 |
| From Rainforest Action Network Facebook photos: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152258142720960&set=a.298687785959.177800.8002590959&type=1 |
Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for Hansen as a scientist, and for the scientific work he has done. We have been co-authors on scientific publications, and he is responsible for my getting to do any real science whatsoever, among other things employing his so-called Adding-Doubling Method to build computer models of multiple scattering by gas and aerosols to interpret remote sensing measurements of Venus to infer cloud particle properties and distributions. Also, I am not an anthropogenic global warming (AGW) denier, but believe that the scientific results/predictions and any follow-on public/private policy issues are separate questions, decided under their own processes and rules. To put it simply, I do not believe that if AGW is "proven" to occur that the only conclusion available is to do what we can right now to stop it. Proper policy requires cost-benefit analyses and comparisons to other problems competing for limited resources. Bjørn Lomborg (see some links on the right sidebar) has written extensively on this issue from a quasi-political and economic science perspective, and is closest to my thinking.
The process of science requires a high degree of objectivity. This objectivity is often not easy to maintain, but relinquishing some - either consciously or, as sometimes happens, unconsciously - can damage the process and results. Changes in our understanding of how the world works has a huge impact on private (personal and corporate) and public decisions and policy. It is only natural for corporations and governments to consult with scientists about their findings and to seek advice on courses of future action. Hansen was so consulted, at least by the U.S. Government as documented in various press accounts and in his book. But the world of bureaucracy and politics operate by rules different from those of science, and generally the outcomes of Hansen's consultations did not make a connection or result in policy changes that he thought advisable. For the scientist, IMO, that should be the limit of his/her "advocacy" in the public arena.
But Hansen, possibly frustrated by his government policy engagement (or lack thereof), turned to activism, to broaden the scope and audience of his appeals for both the "danger" predicted by the science as well as for particular ideas for policy solutions that he embraced to address those dangers. Dealing with the relatively non-scientific reasoning ability of the media and environmental advocacy communities can be even more daunting than dealing with government agencies. This can result in becoming vested in a particular scientific result even more than is common for a scientist and his scientific work; you want to maintain your credibility with your new audience that is giving you great personal, positive feedback. This can lead to a loss of objectivity that can be dangerous to the science.
Is it possible for Hansen, or anyone, to maintain objectivity in the face of the pressures brought on by an activist role? Yes, it may be possible. But is it likely? I'm not so sure. So not only might the science itself suffer, but even if objectivity can be maintained, you run the risk of losing some credibility among scientists and non-scientists because of those known added pressures on your objectivity.
Has Hansen had better success with his activism - his speeches and arrest record - than he had with his direct government policy consulting? Questionable. But either way, I believe that taking on that activist role is too potentially damaging to the value he has for doing science and reporting results. It is, of course, Hansen's decision to make. My preference would be for him to prioritize his credibility and effectiveness to do what he does best, doing scientific research and interpretation, and let others be the poster children for wearing the great hat while getting handcuffed.
No comments:
Post a Comment