UPDATE: Roger Pielke points out in an e-mail that the post I linked to was posted last summer. His comments in that post were clearly not made in the context of commenting on Holdren's nomination as presidential science adviser.
I mentioned (in a footnote) that John Tierney and Roger Pielke, Jr.think John Holdren was a bad choice for presidential science adviser. Tierney's and Pielke's concerns focus on "his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions" (Tierney) and his belief that "science compels political outcomes" (Pielke). I haven't followed Holdren's career closely,1 but Chris Mooney's quote from an interview sounds like what I'd expect him to say:
I mentioned (in a footnote) that John Tierney and Roger Pielke, Jr.think John Holdren was a bad choice for presidential science adviser. Tierney's and Pielke's concerns focus on "his tendency to conflate the science of climate change with prescriptions to cut greenhouse emissions" (Tierney) and his belief that "science compels political outcomes" (Pielke). I haven't followed Holdren's career closely,1 but Chris Mooney's quote from an interview sounds like what I'd expect him to say:
I don't think there are very many scientists naive enough to think that science should always determine outcomes, but you shouldn't defend outcomes by distorting the science.A key piece of evidence Tierney's and Pielke's complaint is an op-ed that Holdren wrote for the Boston Globe last summer. The conflation that concerns them is evident in the last paragraph:
The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.But is that really inconsistent with his response to Chris Mooney's question? I don't think so.
Anyone who's ever written an op-ed knows that you have only a few hundred words to make your point. That means that steps in logic that would be part of a complete argument elided, trusting that intelligent readers will be able to supply the missing steps.
In the case of Holdren's editorial, the steps in his logic seem pretty clear (even if they're not all there in the op-ed):
1I met him once about thirty years ago. When I was a graduate student at Stanford, he was on the faculty at Berkeley, and visited Stanford to give a seminar. I had dinner with him afterwards.
In the case of Holdren's editorial, the steps in his logic seem pretty clear (even if they're not all there in the op-ed):
- The science of climate change tells us that if CO2 emissions continue to grow at their current rate, it will "cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century."
- The science of climate change also tells us that it's very likely we'll see increases in the frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation, that it's likely we'll see more hurricanes, and that there is high confidence that many arid and semi-arid areas will have fewer water resources than they do now.
- The science of climate change also tells us that anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change and that delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts.
- These conclusions of climate science represent the consensus opinion of thousands of scientists working under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, not the strongly held opinions of one scientist or even a few.
- Because the conclusions of the IPCC represent such a broad consensus they provide a solid factual basis on which to make policy recommendations. In short, the science of climate change tells us that it is no longer
reasonable to ask whether humans are affecting climate. It's now time
to start
deciding what, if anything, we want to do anything about it. (That's
where the ethics, values, and policy come in. See next point.)
- Many of the consequences of climate change are undesirable, and the least desriable consequences are likely to fall on those least able to afford them. Important note: This point is the first place where ethical, moral, or aesthetic values enter the argument. Science can tell us what the consequences of actions are. Ethical, moral, or aesthetic judgement is required to tell us whether those consequences are desirable or undesirable.
- To avoid these undesirable consequences it is reasonable to consider policies that would reduce human impacts on climate now. Second important note: More ethical, moral, and aesthetic values come into play now in deciding whether costly action now is worth it to avoid even greater costs in the future or if it is better to defer action in the hope that better solutions will be found in the future. Climate science should inform these deliberations, by describing the consequences of different choices, although it cannot determine them.
- By causing people to think that there is significant doubt about human impacts on the climate, climate "skeptics" are preventing or delaying serious consideration of policies that could reduce human impacts on climate, and that delay makes the undesirable consequences of climate change even more likely. In other words, climate "skeptics"are making the world more dangerous.
1I met him once about thirty years ago. When I was a graduate student at Stanford, he was on the faculty at Berkeley, and visited Stanford to give a seminar. I had dinner with him afterwards.
Leave a comment