About
This is not a science blog. I am not a scientist. Although I have an undergraduate degree in science, I do not do “science” nor do I claim any scientific expertise or in-depth knowledge.
Instead, this blog is about about science — discussing and exploring the war over the science being waged by those hoping to influence public policy. At times, I take a critical stance towards the climate wars, and at other times I employ sarcasm and humour.
I feel more like a war correspondent, if I can lay claim to that venerable profession without any training. I am not a journalist trying to provide an objective “fair and balanced” account of the war. I am a partisan who is writing a personal chronicle of my observations about the climate wars, and I invite others to offer their own observations and conclusions.
I claim that climate science is an inconvenient science. Its findings suggest that if we don’t want to disrupt our climate, we have to change one of the most central parts of our civilization — the form of energy we use to power our technology. Fossil fuels have been the engine of our amazing economic development and growth, but the best science tells us that if we don’t limit our emissions of CO2 soon, we face climate disruption with unknown consequences.
The best science also challenges the political institutions of which we are familiar — the nation state with its simultaneous political independence and economic and environmental interdependence for climate crosses these abstract borders and affects us all. Addressing climate change, if we choose to do so, will demand we act in ways that may not be natural to this political reality in which we live. This inconvenient science presents us with evidence of considerable threat if we do not act, and that evidence suggests that we need to respond to the threat it describes, but it doesn’t tell us how to respond. That is for politics. The responses proposed by political partisans tend to fall along political lines. Those on the left advocate government intervention in the market while those on the right advocate letting the “free” market decide how best to respond.
I am trained in social research methods and analysis. After finishing my BSc I did an Honours BA and then an MA and am ABD PhD in social science. I’ve studied political science, sociology, social history, psychology and economics. Although I started out in science, I developed an unquenchable interest in humans, our societies and history and so that is where my graduate work focused. I don’t claim to be fully up to speed with the science in climate science as it is beyond most of the science I took as an undergrad. Despite taking courses in graduate statistics, I can’t judge the value of certain statistical methods for analyzing tree rings, or judge the worth of climate models, or draw conclusions about the soundness of derivations of climate sensitivity as most of my own research has been qualitative, hermeneutical, historical and has only used simple statistical methods.
Like Joe and Jane Public, I have to rely on the scientific experts to have it right, or as close to right as can be expected at this time. I have to trust the scientific method and peer review system to have come to the best possible conclusion about the science. It may be incomplete, it may be wrong about some things, but as a layperson, I have no real other choice but to trust the consensus science and peer-reviewed science — unless I want to go back to university and get a PhD in some related field so that I can judge myself.
I’ve read many papers since I stumbled onto the climate wars — all the main papers in the hockey stick controversy, papers on dendroclimatology, some on sea ice, polar bears, even a few on the sun’s role in climate change. I’ve read peer-reviewed science and blog science, skeptic papers and consensus science papers. I’ve read climate change journalist pieces, congressional reports and watched videos of climate change hearings. Almost 4 years in and I am still in no position to evaluate the literature as a peer, since I am not one. So until the peer reviewed literature changes, until the consensus changes, trusting the mainstream peer reviewed consensus view of climate science is really my only option as a layperson.
To some, taking this position goes against their grain. They want to know for themselves that the equations work or that the methods are appropriate or that the conclusions are valid. That’s fine — but only for a limited group of people with adequate background or time to get it. For the rest of us, it’s either trust the consensus science and peer review system, or fall into cynicism.
The only real options that I and the lay public has are political ones. How do our societies, both as individual nations and as a world community, most effectively respond to what the best science tells us is happening and may happen? At some point, I do hope to discuss policy options, but despite being a policy analyst and consultant by profession, climate policy is not my area of expertise. My current work is in health policy and programs although I have also worked as a Senior Researcher in social policy.
I don’t like what I see happening to science in this current war. I believe that people are so cynical and self-interested that they are willing to sacrifice science on the altar of financial gain or political purity. It does not bode well for our civilization. I am trying to be as honest as I can about what I see going on. Sometimes my posts are pure polemics and sometimes, I may appear dismissive and sarcastic but it is only because sometimes, if you don’t laugh, you’ll cry. At all times, I try to call ‘em as I see ‘em.
Note on blog policy: Please moderate yourself so I don’t have to.
