Time for scientists to come off the fence 30 June 05

I think we need to recognise that humans structure thought in terms of binary oppositions (http://www-as.phy.ohiou.edu/~rouzie/307j/binary.html) and that this has implications on how we respond to the global warming threat that we have.

We should deconstruct what associations we have dealing with global warming, and ensure that we have the right set of messages to facilitate action. In the past, a crucial political binary opposition was capitalist/communist – and (fortunately) that does not seem so relevant anymore.

In the past week or so, I think the more relevant binary opposition has been between “Up the Mountain” or “Down the Pan”.

People who believe that everything is getting better would hold an “Up the Mountain” feeling about things – and the “Down the Pan” people would think the opposite. The key thing is that one can collect any amount of evidence to support each story.

A climate-sceptic, such as Lomborg, will tend to argue “Up the Mountain” – and that seems to be the principal message he comes up with all the time. Environmentalists who oppose him, naturally describe ways that things are “Going Down the Pan”.

Which would you vote for – if you weren’t concerned with the detail?

I strongly believe that we need to move away from this binary opposition if we are going to encourage more people to get involved in doing something about the climate change threat.

In my dreams, I would like people to feel good about doing something about this – and something that they want to do – and this would include scientists.

I had the very good fortune of dateing a reasonably famous lady Scientist for just over a year. To protect her modisty I wont mention her by name but she works with Urban Boundry Layer Meteorolgy so some of you clever clogs could probably work out who I am talking about.

The first thing I would like to say, is I have never knowen anyone to work so hard and with so much passion in my life 18 hour days were fairly standard.

In the UK Scientist are put under tromendous pressure to produce more papers then ever before. They are put under tromendous pressure to teach, If they teach, they teach more students (of lower caliber) then they have ever had to do before. And all this with a smile.

Now we are putting these amazing people under more presure to become ecconomic, political media experts. In fareness to them. They have enough on there plate at the moment.

I was once taught a stupid saying. Why dont you teach a pig to swim. One there no good at it, second it pisses the pig off.

I think the reality of the situation is, we need to develop facilitators or mediators in to this process. You need some one smart enough to understand the Science stuff, understands the political process and can hanle the media.

A job I think Mark would be quite capable of doing.

So to answer your question Mark I think you were being a little unkind to the scentists, However, you are illustrating a huge problem that we all need to face up to.

Cheers Ian.

I believe I know of whom you write about, and I also agree we need facilitators.

D

In my most recent Environmental Science and Public Policy class, we spent an extraordinate amount of time discussing the idea of “boundary organizations” and “boundary individuals” – those that work on the boundary of science and policy to try and effectively facilitate their interactions. On occasion you have an NGO or other group bringing science and policy together, but too often they function completely separately, with scientists researching topics that aren’t salient, or policymakers either misunderstanding or ignoring the science presented to them.

While this remains a problem, Mark brings up a the important distinction between environmentalists and climatologists. There is a stigma attached to the policy-driven environmentalists, as you can easily tell if you know any U.S. conservatives or if you’ve read Michael Crichton’s most recent book, State of Fear (which I’ll be reviewing next week). Scientists, however, are treated with a certain reverence. They KNOW things. Unfortunately, politicians and lobbyists like to play upon the uncertainty in science, often equating “uncertain” and “incorrect.”

And you also have the issue of actually defining the role of science. How far does a scientist need to go in suggesting responses to problems encountered. If you, as a climatologist, convince people that climate change is occurring, they will invariably ask: “So what do we do to stop it?” And the answer to that question is all the more difficult.

I encourage you to check out and participate in my new weblog at http://stopwarming.blogspot.com.

Stephen

since it is people who are causing (forcing) the problem, and people (+rest of biota) who suffer from it. It is sort of a hidden way in which people relate to each other. We need more social scientists (anthro, sociol, econ, poli sci, psych) to get involved studying the problem, both why we are causing it, and how it is affecting & will affect people (& life in general).

As for the natural scientists studying it, they are doing a good job, and as scientists must remain as objective as possible. However, qua humans they can take off their lab coat & say, “As a person concerned about this issue and as a father/mother of _ children, I’m really terrified at the prospects if we do nothing to solve GW.” I think some climate scientists have done that to some extent. They could also explain that “based on what we know at this point & the analytical tools we have, these are the fairly certain facts. Reality, however, may possibly be much more danger & full of nasty surprises.”

Your post reminded me of the work done by James Fairhead and Melissa Leach, ethnographers who studied deforestation in Africa from the natives’ point of view. While their findings – that deforestation is not occurring as we think it is in this area – cannot necessarily be applied in the case of global warming, it is interesting to see how anthropology interacts (and often clashes) with traditional “hard” science. They’ve written a lot and have a fairly compelling movie (I thought it was good, science aside) that I would urge anyone with some free time to check out.

