Dr. Judith Curry writes about the UCAR meeting she attended:
Some insight into the dynamics that resulted in a substantial change in emphasis in climate research is provided by a meeting that I attended earlier this week in Boulder: the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) Annual Members Meeting. An overview of UCAR is provided at Wikipedia
…
The nutshell of Crow’s presentation is this:
A + B = C
- A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
- B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
- C: policy
Crow argued that the emphasis needs to be on B, which requires an entirely new structure for universities.
…
Whereas I had suffered silently through all this, after the panel discussion, I had to make a statement. Here is my general recollection of what I said:
A plus B most emphatically does NOT equal C. A+B=C represents the linear, “truth to power” model of decision making that has been known for decades NOT to work for complex environmental problems.
Decision making associated with the issues of climate and global change can be characterized as decision making under deep uncertainty. The deep uncertainty is associated with our reliance on projections from climate models, which are loaded with uncertainties and do not adequately treat natural climate variability. Further substantial areas of ignorance remain in our basic understanding of some of the relevant phyiscal, chemical and dynamical processes.
If we as scientists are not humble about the uncertainties and areas of ignorance, we have an enormous capacity to mislead decision makers and point them in the direction of poor policies. Uncertainty is essential information for decision makers.
Climate scientists have this very naive understanding of the policy process, which is aptly described by the A+B=C model in the context of the precautionary principle. This naive understanding is reflected in the palpable frustration of many climate scientists at the failure of the “truth” as they “know” it to influence global and national energy and climate policy. This frustration has degenerated into using to word “denier” to refer to anyone who disagrees with them on either the science or the policy solution.
The path that we seem to be on, whereby the science is settled and all we need is better communication and translation of the science to policy makers, not only has the potential to seriously mislead decision makers, but also to destroy atmospheric and climate science in the process.
There was applause. Not a standing ovation, but applause from a substantial segment of the 200+ audience.
There were several other interesting comments in the discussion. One person brought up the point that the U.S. land grant universities had a long tradition of working with decision makers in the context of agricultural extension, etc. Another person put up a new equation, something like this:
C = A + B + X(AB)**n + f(C)
which, to the extent an equation like this is useful, much better reflects the actual decision making process than A+B=C.
At the break, close to 20 people came up to me to thank me for what I said, “somebody had to say it,” and few others who liked what I said but seemed to be hearing this kind of an idea for the first time (I of course steered them to judithcurry.com)
More here h/t to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
A + B = C is fine is you define A, B, and C correctly.
A: incomplete and inconclusive scientific and disciplinary knowledge
B: speculative and exaggerated impacts of A, communication of A and its dubious impacts, and biased translation of A for policy makers
C: bogus policy
polistra says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Both views are equally naive.
Correct and complete equation: C = dP(s)/dT
where C is policy and P(s) is Profit by Speculators.
_____________________________________________________________
WOW, Now there is the true formula!
~FR says:
October 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I must seriously ask:
Why would UCAR (as described) be involved in policy except in the most abstract and general way?
Rule #1 is to keep the scientists and engineers AWAY from policy! Isn’t it??
Well FR. Writing from Australia where so many politicians are lawyers, many of whom understand little math science and no math (to speak of), perhaps I would have to disagree with your Rule#1!
Oops…..little science and no math
BS = f*n(a)
It seems to me our esteemed Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, has applied this mathematical axiom to Solyndra and its many cousins.
polistra says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:26 pm
That brings up an interesting question: to what extent can cynicism, both political and moral, be taken into account in any of the equations thrown out here? That is why I don’t mathematicize any policy processes or debates. Anthony is right, there is no use for linear equations here.
J Storrs Hall says: (October 8, 2011 at 12:45 pm) “It also needs to be mentioned at every turn that the policy side is just as uncertain as the science side. We’ve seen habitat destruction of endangered species for biofuels, the slaughter of innocent people for carbon credits…“
Please say this over and over everywhere.
Blah, blah, blah.
The problem is not that A+B=C is wrong. The problem is, A is wrong.
Pissing around looking for a better formula is nothing more than another pointless political shell game, if that formula has A in it.
Judith Curry is a stalking horse for the warmists, and her primary objective appears to be the attainment of warmist policy goals without relying on the (now obviously failing) warmist fairy tale.
The nutshell of Crow’s presentation is this:
A + B = C
■A: scientific and disciplinary knowledge
■B: impacts of A, communication of A and impacts, and translation A for policy makers
■C: policy
Crow argued that the emphasis needs to be on B, which requires an entirely new structure for universities.
