Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen – 1 March 2022
There has been a new idea proposed in the Climate Science (CliSci) world. I want to go on record publicly, right here and right now, making it clear that I am 100% on board with this idea. Not only that, I think it is long overdue.
Your friend and mine, The New York Times, gives us the good news in an article titled: “These Climate Scientists Are Fed Up….”. It tells us that Bruce C. Glavovic, a very prolific working scientist who works out of Massey University in New Zealand and is the co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Ocean & Coastal Management. ”He was Coordinating Lead Author of the sea-level rise chapter in the IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and is a Lead Author and Cross-Chapter Paper Lead in the IPCC’s Working Group II contribution to AR6.” [see Notes on Contributors ]
Glavovic, Timothy F. Smith and Iain White are mad and sad. They are so sad and so mad that they published a comment [note: a “Comment is an opinion piece on a topic of broad interest”] in the journal Climate and Development last December (apparently, news travels from New Zealand to New York slowly) which is featured in the Times piece: the comment is simply titled: The tragedy of climate change science.
In the abstract they say:
““The science-society contract is broken.”
“We explore three options for the climate change science community. We find that two options are untenable and one is unpalatable. Given the urgency and criticality of climate change, we argue the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.”
I love it when I can agree with people I probably would otherwise disagree with.
However, Glavovic’s entire argument pivots on what he deems the “science-society contract”. What does he think that contract is? Glavovic refers to Jane Lubchenco’s 1998 essay “Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science”. Lubchenco proposed:
“I propose that the scientific community formulate a new Social Contract for science. … This contract represents a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding. …. The Contract should be predicated upon the assumptions that scientists will (i) address the most urgent needs of society, in proportion to their importance; (ii) communicate their knowledge and understanding widely in order to inform decisions of individuals and institutions; and (iii) exercise good judgment, wisdom, and humility.”
And what is needed for there to be a valid contract between two parties?
Most contracts only need to contain two elements to be legally valid: 1. All parties must be in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other). 2. Something of value must be exchanged – such as cash, services, or goods … for something else of value. [source]
Lubchenco proposes that scientists (as an enterprise) “commit to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
That is already the general system under which science is funded – though who supplies the funding is far more diversified than that simple statement implies – governments, foundations, industry, individuals, corporations all fund science. At issue is who decides what the most pressing issues of the day might be and who should be funded to do the work. The Lubchenco’s contract is an idealization, of course. Scientists are not puzzle pieces or interchangeable resources that can be allocated to this or that. But I think we can agree, with some latitude, that the public supports science in exchange for better understandings that help solve the problems of today and make possible advances for the public good.
So, if present society is generally keeping Lubchenco’s science-society contract (albeit loosely), why does Glavovic say it is broken? His explanation is quite long but can be paraphrased as “we scientists did our work, told you what was wrong, complied evidence of the great harms being done by climate change and even after all the science was in and settled, society still isn’t doing what we told them to do.” Somehow, Glavovic came to think that it was the job of science to tell society what it must do and then see that society did it – supplying the knowledge, the preferred policy solution, and the enforcement of that policy.
You may not agree with my interpretation of his point, but that’s pretty close.
Glavovic, Smith and White propose three options for the climate change science community which they characterize as “two options are untenable and one is unpalatable.”
1. “The first is continuation of climate change science as usual. We carry on. Deliver more science. Collect more evidence of deleterious impacts……Given that climate change science is ‘settled’, and has been for decades, we argue that this course runs counter to our own scientific training of collecting and reflecting upon the evidence. The evidence shows that the science-society contract is broken. The first option is therefore not tenable.”
