At the end of the Hearing Charter, under The Response section, is the following statement:
Scientific research plays a role in guiding the nation’s response to climate change by:
- projecting the beneficial and adverse effects of climate changes;
- identifying and evaluating the likely or possible consequences, including unintended consequences, of different policy options to address climate change;
- improving the effectiveness of existing options and expanding the portfolio of options available for responding to climate change; and
- developing improved decision-making processes.
This is what the science-policy interface should look like. Compare this with my list in the no dogma thread:
- no petitions signed by members of the IPCC or national academy members
- Nature and Science not writing op-eds that decry “deniers”
- no climate scientists writing op-eds that decry the “deniers”
- no climate scientists talking about “consensus” as an argument against disagreement (argumentum ad populam, h/t Nullius in Verba)
- IPCC scientists debating skeptics about the science
- climate scientists stop talking about cap and trade and UNFCCC policies because the science demands that we do this
- no more professional society statements supporting the IPCC
- other ideas?
See the difference? This list does not reflect useful engagement with the policy process. Rather, it is groups of scientists (including institutions) playing “power politics” with their expertise, trying to change people’s minds.