“QED”, he concluded triumphantly. But suddenly Crow’s recurrent wet dream of omniscience and omnipotence was interrupted by the much greater urgency of his hunger. And thus he found himself crying out without restraint to his mother for his bottle….”or else!”
KUDOS to Judith.
Well done, Dr. Curry. Someone needed to say what you said, but few have had the courage. Thanks!
I think the equation is right, Ignorance + Apocalypse = Jaded Public.
A mistake made is trying to apply any sort of equation to politics. Politicians work on several motivations reduced to a few common sayings:
1. Without being in power, nothing else matters. Policies, motivations, intentions….nothing can be accomplished without first being in power.
2. Never get between a politician and a bucket of money.
3. A good politician doesn’t do what he/she thinks is right. Nor does a good politician do what the voters want. A good politician is effective at getting the voter to want what he/she wants.
The pro-AGW movement has been effective because they’ve been pushing the argument with continued lobbying and they’ve infiltrated the IPCC. They’ve been able to control the message up to this time. Judith Curry is quite correct. The pro-AGW argument was going to make a mockery of the term “climatologist”.
After changing the manner in which you communicate the message several times, one would think that at some point you would need to question the message itself, no?
“”””” mpaul says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm
When I hear climate scientist say that they need to “improve how they communicate the science to the public”, I assume that they intend to: (1) further exaggerate claims of catastrophe (2) further hide the uncertainty and (3) more aggressively stifle dissenting voices. I suppose its unfair for me to jump to this conclusion; but there is a lot of evidence that this is exactly what they mean. The fact that Michael Mann is taking a sabbatical to work on this “communication” project only strengthen my view that we can expect ‘hide the decline’ to be a central tenant of this new communications strategy. The thinking goes: since the public dismissed claims that there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, we now should say that there will be *100 million* climate refugees by 2020!! — surely that should get someone’s attention.
How pathetically misguided.
What the climate scientists seem to miss is that the general public is a lot smarter and better informed than the climate scientist recognize. People aren’t stupid just because they don’t have a PhD. “””””
……………………
People who don’t have a PhD are simply at a certain level of ignorance about whatever narrow specialty it is that they don’t have a PhD in. Those with the PhD simply lack the ignorance of that narrow specialty in which they have a PhD.
mpaul says:
October 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm
… The thinking goes: since the public dismissed claims that there will be 50 million climate refugees by 2010, we now should say that there will be *100 million* climate refugees by 2020!! — surely that should get someone’s attention…
—
Perhaps we should look at refugees who are victims of misguided policies. In the US, we are attempting to create 350 million thru regulation by turning off coal power plants and restricting energy use. We are turning food, corn and soybeans, into fuel for transportation. James Delingpole writes incessantly about the UK’s attempt to turn their population into refugees with windmills.
It isn’t global warming that create refugees, it is the attempt to fight climate change at all costs that is creates refugees. This is completely man made…
If one acceptable outcome of policy is to do nothing yet then these people have learned something. If the outcome is the notion that policy cannot allow doing nothing then the process has failed – restart.
“A + B = C”
What does the C stand for? Corruption?
Perhaps we should treat A, B, and C as complex numbers in that equation:
A: (scientific and disciplinary knowledge) + i(imaginary scientific and disciplinary knowledge)
B: ( impacts of A) + i(imaginary impacts of A)
C: (policy) + i(dreams)
JJ is right on.
I do find it ironic (but I’m not as cynical as some) that Judith Curry herself was not averse to using the term “Denier” to those who criticized AGW hysteria when she first introduced herself on Climate Audit.
How times have changed.
RobWansbeck wrote (October 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm):
Let A = 0
Then B = C
Hence policy can be determined entirely by ‘experts’ opinion without the need for any scientific knowledge at all.
It’s already been done. I can find several quotes from scientists and politicians saying (in effect): “It doesn’t matter whether we are right or wrong on the science; what matters is that we use it to carry on with our pet policies to [insert anti-human obsession of choice here].
abc science show in aus this saturday just gone 8th oct2011 late in the show yet again R williams spends time denigrating anyone daring question HIS agw mandates..bloody annoying. and he sunk the boot into Lord M and the other lord who dares disagree. as well as anyone else he could think of. promoting Paul nurses new show.
The man needs to be retired.before he causes more damage.
A+B=C
Shouldn’t there be a letter representing the change in grant amounts for research that supports the “right” answer? Or does that feedback from C?