The Motivated Rejection of Science

But when debating the policy implications of AGW a climatoligist is useless. What insight can they offer into whether cap and trade is a good idea?

There are at least five important questions whose answers are needed to address whether cap-and-trade is a good idea:

1. How much effect would cap-and-trade have on GHG emissions?
2. What other direct effects would cap-and-trade have besides its effect on reducing emissions?
3. What would the climate impact be of the effects described in #1?
4. Would any of the effects described in #2 have climate effects, and, if so, what effects?
5. Does the net social benefit of the climate effects in #3-4, combined with the net social benefit of the non-climate effects described in #2, offset the net social costs of effects described in #2.

#1-4 are scientific questions. #5 is a question that, while there may be some scientific aspects of it (aside from those in the preceding questions on which it relies) is largely about subjective values.

Of the four scientific questions, two of them are questions specifically about climatology. So, while there's very good reason for there to be other scientists providing input, its pretty clear that climatologists have quite a lot to contribute on the question.

Since one of the scientific questions listed above is largely an economic one (#1) and one is partially an economic one (#2), there certainly is a role for economists advising on the issue as well. But that role is not exclusive of the role of climatologists, as there remain climatological questions that are important in addressing the utility of cap and trade (or any approach to climate change, since the effectiveness of the approach in addressing the core problem it seeks to address will always involve a question of climatology, even if it also involves other questions.)

If the conversation turns to carbon sequestration they aren't the person to ask whether that is feasable.

No, but once someone else provides input on the degree to which sequestration is feasible and what other near-term environmental impacts that sequestration will have, your going to need to turn to climatology to answer what the net effect of the sequestration (both from the direct carbon reductions and indirectly through any environmental side effects) is likely to be on climate.

If we want to talk alternative energy they can't provide any insight on that either.

They certainly are the best positioned, once others answer what is feasible and what effects those options would have on GHG emissions and other environmental inputs, to provide insight on what those alternatives are likely to do in terms of climate. Which, when evaluating alternative energy supplies as a solution to a climate problem, is a pretty critical insight.

You need different scientists and experts to answer those questions.

Its true that you need a variety of experts to address those questions.

Its not true that the need for other scientists to address those questions means you don't also need climatologists to address each of them.

Climatology is a pretty narrow specialty.

Yes, but its pretty freaking central to evaluating options to address climate change, for reasons which should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/skMUDygbzYc/the-motivated-rejection-of-science

chicago weather star jones wheres my refund photo of whitney houston in casket carrot top george huguely whitney houston casket photo