Climategate: The Scientist Speaks

Testimony from Dr. Phil Jones (the former Director of the CRU) before Members of the British Parliament earlier this week, illustrates the limits of science in politics. Thus the limitation can best be summarized by the following relationship: The scientific process requires uncertainty in deriving outcomes about the natural world while politics demands certainty in its conclusions before taking action on a particular problem.

From watching his statements one thing is clear. Even though Dr. Jones may be right about climate change, one would hope that policymakers do seek out multiple perspectives on the issue before accepting his theories and weigh the consequences associated with them before taking action on climate change.

A look at the policy process and budgeting: EPA Budget Hearings

Over the next couple of days, the Senate Environmental Public Works (EPW) committee will conduct hearings on the EPA’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2011. What’s interesting from the hearings is that it provides an inside look at how policymakers are not only debating the issue, but also how they are constructing arguments on facts that best suite their existing positions on climate change. This is nothing new in terms of the political process, but does highlight some of the challenges where science and politics converge in developing public policy.

Highlights of the request include:

• The overall request for FY2011 is approximately a $10B budget for the EPA.
• The request includes a reduction to overall agency funding by about $300M from FY2010 while reallocating about $56M (includes new funding of $43M) for programs to regulate and control greenhouse gas emissions.
• There have been concerted efforts led by Senator Linda Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) to introduce legislation to strip from the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The budget process for the EPA serves as a forum for these legislators to block, or water-down, regulatory efforts by the EPA.

Nevertheless, from watching the hearings there are many questions left unanswered:

• Should the EPA regulate carbon dioxide or is it the role of Congress?
• Why do EPW senators provide such differing causal arguments about climate change ?
• How does the public perceive the arguments for or against climate change? Do public perceptions matter?
• How can we redefine this issue beyond the current rhetoric (e.g. partisanship, personal attacks, binary divisions in the global context of “us versus them,” etc.)? Has the debate become too cavalier?
• Do you feel the EPW and EPA are representing our interests or the interests of special groups who would benefit from this type of legislation?
• Should government regulate industries over environmental issues or develop markets and provide subsidies for industries to compete in environmental markets?
• What are some of the limits of environmentalism in shaping environmental policy?
• Why does Senator Inofe have an issue with political scientists?
• How important is using political arguments around scientific certainty in order to develop competing policies to regulate carbon dioxide?

Outliers from Snowmageddon

In between shoveling snow and staying warm on this snowy day, I found a few posts worth checking out.

• “Cap and Trade” has already become a campaign issue for vulnerable Democrats in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. A student of mine who came across this video produced by the VA GOP targeting Democratic members of Congress Rick Boucher (VA, 9th ) and Tom Perrillo’s (VA, 5th) who both supported the Waxman-Markey bill this past summer and who represent districts that John McCain won in 2008.

• Ben Profferror writes about the benefits of civility in debating global warming.

• The NY Times finds the recent winter storms hitting the mid-atlantic region are a result of global warming patterns.

• Kathy Nieland discusses the push by the SEC for companies to disclose the risks of climate change associated with current business practices.

• Christina Larson finds the apparent “green-tech war” between the U.S. and China is a bit overblown.

• Lastly, Audi provides a tongue-in-cheek approach to the greening of America

The Politics Over The Process of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Over the past few months, the politics surrounding climate change continues to heat up . Recent efforts by global warming opponents have sought to disclaim the work, and credibility, of groups like the IPCC and CRU.  Opponents have been successful in their efforts to disclaim the work by these institutions by shifting the debate towards claims of cover ups and the mishandling of data by prominent climate scientists as proof of malfeasance. The goal of these efforts by global warming opponents is to redefine the debate over climate change.

By attempting to reshape the public’s perceptions of this issue, climate change opponents are attempting to provide an alternative explanation about some of the problems with the scientific consensus on global warming. This is a shift from previous attempts by global warming opponents to claim that climate change is either not happening or not a result of human activity. This strategy focuses on creating doubt among the public over the entire process in which scientific consensus was reached on this issue. Thus far opponents have done this in two ways. First, opponents have been successful in disclaiming the CRU. This led to the resignation of its Director, Phil Jones, over  leaked email messages that global warming opponents claimed was evidence of a corrupt peer-reviewed system by which scientific evidence on climate change was based.  Second, opponents have begun to discredit the IPCC over glacier-gate. Opponents claim the process that resulted in glacier-gate (faulty predictions over the melting of Himalayian glaciers) typifies a flawed process by which the IPCC makes their assessment on climate change; namely the IPCC’s process is driven by a political agenda and bureaucratic incompetence.  So, where does this leave us? Well, we should expect to see  global warming opponents up the ante in their efforts to challenge the process by which scientific consensus is reached over climate change.

Environmental Outliers

Today’s Environmental Outliers:

• Reuters discusses the likely policy alternatives for Congress in dealing with climate change legislation in 2010.
• Environmental ministers from BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) countries met in India to discuss the post Copenhagen scenario on climate change.
• Pew finds global warming ranks last in immediate priorities for the U.S. government to tackle.
• The lead climate change negotiator from China notes he has an “open mind” on whether climate change is caused by humans .
• Bill Gates discusses his concerns that funding for climate policies will come at the expense of health funding.
• Amy Harder gives an assessment of President Obama’s efforts on energy and environmental policies.
• The Wall Street journal opines on the continuing glacier-gate controversy