<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for An account of one scientist’s testimony]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Steve Bloom http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:48:29 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/1 Insufficiently "atmospheric" posts

Hey, Andrew, all this policy booshwah is well and good, and let me just say that I'm very happy to see you up on the Hill rather than you-know-who, but inquiring minds really want the low-down on A53F.  Among other things, did Lindzen and that poor, poor grad student even show?  Probably this stuff is a little obscure for Grist, but perhaps over at your other location?

On the subject of the post, it has always seemed to me that while it's extremely useful to educate policy makers and journalists about the tactic you describe, a complete regime change to non-scientizing honest brokers operating in the context of a recast UNFCCC (oops, there I go again about you-know-who) would do little additional good.  As I think we have seen, after a while denialists who stray too far from the science will tend to lose credibility.  Put another way, improvements in the science really are important to advancing appropriate policy.  That will remain true even as we move forward into a policy debate that is much more about the relative value of mitigation vs. adaptation.

]]> Insufficiently "atmospheric" posts

Hey, Andrew, all this policy booshwah is well and good, and let me just say that I'm very happy to see you up on the Hill rather than you-know-who, but inquiring minds really want the low-down on A53F.  Among other things, did Lindzen and that poor, poor grad student even show?  Probably this stuff is a little obscure for Grist, but perhaps over at your other location?

On the subject of the post, it has always seemed to me that while it's extremely useful to educate policy makers and journalists about the tactic you describe, a complete regime change to non-scientizing honest brokers operating in the context of a recast UNFCCC (oops, there I go again about you-know-who) would do little additional good.  As I think we have seen, after a while denialists who stray too far from the science will tend to lose credibility.  Put another way, improvements in the science really are important to advancing appropriate policy.  That will remain true even as we move forward into a policy debate that is much more about the relative value of mitigation vs. adaptation.

]]> Comment #2 by Andrew Dessler http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:45:32 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/2 A53F et al.

A53F, a session on the water vapor feedback at the recent AGU meeting, went well.  Lindzen did indeed have some new stuff, but it looked pretty lame.  Basically, he's using the gradient between the dry subtropics and the moist convective region as a proxy for climate change.  He finds (unsurprisingly) that precipitation efficiency decreases as one moves to warmer SSTs.  That should be hard to get through peer review.  On the other hand, he tends to get a free pass on peer review because people don't want to look like they're censoring anyone.

I agree that improving science is important.  No argument there.  But I stand by the idea that getting people to understand the "uncertainty" argument is crucial.  It's a terrible argument, yet it's very effective.

]]> A53F et al.

A53F, a session on the water vapor feedback at the recent AGU meeting, went well.  Lindzen did indeed have some new stuff, but it looked pretty lame.  Basically, he's using the gradient between the dry subtropics and the moist convective region as a proxy for climate change.  He finds (unsurprisingly) that precipitation efficiency decreases as one moves to warmer SSTs.  That should be hard to get through peer review.  On the other hand, he tends to get a free pass on peer review because people don't want to look like they're censoring anyone.

I agree that improving science is important.  No argument there.  But I stand by the idea that getting people to understand the "uncertainty" argument is crucial.  It's a terrible argument, yet it's very effective.

]]> Comment #3 by Steve Bloom http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:19:05 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/3 Clarity

It sounds like I wasn't clear, but I was trying to agree with you on that last point.  Thanks for the Lindzen info.

]]> Clarity

It sounds like I wasn't clear, but I was trying to agree with you on that last point.  Thanks for the Lindzen info.

]]> Comment #4 by Bart Anderson http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:26:03 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/4 Thanks...

for speaking out, Andrew.

]]> Thanks...

for speaking out, Andrew.

]]> Comment #5 by Liz Borkowski http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Wed, 17 Jan 2007 22:49:28 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/5 Amen!

Very well put.

One thing I'm worried about is that industry groups seem to be creating their own parallel scientific assessment process -- there are some "peer reviewed" journals whose reviewers and editors appear to be dedicated to publishing studies showing no harmful effects from substances that other studies have linked to health problems.

Of course, these studies don't stand up to the re-testing and multiple verification that you describe, but when a lawyer from one of the big product defense firms shows a policymaker (or judge) a sheaf of studies and says they were published in various peer-reviewed journals, it can be hard for someone who's not familiar with captured journals to to know that these studies don't actually represent the work of the scientific community.

I imagine this is less of an issue in climate change (since it'd be tough to create a parallel IPCC), but it's a problem when it comes to substances like asbestos. Is this something policymakers are aware of and can deal with?

]]> Amen!

Very well put.

One thing I'm worried about is that industry groups seem to be creating their own parallel scientific assessment process -- there are some "peer reviewed" journals whose reviewers and editors appear to be dedicated to publishing studies showing no harmful effects from substances that other studies have linked to health problems.

Of course, these studies don't stand up to the re-testing and multiple verification that you describe, but when a lawyer from one of the big product defense firms shows a policymaker (or judge) a sheaf of studies and says they were published in various peer-reviewed journals, it can be hard for someone who's not familiar with captured journals to to know that these studies don't actually represent the work of the scientific community.

I imagine this is less of an issue in climate change (since it'd be tough to create a parallel IPCC), but it's a problem when it comes to substances like asbestos. Is this something policymakers are aware of and can deal with?

]]> Comment #6 by Andrew Dessler http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Thu, 18 Jan 2007 01:18:54 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/6 What can policymakers do?

Liz-

The credibility of the IPCC comes from the credible process that created it: written by scientists, peer-reviewed by scientists, based on the peer-reviewed literature, etc.  

If a policymaker wants to know if an assessment is credible, they should look at the process that created it.  Does it entrain a large fraction of the scientific community?  Is it based on peer-reviewed literature?  What kind of review process did the report go through?  etc.

If they do that, I think they'd be well on their way to getting good scientific advice.

thanks!

]]> What can policymakers do?

Liz-

The credibility of the IPCC comes from the credible process that created it: written by scientists, peer-reviewed by scientists, based on the peer-reviewed literature, etc.  

If a policymaker wants to know if an assessment is credible, they should look at the process that created it.  Does it entrain a large fraction of the scientific community?  Is it based on peer-reviewed literature?  What kind of review process did the report go through?  etc.

If they do that, I think they'd be well on their way to getting good scientific advice.

thanks!

]]> Comment #7 by bookerly http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/ Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:01:06 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/capitol-hill-briefing-on-science-and-politics/7 Political Life Cycles

   Great points Andrew.

   We should also keep in mind the political value of "studying" an issue.

   Most politicians are concerned mainly about the current election cycle.  A study can put an issue into the next election cycle, thus removing it from being a threat to re-election, since they can claim to be "doing" something.

   That is one of the real reasons politicians like hearings and uncertainty, it lets them move things into future election cycles.  Which, from their points of view, are out of sight.

patrick

]]> Political Life Cycles

   Great points Andrew.

   We should also keep in mind the political value of "studying" an issue.

   Most politicians are concerned mainly about the current election cycle.  A study can put an issue into the next election cycle, thus removing it from being a threat to re-election, since they can claim to be "doing" something.

   That is one of the real reasons politicians like hearings and uncertainty, it lets them move things into future election cycles.  Which, from their points of view, are out of sight.

patrick

]]>