2. “The second option is intensified social science research and advocacy on climate change. It focuses on better understanding why action has not occurred, and how to enable the behavioural and institutional changes required to contain global warming and climate change impacts….. There is no evidence that more social science research and traditional forms of advocacy will lead to transformative action within the timeframes required to avert dire climate change consequences. The second option is therefore also not tenable.“
3. “The third option is much more radical. Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide robust knowledge. We now need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation, and focus instead on exposing and renegotiating the broken science-society contract. … We call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and urgently mobilize coordinated action from the local to global levels. This third option is the only effective way to arrest the tragedy of climate change science.“
Now I know that opinions will vary, as they must, but I think Glavovic et al. mischaracterize the science-society contract. Luchenco certainly didn’t include public policy formulation and execution on the science side of the contract. That is on the society side. The science society contract is not broken, rather, Glavovic is trying to add a new clause to the contract, one that requires society to comply with the opinions of science on what public policies should be formulated and what actions — governmental/societal/individual – must follow.
Society’s lawyer needs to show the contract to Glavovic and explain, in simple non-lawyer English – “Sorry, that ain’t in the contract!”
And while I disagree with Glavovic about the contents of the contract, I do agree with his ultimate solution and think it would be a great benefit to all. So, I join Glavovic’s call for climate scientists to:
STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE !
Climate scientists (and their politicized commissions, agencies, and organizations) “need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation” and do something useful instead.
Stop “collecting more evidence of deleterious impacts”
Stop pumping out endless reams of reports falsely predicting doom and destruction!
Stop trying to dictate to society what values they should favor when facing the problems of the world.
It never being good so emphasize the only the negative, I suggest these following activities to keep them busy during the coming decades of inactivity during their strike:
1. Continue with and concentrate on research on how the climate system of Earth really works. The causes and effects and interrelationships of forces.
2. Increase research into the effects of solar cycles and changing outputs on the Earth climate system. The sun being the source of all the energy coming into our climate system.
3. Follow interesting lines of inquiry into what happens to all that incoming energy and find ways to harness more of it so that less efficient energy sources can be abandoned.
4. As certain geophysical forces are not going to stop or slow down at our command, research to discover the best no-regrets adaptation solutions for problems that are inevitable.
5. Research how the positive effects of changing climate can be turned even further to our advantage – for both humanity and for the rest of the living environment.
So, hit the picket lines! And when you are tired of marching – do something far more useful.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
I wish Glavovic and his pals good luck with the strike. I hope they make more announcements so I have something more to write about.
Happy to hear from all of you about 1) The contract 2) Glavovic’s solutions.
Please indicate if you will be joining the Strike!
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Advice is not mandatory.
Phillip ==> Yes, but only once we have left home and struck out on our own….
Kip: I was still living at home when I told my father this.
Phillip ==> Brave lad….
In my childhood household, advice was just parental noise….
The only ‘settled science‘ in this entire thing is that matter/substance/stuff can, sometimes does sometimes does not, absorb electromagnetic radiation.
When it does absorb, the temperature of the substance will rise.
When it does not absorb, the radiation reflects/refracts/scatters and goes elsewhere in search of colder matter/substance/stuff or place that may, may not, absorb it.
Thus demonstrating that we live in a cooling universe. ##
i.e. A very basic observation so intuitive that no-one even notices yet completely trashes any and every explanation (that I’ve ever seen) of the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
In a minor discussion elsewhere, I mentioned the 200 climate scientists at Leeds University.
Yes – the hard working scientists whose sole distinction to date is that they’ve named 6 glaciers in/on Antarctica – while costing the fee-paying students of Leeds Uni easily £20+ Million annually for salaries and office space.
The reply I got, clearly from someone who actually does understand the GHGE, was that that simply demonstrated the need for more climate scientists.
Possibly the same guy who thinks there really will be some salvageable cars off the Felicity Ace, as she now rests peacefully at the bottom of The Atlantic.
More sanguine folks thought we should go there and retrieve the diesel fuel that previously powered the old tub. Before it escapes and pollutes The World.
## Assuming we are actually alive, that A one or more Universe(s) do exist and this is not some surreal dream played out in a total vacuum
Entirely begging the question, will that Total Vacuum have the same properties that the vacuums we all know & love have?
Why indeed do vacuums have any properties at all?
Surely – Shirley says they should not.
“Shirley” should rule the world, not these jumped up, pretentious and spoilt brats.
Nice, Peta.
My wife Shirley already runs the world, Peta; jobs taken.
what a ridiculous bluff. no new “research” means no new yellow journalism headlines. means fewer acolytes
I keep wondering why the models get updated when they were all correct decades ago.
