Dear Roger, I don't disagree that scientists have values and that they affect their work. In fact I discussed this in the roundtable follow-up to my 20 reasons paper at <http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/has-the-time-come-geoengineering>. In particular, see my article called "The value of thoroughly evaluating geoengineering schemes." In it I say, "On a separate note, I'm not sure what Ken is saying about values, facts, and scientists as intellectuals. My values do not affect the conclusions of my science. For example, I do not change the output from my computer models based on my expectations for the results. But science is not devoid of values. For example, how does one decide what research to do or not to do in the first place? Certainly this involves value judgments. How does one communicate the results to policy makers? This also involves values."
My point here and in my letter to the Times is that we do not do experiments trying to prove preconceptions while ignoring all other evidence from our work, if we are honest scientists. We have to be willing to change our minds with new evidence. My article was entitled ""20 Reasons Why Geoengineering MAY be a Bad Idea." It was not a definitive conclusion that it is, only that these reasons need to be considered further. In fact, my group is doing that, and we will present two papers at the Fall AGU Meeting session on geoengineering I convened that find that two of these reasons turn out not to be of concern. One is that acid deposition turns out to be so small it will not be a concern. The other is that the costs are not very high compared to some reasonable metrics. Of course, this does not mean that there are serious concerns among the other 18 reasons. The accusation in the op-ed is that we are dishonest as scientists, and that is what I object to. My policy preferences follow from my values and from the evidence. But they do not make me skew my science. In this arena, my goals are to evaluate the efficacy, costs, and potential dangers of geoengineering. Whether we should do it follows from the results of my work and that of others. My conclusions must incorporate values, but I honestly state what they are, and use the evidence to make the conclusions. My aim to obtain an honest examination, not to prove that geoengineering is bad. Alan Alan Robock, Professor II Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock On Sun, 28 Sep 2008, Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote: > > Alan- > > Far from doing an "injustice", the Homer-Dixon/Keith acknowledgment > that scientists have policy preferences is both refreshing and > consistent with a large body of research from the science and > technology studies community that shows that the notion of the > disinterested scientist is a myth. For instance, you have published > an article titled "20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May be a Bad Idea." > > To suggest to the public that scientists have no prejudices or biases > is the real injustice, because it simply isn't true. Scientists are > people like everyone else. Pretending otherwise is to invite politics > into scientific discussions in stealth manner. Far better to bring > policy preferences out into the open as recommended by > Homer-Dixon/Keith. > > Best regards, > > Roger > > Roger Pielke, Jr. > University of Colorado > > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Alan Robock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Here is the letter I submitted to the Times. They did not choose to >> publish it, so I share it with you. >> >> Alan >> >> Alan Robock, Professor II >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock >> >> >> To the Editor: >> >> While I agree with the call for more research on geoengineering >> by Homer-Dixon and Keith ("Blocking the Sky to Save the Earth," op-ed, >> Sept. 20), they do an injustice to the way scientists behave. They >> characterize my research and that of my colleagues as "aimed to show why >> sulfate injections won't work." That is not what we do. We perform >> simulations of the effects of proposed schemes and report what we find. >> We do not have a prejudice or bias about the results ahead of time. For >> example, the latest work of my team shows that the excess acid rain that >> would come when the sulfur eventually falls out of the sky would be so >> small as to not be injurious to natural ecosystems. We need more >> research on geoengineering, and it must be objective. Society depends >> on us for information about the benefits and dangers of geoengineering >> so it can make informed decisions. >> >> Alan Robock >> >> >>> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
