by Judith Curry

“If you see something, say something.”

For background, recall these previous posts on scientists and advocacy.

Michael Mann’s op-ed

Michael Mann has an op-ed in the NYTimes If you see something, say something. Excerpts:

In my view, it is no longer acceptable for scientists to remain on the sidelines. I should know. I had no choice but to enter the fray. I was hounded by elected officials, threatened with violence and more — after a single study I co-wrote a decade and a half ago found that the Northern Hemisphere’s average warmth had no precedent in at least the past 1,000 years.

So what should scientists do? At one end of the spectrum, you have the distinguished former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, who has turned to civil disobedience to underscore the dangers he sees.

This activist approach has concerned some scientists, even those who have been outspoken on climate change. One of them, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, who has argued that “the only ethical path is to stop using the atmosphere as a waste dump for greenhouse gas pollution,” expressed concern about the “presentation of such a prescriptive and value-laden work” in a paper not labeled opinion.

It is not an uncommon view among scientists that we potentially compromise our objectivity if we choose to wade into policy matters or the societal implications of our work. And it would be problematic if our views on policy somehow influenced the way we went about doing our science. But there is nothing inappropriate at all about drawing on our scientific knowledge to speak out about the very real implications of our research.

If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat.

This is hardly a radical position. Our Department of Homeland Security has urged citizens to report anything dangerous they witness: “If you see something, say something.” How will history judge us if we watch the threat unfold before our eyes, but fail to communicate the urgency of acting to avert potential disaster?

Mann’s latest tweet on the EPW hearing

(twitter translation: science vs anti-science = Dessler vs Curry

.

A sample of some the comments on Mann’s tweet:

.

.

.

A comment on my testimony vs Dessler’s. Two very different perspectives. Dessler’s testimony represents the consensus view of science, focusing on what we know. My testimony focuses on the uncertainties and what what we don’t know, and why this is an important consideration for policy makers.

.

I was very struck by the EPW Committee members’ opening statements, bemoaning the rapid sea level rise in the Chesapeake Bay (more than twice as much as anything that can be attributed to AGW), the drought in Oregon, etc., as if short term actions by the U.S. in terms of CO2 mitigation are going to have any impact on these problems on timescales that the politicians worry about.

.

Policy makers have heard the ‘consensus’ scientists’ position loud and clear for the past two decades. This has not translated into policy action, and I don’t think it is for lack of activism by scientists

.

If you see something, say something

.

Well, I do like the title of Mann’s op-ed. Here is what I see. I see a scientist (Michael Mann) making an accusation against another scientist (me) that I am ‘anti-science,’ with respect to my EPW testimony. This is a serious accusation, particularly since my testimony is part of the Congressional record.

If Mann is a responsible scientist, he will respond to my challenge:

.

JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.

.

During the Hearing, Senator Whitehouse asked me a question about why people refer to me as a ‘contrarian.’ I said something like the following:

.

Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.

.

Anti-science

.

Anti-science is a murky word, with a number of connotations. An excerpt from the wikipedia article on Antiscience

.



The question often lies in how much scientists conform to the standard ideal of “communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, originality, and… skepticism”. Unfortunately, “scientists don’t always conform… scientists do get passionate about pet theories; they do rely on reputation in judging a scientist’s work; they do pursue fame and gain via research”. Thus, they may show inherent biases in their work.

.

From the Rational Wiki article on Antiscience

.

Anti-science proponents often attack science through:

Attempts to discredit the scientists themselves.

Attempts to use flawed arguments, such as argumentum ad populum to prove the position correct even if it has no scientific basis.

Attempts to label scientific ideas as conspiracy theories.

JC message to MM: If you want to avoid yourself being labeled as ‘anti-science’, I suggest that you are obligated to respond to my challenge.