The “contract” between society and scientists is a fuzzy thing. In the abstract, it’s a bit like this: society funds research to levels that society determines to be reasonable, and scientists have to submit grant applications to show some degree of relevance or utility to their proposed research. Sometimes, the results of research lead to discoveries that have practical applications, and society benefits in material ways (e.g. Crick & Watson, structure of DNA, where society’s return on investment is almost too large to comprehend). Other times, society gets profound and important understanding that doesn’t have much immediate material use but alters society in fundamental ways (e.g. Darwin, natural selection, starting to loosen the grip of organised religion on the rest of us).
In the case of climate science, the “contract” was deliberately perverted from day 1 by society itself (in the person of one of its leaders). It goes back to the early 1980s, when Thatcher made a decision for purely political reasons; in the words of Nigel Calder* “she said, there’s money on the table if you can prove it (AGW), so of course that’s what they did”. It led to the creation of the CRU at UEA. The moment that society asks – and pays for – an answer, any objectivity that scientists might have had, starts to get eroded by the lure of prestige and career-building. And that was the foundation stone of modern “Climate Science – Where the Answers Come First™”
Over a 40-year period, Climate Science has metastasised into this huge, ever-expanding, self-sustaining, self-important, self-reverential monstrosity that spans the globe and permeates governments, corporations, academies, religions and ruling elites in all our liberal democracies. A lot of its growth is due to its having been taken over at the management level by political actors with a rather specific agenda who see it as one of their most important tools. It probably never occurs to these narcissists who are threatening to go on strike, that they are helping to fulfill the dreams of Antonio Gramsci (who theorised that Marxism could only achieve control of industrialised democracies by taking over their cultural institutions, not by revolution).
These self-appointed strikers are evidence that the “contract” has mutated to the point where science is telling society what to do, and society has been meekly obeying. The tail is wagging the dog. And I don’t think that the dog has even realised it yet.
“from memory, may not be totally accurate”
The facts in this comment are flaky. I don’t believe the Calder quote, or at least that Thatcher said it. CRU was founded in 1972, when Heath was PM. But I don’t believe that event created any sort of contract between Science and Society. That would be a very parochial view.
Thank you, Nick, for the statement of your belief.
It is ironic, however, that CRU was set up by Hubert Lamb when he left the the Met Office and UEA offered start up money which matched funds that Lamb had already secured from oil and gas company Shell.
Dave ==> Lamb was a real scientist — and diligently sought for the truth about climate and weather.
Glavovic, Smith and White: “Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus.”
The underlined phrase is laughable, and invoking consensus merely parlays Cook’s fakery into a preferred narrative.
I agree with Kip’s recommendations, especially with their subtext, which argues that the way forward is that science be resurrected in the field of climate.
Science has been moribund there, if not dead, for 34 years exactly because of the incompetence of Glavovic, Smith, and White, and their ilk.
Yes, “Cook’s fakery” unfortunately, has penetrated a lot of minds and caused them to have a false picture of reality, leading to bad decisions.
They cannot imagine that what they want to happen is not happening because the technology does not exist or it’s not economically practical, so it must be those darn climate change deniers. We’ll show’em.
Tom.1 ==> We are trying to show them….
Timothy F. Smith and Iain White could have joined the management of Bell Labs after Judge Green was done breaking up AT&T. The entire organization pivoted from lots of ‘blue sky’ research (which generated a number of Nobel Prizes) to research with an eventual product in mind.
The climate isn’t doing what we predicted and the more time that passes the more obvious it will become to everybody, so let’s stop the research and get on with creating the one world government utopia.
I did enjoy their public admission as to what our university social science taxeaters have been up to alongside climastrology-
The second option is intensified social science research and advocacy on climate change
and concluding more of it is futile. Presumably we can give them the chop right now while awaiting the climastrologist strike. A 97% immediate saving in salaries you’d reckon.
observa ==> The Social Science side of this is that some are so absolutely convinced that they are right about the coming catastrophe that they really do think that anyone who doesn’t agree is mentally retarded or mentally ill. OR there is something crazy going on in society that prevents the general public from seeing the light.