I really do want to hear from skeptics who have found the secret that collapses the whole house of cards — please, convince me that AGW is a hoax, a lie, a fraud so I can keep enjoying my very comfortable western lifestyle based on cheap and abundant fossil fuel and my children can as well. I do not condone scientific fraud or deliberate deceit and feel that if any is found to be so, those responsible should be held accountable. However, I want evidence. Credible evidence. Real science, not blog science.
Please use evidence to back up your assertions — credible evidence in peer reviewed science is preferable.
Note: The name “The Policy Lass” originated with Kenneth Fritsch over at Climate Audit, who referred to me that way when I used to be a regular “troll”. I liked the name, found it quite amusing since I didn’t actually talk about policy but instead tended to question Steve about his actions. Regardless, the name stuck and so I adopted it.
Share this:
- Digg
- StumbleUpon
25 Responses to “About”
Emerson said that? I’ve never sourced it before. That’s interesting.
It’s most often cited as “consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” and then some nerd corrects it to “a foolish consistency.”
I wish I had the original to the New Yorker cartoon from 1971 in which three elvish looking guys meet under a mushroom, and one introduces the second to the third, “And Ed, here, is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
Best,
Ed
Susan great blog, your on my list of sites to scan daily. Keep up the great work.
Since I’m here (over Curry, as it happens) I thought I’d say hello.
Hello,
How can we contact you?
Bye,
willard
Hi, Willard — email me at shewonk @ gmail dot com
bu..bu…the peer review meanies are keeping us down. Don’t pay attention to the fact that there are a buttload of speciality journals and even overseas journals, such that on can avoid a clique reviewing your work. Don’t pay attention to the existence of Climate of the Past Discussions, which even “publishes” the papers that don’t get accepted.
Don’t pay attention to the drecky, just miserable, written quality of skeptic draft papers. We’re used to blogging. That’s our standard of quality. Why should someone who has a controversial science theory also expound it clearly?
Besides if we really wrote things up clearly, we would be easier to pin down and rebut. Heck, we might show ourselves that some of our beleifs were exaggerated or tenuous. We can’t handle that clarity.
Plus it’s more work and less fun than jerking off on the Internetz…
TCO – agreed. Science rejects 98% of all papers it receives IIRC. Only the best or most timely or most innovative or most likely to push boundaries or make $$$ for the publishers are published in the established science journals. It’s reality.
You can always tell an expert! Thanks for conrtibiutng.
7CEVX1 gyltzcektvru
JV5dNJ fzomvdmwnmwy
I spent the last week lurking and occasionally posting on Watts website.
I used to be a skeptic, but now I see that the denialists are mere malicious conspiracy theorists.
Something they do at WUWT is they censor links to science websites, which are websites people would read and understand what denialism is about.
See, for example,
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/we-talk-about-politics-because-the-science-is-uncertain/#comment-474898
Original post: i53.tinypic.com/op2pf8.png
(the moderator ‘dbs’ said that he is not happy with ‘advertising’ blogs that ‘badmouth’ WUWT)
I then reiterated that I was not advertising websites,
Original post: i52.tinypic.com/x1elgj.png
Post erased: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/we-talk-about-politics-because-the-science-is-uncertain/#comment-474948
@ PaulW
Yep, that sounds about right. Last time I posted there comments were closed not ten minutes after I pointed out that Steven Goddard is supposedly a pseudonym. Of course, I can’t say that was the reason, but the regulars there didn’t get to see it, did they.
What I find hilarious about Fuller’s post is in the title itself: ‘…Because The Science Is Uncertain’. Not only have RealClimate made a post on this subject before (the irony given the reasons you were censored), but someone should tell Monckton that.
“…And I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.”
– Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation
And which toff was making popular guest posts at WUWT only very recently? Guess.
The RealClimate post: Unsettled Science
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Fuller really needs to get up to speed.
“Had the IPCC and others been savvy enough to look at all the changes we are making instead of just focusing on the ‘flavor of the month,’ I think the science–and our options–would have been more clearly expressed and more believable.
Instead, they focused on CO2 and treated all who disagreed as the rabble I mentioned before. What they wanted was a rabble alarmed. What they got was a rabble in arms.”
No, Tom, that’s a figment of the collective imagination of the Deniaverse. Of course, traffic will go up at Fuller’s site now. For a while at least.
Hello Shewonk,
Nice blog. I also love science very much.
However it is not conducted as it should be (honest and transparent). It is corrupted almost hopelessly.
It will break your heart when you find out, but the truth always wins.
Video: How 2 make a military strength tin foil hat