People talk about the "politicization" of science all the time, usually in the form of an accusation designed to paint an opponent as biased or corrupt. Let's take a moment to think about the term and what it means.
Science is a multi-layered, collective, and impersonal process consisting of three parts:
- individual scientists working under the scientific method,
- the results of the individual scientists undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate, and
- important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge.
In the end, claims repeatedly verified by the scientific community (e.g., the earth is warming, DNA is a double-helix, CFCs destroy ozone) come to be accepted as true.
Thus, someone is honestly using science if he or she articulates a position that is supported by the whole of the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., the earth is warming). Misrepresenting the peer-reviewed literature is my definition of politicizing science. That includes cherry-picking, dueling experts, or any of the myriad other methods of pushing faulty science.
A good example can be found in the last Inhofe hearing. There, Bob Carter pointed out that during the past few hundred thousand years, changes in temperature have preceded changes in carbon dioxide. Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.
This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. By presenting a misleading account of this physical phenomenon, Carter is acting to politicize science.
The best way to avoid cherry-picking and other methods of distortion is to stick with scientific assessments. Assessments on climate (by the IPCC) are written by teams of scientists and are designed to reflect the underlying peer-reviewed literature. The reports are then peer reviewed themselves by other scientists. In this way, they are as free of bias as any document can reasonably hope to be. In the end, they are the gold standard of what we know about the climate and how confidently we know it. To the extent that "truth" about climate exists anywhere, it exists here.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Cast your vote for the best climate journalism
The science behind a climate headline
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 11:42 am
22 Dec 2006
What does "politicization of science" mean to me?
I agree with Mr. Dessler. It is is "misrepresenting the peer-reviewed literature ... [and] includes cherry-picking, dueling experts, or any of the myriad other methods of pushing faulty science."
I would add that it includes putting on blinders and refusing to accept any information that might contradict or undermine the result you really really really want to see. It could also include setting up a think tank not to gather information or solve a specific problem, but to search high and low for any scrap of evidence that might remotely support your social or economic agenda.
Second...
Is anyone concerned about "politicization of politics"?
I am not a political scientist and my college experience includes only a few such courses, but I am under the impression that "politics" was not always a dirty word. What the mass media now refer to as "politics" or something being "politicized" is: (1) used as a catch-all for corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and putting one's selfish needs ahead of national interests or (2) used pejoratively in reference to someone, say an experienced atmospheric scientist, who brings valuable information to our attention in hopes of saving our civilization.
It seem to me that the first case is not really politics and that the second case would be appropriate, but only if it could be stripped of negative connotations.
Isn't "politics" supposed to be the art of negotiation between competing social and economic views? The art of compromise? The search for common ground?
Someone -- perhaps one of the Grist bloggers will know who -- once said that the liberals are in Washington to make sure we have laws protecting labor, the unemployed, the environment, consumers, et cetera, and the conservatives are there to make sure it is not done too fast, in excess, or creates economic instabilty. But the general goal for both should be to improve the nation's general welfare. I would guess that the underlying assumption is that the politicians will fight only for views that they sincerely believe in and that will protect the nation and improve the lives of the citizens.
I believe we need more politics of this nature in Washington.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 12:21 pm
22 Dec 2006
Of course, all this is a politicizing of science, in order to discredit a bill now in the Senate to streamline fire (and other disasters) recovery projects. Rare today is a scientist who is squeaky-clean in eschewing politics within his/her work.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Andrew Dessler Posted 1:38 pm
22 Dec 2006
I don't know anything about the example you gave, but it sounds like the lesson is that one should not base policy on a single peer-reviewed publications. Errors can and often do make it through peer review. One should wait for important results to be verified by independent groups in other peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions that have been multiply verified can be confidently considered to be right.
regards
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 7:24 pm
22 Dec 2006
???
Whiskerfish
Permalink
GMB Posted 7:06 pm
31 Dec 2006
And bad science or good science, none of this Jive has anything to do with the politicising science.
EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE FACT:
And that is the very act of you coming up with this bogus and irrelevant definition is a symptom of your camp politicising science.
Its just you point-scoring in lieu of you coming up with any actual evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
Come up with the evidence Dessler.
And you won't have to continue with this tortured nonsense.
"This is hogwash, of course. While Carter is correct that temperature changes precede CO2 changes, this is well understood and in no way undermines the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to global warming. "
Yes it does undermine the idea that increasing CO2 will lead to (much) global warming so you can get that right for starters.
" Carter concluded that the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature is unclear.
This is hogwash, of course."
No its not hogwash. The relatitionship is unclear. You are talking Hogwash and not Bob Carter. This is because you are part of a movement that has politicised the debate.
"In the end, claims repeatedly verified by the scientific community (e.g., the earth is warming..."
Well thats a totally untenable statement right there. Unless you can give us a start and finish date.
So you see you have long since ceased to be a scientist on this subject. Because you have politicised the subject and decided not to go where the chips fall.
Permalink
hank Posted 5:20 am
08 Jan 2007
I'm watching one recovery area that burned in 1987 (first fire after 40 years of fire suppression, very hot). So far the unsalvaged area that was already off limits has come back far better than the salvage-logged and replanted area that the FS came into with bulldozers, scraped and piled and burned after salvage-logging, and planted with Ponderosa pine. There's something to be said for the layer of stuff that builds up in soil after a fire, at least compared to the loose dust left by a bulldozer -- both cause runoff, but I'd say the bulldozers do more to lose what's left of the soil than the waxy stuff in the soil left undisturbed.
Standing dead trees host woodpeckers and flickers and raptors, and tend to decay in place for some years before they fall. Hardwoods will indeed burn again after standing dead and dry for years; fire-killed (or almost killed) conifers in my experience will rot in place, get punky and soft and full of living things and fall already coming apart.
You have to do the field study to say what happens after a fire over a period of years, but I've seen enough salvage logging, compared to prescribed burns, to believe that the salvage logging isn't helping regenerate the forest, as it's been done to date.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 11:05 am
08 Jan 2007
With the timber industry seemingly in eternal transition from lucrative cutting of big trees to a kind of "trimming of the hedge" style of logging, good equipment operators are hard to find. No longer are there skilled veterans who work very well together. Luckily, they are not gone and it's soooo refreshing to have a logging crew who knows what to do and what not to do. There's always going to be SOME mitigation for logging impacts. A good logging boss and crew can keep those to a bare minimum.
Whether it's salvage logging or thinning projects, there's always going to be some bad work being done. The visual aspect is a very important one and some savvy loggers definitely keep that in mind. Doing a little more than the contract requires keeps operations from getting bogged down by an unhappy inspector <grin>.
Yes, salvage logging issues are complex and far-ranging in scope. The two main thrusts behind salvage logging is:
To recover valuable wood.
To remove excessive fuels, reducing future fire risk and intensity.
To get fine twigs and branches on the ground, slowing the inevitable post-fire erosion.
Reasons why not salvage logging is bad:
In fire prone areas, unsalvaged woods becomes fuel for the next fire, increasing soil sterilizing heat-intensity near the ground.
Providing ample amounts of "brood trees" for an unstoppable explosion of bark beetles.
These are just my personal observations from 20 years of forestry work. I'm still a field-going Forestry Technician, applying science, knowledge and wisdom wherever I can. My work all across this country has told me one thing; everything we do is "Site Specific". We must do what the conditions dictate we must do. And if that means leaving endangered species habitat the hell alone, that's what we'll certainly do.
I do have pictures of good salvage logging on my picture blog, if you care to look, Hank.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink