Charges that the Bush Administration and its allies have been interfering with scientific inquiry have been advanced for several years. See this 2003 Article. Recently, a White House aide was identified as softening the wording of scientific reports regarding climate change prior to their release. See this NYT Article. This individual has now left the White House to return to a job in the fossil fuel industry.

Now, prompted by a Wall Street Journal editorial, Representative Joe Barton, has used his position as Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to request burdensome background information on specific research together with enormous amounts of irrelevant data from individual scientists. See Barton Letter. Some of the scientists have responded cogently (see Michael Mann Letter. Other letters, statements and editorials can be found at the Real Climate Website which prompted this posting.

Is political interference destructive of scientific advance?

What is the proper role of Congress and the executive in overseeing federal funds appropriated for scientific research?

Should a particular legislator's or official's personal opinion on climate change influence his(her) oversight role?

Is political interference destructive of scientific advance?

Well, yes, that goes without saying. There has been plenty of political interference by the Bush Administration in the work of government scientists. This does not qualify as interference but I think it a mild form of harassment.

What is the proper role of Congress and the executive in overseeing federal funds appropriated for scientific research?
It should be nothing more than to verify that the appropriate scientific standards are adhered to. I was astounded to discover that the basis of Congressman Barton's questioning of Dr. Mann's work was an article in a nonscientific publication. The tone of the letter that the Congressman sent is definitely inquisitorial; I think it shameful.

Should a particular legislator's or official's personal opinion on climate change influence his(her) oversight role?[/quote]
I think that's appropriate; they are, after all, politicians. But they should confine themselves to a basic standard of propriety. Hassling individual working scientists about their work is completely improper and the science is way out of the Congressman's league. He should leave scientific disputes to the scientists. If he wants to understand an issue, he should request a report from the National Academy of Sciences, which was established for exactly this purpose.

By the way, the link you provided led me to www.realclimate.org, which is a fascinating site. These guys are the real thing, with none of the politicized garbage that so often clutters up debates on sites like this one. I found their material quite illuminating. Would that more of the know-nothings who post ignorant material on this site would read real science from real scientists. Thanks for the link!

Erasmussimo


I guess we are talking to ourselves here. Too many real facts, I guess. I had hoped that this topic would stimulate some meaningful discussion of the right wing and fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign and subsequent politicalization of the science. RealClimate.org is an attempt by some scientists to counter that campaign but is only a drop in the bucket compared to the misinformation that is posted. Almost all of such posting are easy to shoot down one at a time but the overall effect is convince most people that there is substantial disagreement among climate scientists when in, reality, the consensus is becoming broader and broader.

By the way, I like your ID. Eramus has always been one of my favorite people in history. Your reasoned posting conform to his legacy.

Is political interference destructive of scientific advance?

The IPCC has similar problems with political pressure to omit data or exaggerate. That has not stopped them from becoming one of the most cited groups for climate change.


Should a particular legislator's or official's personal opinion on climate change influence his(her) oversight role?

Yes, that is why they are elected officials. If climate change starts having a real effect on American's lives then they should do something. Right now there is no trouble.

“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass.” Mark Twain

Can you provide us with any examples of such pressures? I am not aware of any such pressures, and certainly nothing as heavy-handed as the case that motivated this topic.

...and this would differ from the left wing and the environmental industry's disinformation campaign and subsequent politicalization of the science....how, exactly? Politicalization of science has been going on since, well, forever. Its a human failing. It's not unique to either party...to think so is, well, to ignore the facts. Not that I like it, but I reject the implied assumption in the questions and the statement above that this is a uniquely right-wing issue. Far from it. We could get into a debate as to which side is the worst offender, but that's not really worthwhile either, as no one is likely to state that any such politicalization is a good thing. But, if you really want 'meaningful discussion', you'll have to accept the fact that both parties are guilty of this activity. If not, I think you'll find this a very one-sided conversation, as those you wish to engage in the discussion will simply not participate due to the biased nature of the questions (which, by the way, also removes any objectivity from the discussion, thereby practicing bad science).

As a political institution, the IPCC is under the weight of its own pressure to promote Global Warming. Where or not this is as "heavy handed" as the Bush administration is subject to the subjective opinions of political ideologues.

Is scientific research and its methodologies now beyond challenge?

The letter to these scientists is an effort to clear up a question brought by other scientists regarding the reproducibility of the results of those studies. This is absolutely a must if the science is to be believed.

From the letter:



The claims made in the Mann study are either reproducible or they're not. If they are not, then the claims must be either discarded or viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Asking a scientist for clarification is exactly the right think to do in this case.

Now, that being said, Mr. Mann's return letter to is entirely appropriate and satisfactory. He does get a bit defensive, but as a whole, his response is reasoned and cogent.


I'm not quite sure how the questions for debate relate to this request for information from Dr. Mann. Joe Barton is certainly not a member of the Bush Administration, as he is a Congressman.

Is political interference destructive of scientific advance?

Is it interference to ask for additional information if you have some conflicting opinions? I don't think so, but your mileage may vary I guess.

What is the proper role of Congress and the executive in overseeing federal funds appropriated for scientific research?

This question deserves a topic unto itself. However, in short, the Congress has absolute power over where it spends the taxpayers' money. This includes federal research dollars. It must therefore be assured that research it funds is done in a proper manner. I think that's what this letter was about.

Should a particular legislator's or official's personal opinion on climate change influence his(her) oversight role?

Every individual is biased by their own preconceptions. It is impossible to escape.

Yes, there have been accusations that the IPCC is politically biased. We can take comfort in the knowledge that those accusations have been limited to a few individuals; the IPCC work is carried out by hundreds of scientists and we should expect that there will always be a handful who find flaws in the process. The undeniable fact, however, is that the objections are raised by a handful, a tiny percentage of the overall group.

Amlord quotes the Congressman's letter to the effect that challenges have been offered in peer-reviewed literature. I refer you to the link presented earlier to realclimate.org. It points out that, in fact, the objections were not raised in peer-reviewed literature. The periodical Energy & Environment is a political periodical, not a scientific one, and its material is not peer-reviewed. I don't know about Geophysical Research Letters specifically, but the general rule is that "letters" periodicals are not peer-reviewed; they exist to quickly disseminate early results and therefore skip the time-consuming peer-review process. Thus, the objections raised by the Congressman have no peer-reviewed foundation; they might as well be letters to the editor in the Hoboken Daily News.

Again, clarification of such issues should come from the National Academy of Sciences, not individual scientists.

I guess this ends the debate on this topic. Since you cast aside accusations of political bias in the IPCC I guess we can do the same thing with the accusations agasint the government.

ahem*
Yes, there have been accusations that the government's scientific reports are politically biased. We can take comfort in the knowledge that those accusations have been limited to a few individuals; hundreds of employees carry out the government’s scientific work and we should expect that there will always be a handful who find flaws in the process.

I am happy we sorted that out.

You overlook the fact that the complaints against the Congressman were raised by a great many scientists at a variety of highly-regarded institutions. While the scientists who object to the IPCC process are certainly reputable, they are much fewer in number than those who have objected to the Congressman's letter.

Despite your best efforts to gloss over the political aspects of this side debate, it defeats your argument. The IPCC is indeed a political institution; it serves the political interest in advancing the climate change debate. You can debate those merits if you wish by trivializing those that question the IPCC’s interests, but as you can see (perhaps that's a stretch) from above it is less than convincing.

And what, precisely, is the "it" to which you refer?


If you mean to say that IPCC biases its science for political reasons, I'd like to see some sort of documentation from its charter or funding that asserts the political agenda that IPCC is required to pursue.

Here is a letter from Rick Piltz, a government scientist for 14 years, who resigned in March of this year so he could speak out on the politizing of government sponsored science by this administration. The letter is quite comprehensive and detailed but concludes with this summation,

Piltz Letter.

I missed this when it came out. It should have been referenced as part of our discussion.

Follow the money. There is plenty of money to be made by interested parties if the process of global climate change can be denied. This money would be made by parties with a lot of influence and money with which to purchase their faulty science. Alternatively, there is only a little money to be made by interested parties if the process of global climate change is widely recognized by the American public, and it would generally be made by parties currently with little money or influence.

Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait until climate change hits home to most people, and then it will probably be too late.

Here is the flip side to your ideological perspective. Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that Global Warming is not harmful (I know this will be difficult), but many of the Government's of the world are able to pass energy taxes to “prevent harmful climate change.” This new tax revenue is money and I imagine many government officials see this as a cash cow if the public becomes scared enough. With taxes and regulations, there is plenty of money to be made.

An interesting conjecture, but most governments are using a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions, not a tax. In other words, they are not using fear of global warming to raise taxes. If you can find a single case of a government using fear of global warming to institute a new tax that is not revenue-neutral, by all means, present your evidence. Absent such evidence, you are engaging in idle speculation.

Erasmuss, I am surprised you put the bar so low for me. New Zealand has a Global Warming Tax and I am sure you have heard about the discussion of carbon taxes in the US. If you live in New Zealand, it must be great to know you are paying around $150 a year to reduce global warming.

The idea that oil companies are going to lose money if Global Warming is a problem is idle speculation, I am sure they'll adapt and find new ways to gouge the public. I suspect they have already found ways to make money on this issue.

Your source does not indicate whether this is a revenue-neutral tax, but your source is relying on a previous source that does specifically state:


So your suggestion that governments have incentives to use CO2 taxes to raise revenue runs counter to actual practice.

I love this new "neutral tax revenue" rhetoric. It is almost like an oxymoron. History is littered with taxes that were in the “best interest of society” at the time, but are still on the books well after their designed purpose. When did the word of a government representative become infallible? Given the nature of government bureaucracy, it is almost impossible for the economist in me to believe that a “neutral tax” is possible in a field as complicated as tax policy. However, for bureaucrats it is a nice talking point for future tax increases.

Look, if you want to debate whether revenue-neutral taxes are really just a lie perpetrated by governments, feel free to start a new topic on that question. The logic here is that you suggested that governments would use carbon taxes to increase revenue, and when challenged to provide an example, offered the only carbon tax in the world and did not mention that it is revenue-neutral and the New Zealand government has declared that they do not intend to increase revenues, in direct contradiction to your statement. There is no substantiation for your original suggestion.

Your suggestion of a “neutral tax" is the shaky ground on which you are challenging my assertion. Quoting a government talking point does not disprove my original analysis. The government can justify raising taxes in any way it seem fit, but to suggest that it is possible to create tax that is simply “offset” by something else is absurd. Especially when considering the nature of an energy tax. Without going into much detail, there are carbon taxes in parts of Europe as well. New Zealand is not the only state to implement them. I had no idea that the word of the New Zealand government was so dependable. Feel free to disagree with my initial statement, but it is not dismissed quite that easily.

We are drifting far from the topic, so I will suggest that we agree to disagree. I believe that, when a government declares a new tax to be revenue-neutral, they mean it. You believe that governments are liars in this regard. Let's just leave it at that.


You're right there, but the truth is complicated. Here's a quote from the article I cited earlier:

Roger A. Pielke Sr. has resigned from the CCSP due to the political pressures involved. I found this news on the corner. Mr. Pielke feels his "work is not only being marginalized for political reasons but that the tactics used by the "consensus" view (media briefings, etc) are not in keeping with the ideals of the scientific process." Another example of padding the consensus.

I think you're misrepresenting the situation here. Relying solely on Dr. Pielke's representation of the events as provided in your link, several inferences seem obvious:

Dr. Pielke was invited to join the group specifically because he represented a minority opinion. He was invited to write a chapter presenting his views. So far, this looks like an admirable attempt to include minority viewpoints. Indeed, there is no indication from his representation of the facts that his contribution was being edited or altered in any fashion unacceptable to him.

His objection, if you read carefully, is not to the actual report itself, but rather to peripheral aspects of the process. First, he objects that an ad hoc replacement chapter had been "introduced" and that "several members of the Committee immediately adopted the new version which is in substantive conflict with the protocol of preparing the report." Note that he is not claiming that his chapter had been replaced, only that several other members had expressed their preference for the ad hoc chapter. No decision had been made on the question. Dr. Piekle's ire is directed at individuals within the committee, not the operation of the committee itself.

His second objection is that an article in the New York Times presented findings before the report was completed. However, in Dr. Pielke's own blog, the New York Times reporter denies Dr. Pielke's accusation:

It appears that Dr. Pielke's objection here is not to the committee's report, but to the fact that a news story about the report did not include his version.

Dr. Pielke also makes the counterintuitive complaint that "This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies." It appears that Dr. Pielke would prefer that the assessment report should be written by people who were not directly involved involved in the studies that underlie the report. Whom would he prefer -- political appointees? ice cream truck drivers? graduate students?

Reading between the lines, what I see is a scientist with a minority point of view who was brought into the process specifically because of his minority point of view, argued hard for his point of view, and failed to convince the majority of the correctness of his claims. They nevertheless gave him authority over one chapter and required him to work out a consensus with his colleagues on that chapter -- something he apparently failed to do. He is now unhappy that his point of view did not receive the prominence he feels that it deserves.

Nowhere does he claim that his point of view is being censored or denied a place in the report. His complaint arises from his completely subjective perception that his contribution deserves greater weight in the final report than it has been accorded. This is not "padding the consensus".