A debate has been occurring in recent years about the role of scientists, such as Michael Mann, who are identified as 'activists' in support of action to counter climate change. They have been accused of muddying the boundary between science and political activism, and, even , according to some charges ( the so-called 'climategate' affair) they have even been guilty of bending the evidence to suit their political cause. But have they really?
As I discuss in the (free) Chapter, concerns about 'climategate' have been used by those opposed to green-egalitarian strategies to discredit such strategies - yet this has obscured the fact that Mann's work (eg on the 'hockey stick' showing how temperatures today are hotter than anytime in the last 1000 years) has been replicated since and shown to be valid.
I go through these arguments in my book, and I argue that there is no such thing as pure science as divorced from advocacy anyway - as in the old philosophical debates, how do you separate out values from scientific 'facts'? Essentially, not only will people be interested in different sets of facts over time but they will interpret them differently according to their value sets. Conservatives, which I take to include Pielke and Lomborg may or may not claim to be above advocacy, but in stressing particular interpretations are themselves being advocates for political positions.
Of course that doesn't mean there's no such thing as scientific truth, but merely that you have to consider its usefulness according to your sets of values. Indeed, the values to which advocates of various sorts appeal are crucial. In particular in the energy and climate debates what actors decide is the right energy strategy seems heavily influenced by their cultural bias rather than the scientific facts per se.
Moreover, when commentators such as Pielke talk about the need for a 'no regrets' policy, we can also interpret this as being a green strategy which will lead to cheaper energy outcomes.
You can see these arguments expanded in the free chapter on science controversies from my book 'Low Carbon Politics'. You can get this from the link:
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tandfbis/rt-files/Docs/Low+Carbon+Politics+free+chapter.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0dZfVbeOvCMSJFC1r92TU9d3D5Sj7EfAsCkC2z5hPZdl1OLhRuixUvGLE
Even better, order my book for your library, details at the link here:
https://www.routledge.com/Low-Carbon-Politics-A-Cultural-Approach-Focusing-on-Low-Carbon-Electricity/Toke/p/book/9781138696778?fbclid=IwAR2SOE5ZHadyijCclNRqjOLgfvvG53k689Nt_cV6aPnOCyNPpr-f56bYDzA
The problem with Pielke Jr is that he has no idea of what brokers really do. Roger's naive injection (let's be nice) of the "honest broker" into climate science policy studies has pushed discussion into a fruitless direction. As with many such things, reality shows how hollow this is. IEHO looking at what brokers do in the real world better illuminates the issue.
ReplyDeleteBrokers do not expand the scope of choices available to clients, they narrow them. Brokers make markets. Ethical brokers will go out on the market seeking product suited to clients and will seek clients suited to products available to them. Ethical brokers have mutual obligations to sellers and buyers, to qualify the buyers and vet the sellers, not to sell every piece of nuclear waste to every rube with a cell phone.
Good brokers know what is available for purchase and what their buyer's needs are. They select the best matches. The broker you want often tells the client NO, don't do that. Where the client insists on committing financial suicide the ethical broker is obligated to tell the buyer to take the business elsewhere. Contrast this with Roger's model of the "honest broker".