Book Review - The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming, by Roger Pielke, Jr.

Since the Pielke's (father and son) are often in the climate discussion news, I figured this would be a good book review to post here.  That said, the book is primarily for policy wonks and not so much for the general public. Pielke, Jr. is a well known political science professor and blogger who often blogs on climate change issues. His father, Roger Pielke, Sr., is a renowned climate scientist, so while Pielke, Jr. is not a climate scientist per se, he does bring considerable insight garnered from years of interaction with his father and his own career that includes working as a student assistant at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and elsewhere.

Not surprisingly, the title is a misnomer since the book doesn't actually offer a "fix" to man-made climate change. If it were that easy there would be no need for his book. The publisher's subtitle "What scientists and politicians won't tell you about global warming" is unfortunate, because it attempts to create a controversy where there really is none.  Publishers do that to sell books.  Beyond that distraction, the book is generally well-written and focuses in on the real problem - what policy options do we have to deal with climate change. This point in itself is important as Pielke, Jr. acknowledges up front the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that human activity is the primary reason, and that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are major factors in the warming of the planet. That scientific point put aside, he focuses the majority of the book on policy.

The author spends a lot of time talking about decarbonization policies around the world, what has worked and what has not worked, and his views as to why. Pielke discusses the concept of an "iron law of climate policy," which essentially acknowledges that any policy that might be construed to cause short-term adverse economic impact cannot be implemented. Needless to say, this creates a significant barrier to policy action. Here also, in my opinion, is revealed one weakness of the book, as he tends not to discuss how certain protectors of the status quo take advantage of this "iron law" to create false understanding of the potential for such adverse economic impact. This follows along with the few places where Pielke digresses from policy to find fault with scientists' not being perfect but overlooks the intentional disinformation campaigns of the denialist community.

But those are minor quibbles in what I would consider a very worthwhile book. Pielke explores in great detail the trials and tribulations of various economic policy options, and addresses the limitations of geoengineering as a long-term adaptation alternative. He also discusses his view of "how climate policy went off course." Some of what he says I do not agree with, and some of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly, but in both cases he addresses the issues thoughtfully and honestly (though not without his own bias). Perhaps the most important contribution of this book is how he communicates the difficulties that stand in the way of taking much needed policy action. While he clearly doesn't offer a "climate fix," anyone interested in finding a policy path forward, and is wonkish enough to get into the details, will find Pielke's book an informative view of the issues. For scientists and the general public, I would recommend Pielke's earlier book, The Honest Broker.

Will the Real Roger Pielke Please Stand Up?

A while back I wrote a piece from a book by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. called The Honest Broker. In my article I mentioned the four idealized roles of scientists in Pielke's view: The Pure Scientist, the Science Arbiter, the Issue Advocate, and the Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives. After I published the piece it was pointed out to me that Pielke is a "climate skeptic." Since I'm about to write a follow up piece on another concept Pielke raises in the Honest Broker, I thought it worth looking into Pielke further. And here the plot thickens.

To begin with, there are two Roger A. Pielke's, Jr. and Sr. Both are professors and both have expressed their concerns about climate science. And both have been offered by climate skeptics as "one of their own." Ironically, the Wiki article on Roger A. Pielke, Sr. says that he "has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." In fact, Pielke, Sr. has said:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).

Similarly, Pielke, Jr. is often used as an icon of the skeptics, yet he too is not so much of a critic as the skeptics would have you believe. Dylan Otto Krider, founder of Whoslying, "a nonprofit devoted to correcting statements that do not responsibly reflect objective reality," today writes in a "Skepticism Examiner" blog called "Who is Roger Pielke, Jr." about his knowledge of the man and what he really thinks about climate change. It's an interesting article and I highly recommend that people read it.

The point is that all of us must be very careful not to simply take at face value what we hear on the news or read in blogs. It is always wise to get information from multiple sources and, whenever possible, go to the original source of the information. Believe it or not, people have been known to "reinterpret" information, either intentionally or through intellectual indolence.

Politicians as "Scientists" - Is This a Good or a Bad Thing?

This past week, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore urged scientists to exert their influence on global climate change. In short, he said that scientists must play a more active role in how their science is used to make policy. "For those of you who haven't communicated, there is no time to sit back," Gore says.

Which, of course, begs the question of how this can be accomplished? Should scientists become "Issue Advocates" as described in Roger A. Pielke Jr.'s book "The Honest Broker," or should they be the "Science Arbiter?"

But it also begs the question, what role should politicians play in advocating science? Gore himself has been a highly visible icon communicating the science of global warming to the public and to the legislators with whom he once worked. In one sense, he has been far better at communicating the issue than have the scientists themselves. But in another sense, he has become a foil for those who say that global warming is merely a liberal political movement and scientists are only claiming there is a crisis to get funding. And we all remember the Terry Schiavo case when then Republican Senate majority leader Bill Frist took the Senate floor and challenged the diagnosis of Schiavo's physicians that she was in a persistent vegetative state: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office." While Frist was a medical doctor prior to entering politics, many medical scientists took offense to him making a diagnosis based solely on an edited video tape.

Both Gore and Frist's advocacy have provided fodder for discussion about the relative roles of politicians in science and scientists in politics. Are they communicating from knowledge, or are they using the science to further their political ideologies? Many arguments have been offered for both sides of the discussion.

In his speech last week to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Gore encouraged the "world of science" and "the world of politics" to work together to respond to the climate crisis. He called for the scientist to deliver the sense of emergency to their colleagues, networks, and policy makers. In essence, he called on scientists to be issue advocates.

Scientists and Policy Making - The Honest Broker?

Scientists have a love/hate relationship with policy makers. We want to "do our science" but not necessarily get all into the whole political rangling thing. On the other hand, it displeases us (I'm being nice) to have our science abused by politicians or advocacy groups, who twist it to fit their predisposed ideological view. But it displeases us even moreso (still being nice) to have fellow scientists who forget their ethics. Luckily, they are the rare exception.

But as Roger A. Pielke, Jr. demonstrates in his book "The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics," sometimes the lines get blurred. Over the next few weeks I'll periodically come back to different parts of Pielke's book. To begin with, he defines four idealized roles of science in policy and politics (the roles are Pielke's; any misinterpretation of them are my own):

The Pure Scientist: Provides data and lets the policy maker (or decider?) make their own decisions. The pure scientist really doesn't have an interest in the decision-making process. ["Let me do my science. Get out of my lab now, please."]

The Science Arbiter: Serves as a resource to the decision-maker, and stands ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker feels is relevant. The science arbiter does not tell the decision-maker what he or she ought to prefer. [Yes, the acid put in that paper cup will eat right through it. Next question.]

The Issue Advocate: The issue advocate seeks to limit choices, and will likely tell the decision-maker what choice he or she ought to prefer, based on the science. [Sir, you really ought to advocate for the cap-and-trade system.]

The Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives: The Honest Broker, as you might imagine, tries to broaden the choices. He or she will provide a range of options to the decision-maker, generally including advantages and disadvantages. Then it is up to the decision-maker to, well, decide. [Okay, everything is on the table. Any questions? Okay, debate.]

The problem comes from what Pielke calls "stealth issue advocacy." More on that at a later date.