“Maybe we’re not saying it right?” “The Koch brothers must be winning the propaganda war?” “Those nasty oil companies are hiding the truth?”
Climate scientists go on strike and nobody notices or cares.
Climate scientists are distraught and devastated.
Climate scientists turn to the psychologists who have been treating people for climate anxiety.
These academics really should be facing an investigation.
Had another in calgary talk radio the other day hyping the latest IPCC summary, 2 minutes of fact free ranting I was not allowed to counter
Sea level rise 5-10x a decade ago (not kidding)
“Unprecedented” BC 2021 fire season (30 seconds on google shows 65% of record, ie not unprecedented)
Ad nauseum
And no push back for radio talking head of course
I like the strike idea. But, while they are on strike, I think they should stay away from laboratories and research.
There is a crying need for truck drivers. I think all those climate scientists should get CDLs and drive trucks until the strike is settled.
Win-win. Right?
Walter ==> Yeah, imagine Michael Mann with a long beard listening to country music and chatting on the CB — now that’s what I call TRUCKIN’!
97% of the population would never realise they were on strike. He sounds like a complete fool, overfull of his own sense of importance.
Are they so stupid that they don’t understand trust is the basis of the “contract”.
They have blown it with 4 decades of over egging it.
Pronouncing certainty when it was obvious there was none. Hubris reigning over science. And they went along with it.
Suck it up princesses, you made the bed by being unscientific in the extreme, made it by being activists.
You need to earn back that trust, not demand it be given when you have conclusively shown your ilk to be “the ends justifies the means” types.
This is Atlas Shrugged in the funhouse mirror! In this case the State Science Institute goes on strike, as opposed to the producers in Rand’s novel. Worked to conclusion, this only becomes a victory by John Galt & company. Climate “scientists”, keep up the good work!
I’ve been thinking of going on strike myself. Unless our leaders do something to mitigate the effects of climate change, I will refuse to lie around, drink whisky, watch TV all day and be morally superior to everybody else on the planet Earth. Somebody else will have to do those things, because I will cease to do them until i get action.
I’m serious. Somebody else is going to be wise, all-knowing, humble and drunk, because I quit. Well, maybe not the drunk part. Whisky doesn’t drink itself, God knows, so it would be irresponsible to just let it stack up, and perhaps inundate the world. Never mind rising sea levels. Rising whisky levels would be a tragedy that we might best avoid.
This is very revealing when you think about it.
It means the entire reason they were doing the science was to produce a change in society. That was the reason for doing it.
Whereas science is about collecting data and producing theories. Proper science is not about doing science as a type of campaigning tool. It’s up to the rest of society to decide what actions to take, if any, when the science is communicated to it.
option 3 BUT only if they strike for at least 10yrs to allow us to have a gen of kids who havent been mindwiped and to work on the ones that have been
oh lordy to NOT hear daily drivel claims re co2 n warming would be BLISS!
Oh noes! Look what we’ve gone and done – made the Climate Cookoos, Cluckers, and Caterwaulers mad and sad. How dare we! Any minute now, shame will set in.
Still waiting.
Taking longer than I thought.
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
AR6, WG1 report (from last September), section 1.2.3.1, “Climate change understanding, communication, and uncertainties”, page 1-29 :
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” — Richard Feynman
AR6, Box 1.1, “Treatment of uncertainty and calibrated uncertainty language in AR6”, page 1-31 :
“I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers which cannot be questioned.” — Richard Feynman
Mark ==> Physics hasn’t been much fun since Dick Feynman passed.
Or this one from immunologist Peter Medawar
“I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this. The intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not.”
Dave ==> Terrific quote!
I would add a corollary: “The more convinced you are of your hypothesis, he more critical you should be of your own results.”
Such people confirm my long ago observation that the dumber a person is, the more unshakable are their opinions. That’s probably a corrolary of the Dunning- Kreuger effect.
Since Obama has recently bought 2 multi million dollar *Ocean front* homes, he doesn’t seem too concerned