyr yourself too early."

Ross earlier suggested that Tamsin should find others willing to take up this issue with whatever societies she's a member of, rather that acting alone. I don't disagree with that. But I have an aversion to throwing stones from the sidelines, as I've made clear in other contexts. Tamsin's credibility for me has increased through the article she chose to write for the Guardian. But it's not the end of the choices ahead for her or for many others.

[not banned yet]

I think putting an open letter to the President (or appropriate title) via the press (including blogs) as a member disagreeing with any advocacy statement, listing one's reasons why and formally requesting that the organisation desists from the practice is an alternative to resigning.

Such a letter could optionally make reference to the by laws and reasoning of organisations who refrain from such statements, expand on the positive reasons for continuing membership and/or co opt the support of other like minded members pre or post publication. Complicity though silence is avoided and exposure is given to the weakness of the organisation's credentials to make generalised claims in the names of its members.

I also think writing an article in a National Daily Newspaper would have a similar, though less explicitly targeted, effect....

[John Shade]

Willis E. has a powerful, albeit quite long, open-letter on WUWT addressed the new editor of Science on the topic of her climate alarmism/activism. A couple of extracts:

(1)'Starting with Donald Kennedy, and continuing under Bruce Alberts, it has become a shabby vehicle for strident climate activism … and that experiment has proven once again that Science can’t be both an activist journal and a scientific journal. Science magazine has thrown its considerable (but rapidly decreasing) weight behind a number of causes. And yes, some of those causes are indeed important.

The problem is that you are convinced the causes are hugely important, and you want to convince us of the same. But once you convince people that your causes are more important to you than your science, that’s it for your authority regarding the science. You either get to have activism, or you get scientific authority. You don’t get both. And the past actions of your magazine have clearly demonstrated that these days your activist causes are much more important to you than the science.'

(2) 'What you need to be concerned with is what your magazine does, not what the climate does. Lecturing people when your own house is in such bad order does not make you look wise, it makes you look hypocritical. You need to attend to the very poor quality of the studies you are publishing before you start lecturing people about climate science. How about giving us an editorial about how your predecessors didn’t enforce the “archive your data and code” policy, and whether you plan to continue the now time-honored tradition of ignoring the policy? That’s something you can speak about with authority.

After that, perhaps you might give us an editorial about how you are renouncing the anti-scientific practice of using co-authors to review each others’ work? That would be interesting. Or how about an editorial review of the ethical implications of Peter Gleick’s actions, and what their general acceptance by mainstream climate scientists reveal about the nature and extent of Noble Cause Corruption? That would be more than welcome.

But please … no more schoolmarmish lectures, and no more channeling the Ehrlichs and Holdrens. We’ve had enough failed serial doom-casters to last us for decades. You do not want to add your name to that list of unsuccessful catastrophe-mongers.

I say all of this to you for several reasons. First, I can’t stand to see someone driving the bus off the cliff without warning them. You’re doing both your reputation and that of Science magazine great damage through your alarmism, and in my world I am obliged to say something.'

Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/04/an-open-letter-to-dr-marcia-mcnutt-new-editor-in-chief-science-magazine/#more-90964

[not banned yet]

Roger Pielke Snr publicly disagrees with the AGU, apparently without resigning:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/pielkes-response-to-agu-statement-on-climate-change/

I must say the article and Roger's response do underline the wisdom of the economic organisations which explicitly refrain from policy statements. If I were an AGU member, I'd be going public in dissent to their appalling statement.

[not banned yet]

I see Judith Curry is covering the AGU statement too - her comment is:
//
Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement,since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.

That said, I will once again question why AGU or any other professional society is issuing statements on this topic. IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said (and is expected to say in the AR5; we will see).

What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me. It is clear that not even the 15 AGU members set to write this statement agreed, since one of their members (Pielke) has written a dissenting statement. The words ‘uncertainty’ or ‘debate’ are not used in the statement, leaving no wiggle room for them to pretend that this statement accounts for the range of perspectives in the AGU (or even within the writing committee), or the uncertainties.

If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection.
//
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/05/agu-statement-on-climate-change/