Thread by @RogerPielkeJr

🧵
Why are climate scientists so mad at me?
Here's one answer
For almost 30 yrs I've been writing abt the conflicts between (a) the special interests of the climate science community and (b) the broader social responsibilities of this community

Pretty normal STS fare ... read on

My 1994 PhD dissertation was an evaluation of the then newly-created US Global Change Research Program
link.springer.com/content/pdf/10…

I argued that the USGCRP would do a lot of good science but have limited policy relevance (a conclusion later reached by a @theNASEM study)

I was a post-doc at NCAR when this paper came out
It resulted in a furor
NSF funded NCAR & the program officer who oversaw NSF funding was central to creation of USGCRP

My job was threatened
A huge debate ensued
UCAR leaders pushed back on the pressure
I kept my job
A preview...

I placed blame on failures of Congress to secure a convergence of expectations on what they wanted from the USGCRP

Of course scientists wanted to do science
And agencies wanted funding & programs
Congress wanted the climate problem to go away

Responsibility lay with Congress

Flash forward ~decade
Dan Sarewitz & I wrote for @ISSUESinST asking a provocative question:
"What happens when the scientific community’s responsibility to society conflicts with its professional self interest?"
issues.org/p_pielke/

By this time USGCRP shortfalls were obvious

The motivation for this piece was a proposal by the Bush Administration to double-down on climate research as the main response to climate

We saw this as delay from taking real action

Many scientists also wanted action on climate, but also really liked the idea of more funding

We pulled no punches

Claims that projections of the long-term future were central to effective climate policy just didn't hold up

But long-term projections were central to the climate science community (or more accurately, those with the most power/influence in this community)

In parallel Sarewitz & I (along w/ Rad Byerly RIP) had just completed a major NSF project focused on the use & misuse of predictions/projections

Our bottom line?

Question Predictions

In many settings predict/project was not central to effective action
amazon.com/Prediction-Sci…

In response to our Issues article on scientific responsibility, a group of leading climate scientists freaked

Their letter in response was hyperbolic & misrepresented what we had actually wrote, but it also reinforced our argument . . .

issues.org/forum-spring-2…

The most telling part of their letter
"It is preposterous, however, to suggest that climate science is primarily policy driven"

This is wrong
Congress support for climate research wasn't due to their curiosity (ha) but bc they wanted "usable information for policy" via USGCRP

We presented these ideas before the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate of the NAS

We did, stating that climate policy needed much more than just climate modeling

The chair exploded at us, saying, "tell me then, how are we going to justify funding for climate modeling?"

It was at exactly this time the RCP scenarios were first being developed with a focus on creating scenarios to meet the needs of climate modeling not policy making

The community was continuing its pattern of needs of science first, needs of society second
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss…

So yes

Our view that predictive/projective science of climate modeling has played a dominant & often unhelpful role in climate policy surely pissed off a lot of climate scientists

At some point many forgot or never knew why they hated me & it just became part of the culture

Our recent work on scenarios raises many issues of scientific integrity & social responsibility

Consider:
No one evaluates climate scenarios that drive climate models for their plausibility
That's irresponsible
How can they be fit for policy analysis?

issues.org/climate-change…

After living these debates for a few decades, my view is that the most vocal climate scientists who criticize me have chosen to make this personal - about me not the research - because they can't/won't take on the substance

That's fine
Says a lot

All for now, let me know any Qs

PS
Another detail

For ~25 yrs I sat as a social scientist in the citadels of climate modeling NCAR & CIRES

So I was expected to be "on the team"

Critical social science was thus even more of a shock, viewed even as a betrayal

NCAR & CIRES purged both groups I was part of!