Justus For All

Count me as untroubled. One guy said to another guy that if he wanted to send out emails using the title of his (ceremonial) office (state climatologist) he had to run it by him first.

So let’s say that Justus For All hired an intern, and the intern distributed emails with the Justus For All imprimatur that Justus For All didn’t agree with. I would think that Justus For All would be justified in saying that emails with the Justus For All seal should be run by him first.

The guy who sent out these emails hasn’t been affected professionally one whit. Nor was he prevented from sending out emails on the subject at hand. He was merely told that if he was going to send emails using the name of the office of the state climatologist, he had to run it by the “state climatologist” first.

What’s the big deal?

It’s being blown out of proportion to fuel the anti-climate change knee jerks.

And the pro-climate change knee-jerks are jumping all over it.

The moderates, who think that there is a shift in the climate, just walk away, shaking their heads.

It has been bugging me these past few days.

I can not help but wonder how the scientific and lay debates on the health effects of smoking might have progressed had the resources and accessibility of the internet been available at that time. Even in comparative recent times it has been revealed that what was considered by our law-makers at the time to be “independant research” had in fact been improperly or falsely carried out, had not been subjected to proper peer review, or was carried out with the intent of creating or justifying a falsehood. Note that I have left open the question of “who” as I suspect that both sides were guilty of the same thing.

There have been rumblings of the same defective science through the climate change debate.

Time will tell I guess.

HP,

I don’t think your analogy is a very good one. Justus for All doesn’t claim to be non-partisan or objective.

A government supported scientific body is making that claim and we rely on that objectivity to create a factual framework on which our policy disagreements take place. Damaging that factual framework, which is something that appears to me to be happening (and yes, it is both ’sides’ that are causing this damage) is something to be concerned with.

Clearly, this specific controversy has little to do with ‘proof’ for or against global warming. It is more a case of someone embarassed someone else by pointing out that the facts were not as presented. The more scientific standing is given or taken away, and taking away that ’standing’ is what done here, on the basis of things besides scientific ability and rigour, then we won’t be able to rely on science very much at all.

All of the great triumphs of science are made by those who go against the ‘party line’ of the scientific establishment. That is not to say of course that scientific contrarians are necessarily right, indeed most often they are wrong, but without contrarians their is no progress. I believe that a scientific establishment that embraces (as much as possible) contrarians will yeild much better results then one that focuses on quashing all opposition.

I fear that the global warming debate, along with some other very policially charged scientific debates, is moving our scientific establishment toward enforcing uniformity. Some would say that the end of combating global warming justifies that movement. I think that even if the worst case scenarios of global warming prove correct, this increasing group think pressure is not justified, and even in danger of denying us the very tools we will need to combat this, and other, future problems.

Justus for All doesn’t claim to be non-partisan or objective.

So what? Even if something claims to be non-partisan or objective it’s possible for people distributing material under its name to misrepresent its position.

Clearly, this specific controversy has little to do with ‘proof’ for or against global warming. It is more a case of someone embarassed someone else by pointing out that the facts were not as presented.

The way that I read the story that you linked to, there was an internal disagreement in this body, and the person in charge of the body was unhappy that one guy was public distributing his side of the deliberations within the body in its name before a consensus was reached on the correct number in question (which did not seem to be the position of the so-called dissenter).

Those skeptics that you celebrate were still free in this case to make the contrary scientific arguments, and in this case it did actually lead to a change in the number that was set forth. The point here is that a guy made representations in the name of a group when it really was just the view of a party on one side of an internal debate within the group.

Even if something claims to be non-partisan or objective it’s possible for people distributing material under its name to misrepresent its position.

‘Science’ doesn’t have a position though. It should allow, and even as I argue above, encourage dissent to some extent. By not doing so, the State Climetologist department erodes both its ability to do science, and the ability for the public to trust its pronouncements. That is what I am concerned about. The various highly regarded scientific bodies and organizations that are studying climate change are going to be very important for all of us in evaluating our options. If they cannot be trusted we will lose a very important tool.

I think you do need to reread the article. The scenario you present does not in fact seem to be what happened. No where does it indicate that Albright, the dissenter in this case, presented his views and findings as the official position of the State Climatoligist office. Although it doesn’t say, it does seem reasonable to suppose that he did include the fact that he was an Associate State Climatoligist in his emails.

Mote, who disagreed with Albright, demanded that Albright let him preview any emails before he sent them out. Anderson refused, and then Mote stripped him of his title.

The question is, in my mind, is this a good way to promote the best science. I strongly disagree it that is. If Albright was shown to be a bad scientist, using faulty methods and reasoning then I would support stripping him of this title. Disagreeing with the boss though isn’t a good reason, and if only scientific positions that agree with the boss can be advanced, we won’t have very good science in the future.

That this doesn’t trouble you, troubles me.

‘Science’ doesn’t have a position though. It should allow, and even as I argue above, encourage dissent to some extent.

The question is not whether “science” has a position. The question is whether this (seemingly toothless) group, the State Climatologist, has a position. Given that there are controversies in science — which you acknowledge given that you think dissenters should be heard out — then this group or whatever it is would have a position on the controversy.

The scenario you present does not in fact seem to be what happened. No where does it indicate that Albright, the dissenter in this case, presented his views and findings as the official position of the State Climatoligist office.

A direct quote from the article:

Mote, upset that Albright was broadly distributing e-mails about the issue, last week told Albright that he would have to let Mote preview any e-mails before sending them out, if he was tying his work to the state climatologist’s office.

I remain, humbly, unalarmed.

By not doing so, the State Climetologist department erodes both its ability to do science, and the ability for the public to trust its pronouncements. That is what I am concerned about.

I disagree.

Mote, upset that Albright was broadly distributing e-mails about the issue, last week told Albright that he would have to let Mote preview any e-mails before sending them out, if he was tying his work to the state climatologist’s office.

Ok, so if Albright is going to represent himself as a speaker for a state agency, he needs to have his statements vetted. Not a real problem. I imagine that most organizations would like public spokespersons to have their statements vetted.

When Albright refused Mote’s ultimatum, Mote barred him from associating himself with the state climatologist’s office.

Ok, so if Albright does not play by the rules, he is not allowed in the sandbox. Again, not a problem.

Mote said Albright was sending out messages showing just his side of the story, and airing an analysis that hadn’t gone through proper quality checks. As a representative of the climatologist’s office, there needed to be standards, he said

Again, any group is going to want to make sure that statements made, which are tied to said group, are representative of that group. This is not quashing debate, This is simply insuring that a groups message is representative of the group. If Albright still thinks that things are wrong, there is nothing stopping him from investigating further and publishing those results. He simply cannot do so, claiming to represent a group that did not have the chance to review his statements.

I imagine that most organizations would like public spokespersons to have their statements vetted.

I don’t disagree that organizations prefer this. The question is, do WE, the public and ultimately the owners of this organization, want only the ‘official’ word on this, or do we want the best science, including points of disagreement to be public.

Ok, so if Albright does not play by the rules, he is not allowed in the sandbox. Again, not a problem.

Is this new rule good? Obviously at least one other scientist, Moss, claims it is a radical development in how the department conducts itself and is not a good way to get the best science.

This is not something we can, or should be disinterested in. These organizations belong to us, the public, and we certainly have every right to weigh in on how they conduct our business.