I think it would be great to have something along these lines for climate change – from the perspective of people who are or certainly will be affected by warming. I feel as though the only previous mainstream efforts on the big screen (read: The Day After Tomorrow) have been overly sensationalized. The real crux of the problem is getting the message to people who wouldn’t ordinarily look for it.

Kids,

I am off to Edinbugh for the G8 protest. Dan thanks a million for you advice. Will try my hardist to get the local stuff done.

see you guys in about a week.

Love to you all including Jimbo.

Cheers Ian

I appreciate your thoughts Ian because we live in an era which requires many of us to be specialists since none of us can be experts on everything. The GW/CC problem does force all of us to go outside of our comfort zone at some level.

I do agree that blaming others becomes problematic since we all share part of the problem and a part of the solution and it is wise not to think in terms of “blaming” but to think in terms of “helping” instead. I could write more on that theme but I will leave my statement as self-evident.

As an engineer, I would rather be working with other engineers developing solutions which involve applying the laws of physics to make something better and more efficient. I wish sometimes that this is where all my personal time and energy was being used since I enjoy this.

On the other hand, I have found the need to learn more about ecology, climate science, economics, and politics plus write on this blog. I do not like politics and do not like getting involved in that but I feel obligated to do something. At a minimum, I can share my views and insights.

I did attend a political meeting on climate change and renewable energy initiatives in our state. One politician attended. I shared enough information as part of the audience as to become another person with useful knowledge along with the expert panel in the front. At the end, the politician asked me a question and I want to share this question and my answer since my input may have made a difference in how she develops policy with other delegates.

She asked me if we should phase out the incentive for people who own hybrid vehicles to use the car-pool lane. In our area we have special roadways which are free of congestion called HOV lanes which stands for “High Occupancy Vehicles”. It is designed to reward people who have 2 or more people in a vehicle by having faster moving traffic to drive in. Solo drivers can be fined for using it … except if they own a hybrid vehicle.

To facilitate the purchases of more hybrid vehicles, my state passed a law where people who own them can use these HOV lanes and still drive solo. This was meant to reward their purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle. The legislators are discussing the removal of this incentive for hybrid owners.

I suggested that they should phase out the incentive for hybrids. My reasoning has to do with the greater efficiency of hybrids in congested traffic. In other words, hybrids are designed to use less fuel in congested traffic than when using the HOV lanes. Ironically, it would be better if a non-hybrid vehicle used the HOV lane since these vehicles are more efficient in a non-congested lane. In other words, a hybrid vehicle can actually use more fuel with this incentive. Their efficiency decreases with higher speeds.

She then asked me the obvious follow-up question on providing an incentive for people to buy hybrids. If more people owned hybrids than SUVs, then we would collectively use less fuel. This aspect is still a valid reason for providing an incentive. My response was that oil prices are going up and that this will provide the incentive and she need not worry about additional incentives. It would be better for the hybrid owner to also car pool as well. The fact is that the more solo hybrid drivers we have, then the more congested the HOV lanes become and this increases more net fuel used. This is already happening as more people own hybrids.

So, I felt that my insight was helpful to her. Even that politician now has to think in more technical terms and analyze the problem in greater detail. The hybrid incentive idea was a good idea in the beginning but as the future unfolds, it reduces in merit.

I do not know if what I wrote here was a relevant response. The question of long hours of a scientist seems to indicate a lack of qualified people. It seems that we need more scientists to share the load.

Maybe, we need to cite examples of dedicated people to inspire and motivate. Your comments did just that. Instead of blaming people, we should be setting our own example and sharing the stories of others who did more than they had to do. We should be creating more heroes and heroines rather than more villains.

All the best,

Dan

As Albert Einstein says:

“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Best,

Dan

As a scientist who has been active in environmental campaigns for 15 years and local politics for the last 5, I can’t entirely agree that scientists are guilty of sitting on the fence. Back in the 1950’s the world’s leading meteorologist said that there could be no reasonable doubt that rising levels of CO2 would lead to global warming. Nobody wanted to hear. Now that global warming is happening, people are starting to take interest. The scientific picture is clear enough: global warming is happening, it is caused by our pollution, and if we don’t do anything about it are going to meet some unpleasant consequences. Perhaps the idea that scientists are sitting on the fence comes from the BBC’s need to show “balance” by presenting two sides of an issue, even if one side is completely irrational. No matter how often the arguments of the “climate sceptics” are demolished, they keep coming back, sowing confusion.