Aynsley Kellow: Science and Puplic policy
Ansley Kellow’s book “Science and Public Policy” normally sells for $110 (£59.95), but he’s arranged for a special discount for readers of climate science blogs: $40 (£25)! Use the email information below to order.
It deals with the politics and philosophy of science, including the hockey stick controversy, the SRES scenarios, the species-area rule, etc. Published in 2007, it deals with the preference for computer modelling over observational data and the corrupting influence of modern communications such as e-mail on peer review and other quality assurance processes. (Aynsley writes that “I can claim to have anticipated Climategate – though I underestimated its extent”).
by Aynsley Kellow
Normally £59.95/$110.00 Special price $40/£25 + postage and packing
To order this book please email (with full credit card details and address): [email protected], or on our website enter ‘Kellowoffer’ in the special discount code box after entering your credit card details and the discount will be taken off when the order is processed.
More info below
Summary:
‘Crusading environmentalists won’t like this book. Nor will George W. Bush. Its potential market lies between these extremes. It explores the hijacking of science by people grinding axes on behalf of noble causes. “Noble cause corruption” is a term invented by the police to justify fitting up people they “know” to be guilty, but for whom they can’t muster forensic evidence that would satisfy a jury. Kellow demonstrates convincingly, and entertainingly, that this form of corruption can be found at the centre of most environmental debates. Highly recommended reading for everyone who doesn’t already know who is guilty.’
– John Adams, University College London, UK
Contents:
- The Political Ecology of Pseudonovibos Spiralis and the Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Science
- The Political Ecology of Conservation Biology
- Climate Science as ‘Post-normal’ Science
- Defending the Litany: The Attack on The Skeptical Environmentalist
- Sound Science and Political Science
- Science and its Social and Political Context Bibliography Index
Reviews
‘Kellow argues that there are cultural factors associated with the appreciation of nature that align with political ideologies and that these factors become exaggerated by the now virtual nature of many scientific disciplines. This further facilitates the corruption of science and public policy.
‘Kellow disputes the claim that the rise of environmentalism simply reflects increasing affluence and a progressive agenda, and considers the history of environmentalism and the myth of the balance of nature in the context of a long tradition of Western thought often involving catastrophic decline from some idyllic past- usually as a result of sin.
‘The idea of the ‘balance of nature’ persists, even though it is not supported by the observational data, because, if we accept this myth, any change in ecosystems can be attributed to human activity and imparted with a deep social meaning.’
‘Science and Public Policy is an important book as a philosophical and historical analysis of environmental activism particularly over the last 30 years.’
‘The book is certainly provocative to some; others may welcome it as a refreshing opening of views, hypotheses and insights; of a valuable contribution of social sciences not in the naïve way of providing numbers and subroutines to climate modelers, but in analyzing the cultural background and conditioning of us environmental scientists sitting in the trenches (mostly in front of our computers). The book is certainly not the last word on the issue, but it is a good contribution to a scientific reflection about our own practice.’
Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht
Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Germany
Current science is so badly damaged and corrupted that it is unsalvagable. Handouts from governments for a certain outcome has generated a “peer-reviewed” like minded class of scientists that will only follow the LAWS that they created.
I have found so far 4 planetary changes that are fluffed off to AGW but makes absolutely no sense to be in that theory.
1) Salinity changes only on the surface of the oceans.
2) Growth up mountains takes a great deal of back pressure against the atmosphere to achieve as the rotating atmophere generate a great deal of force downward.
3)Winds deminishing Globally are generated from too many molecules accumulating in the atmosphere generating a great deal of frictional drag.
4) Light density changes. I have not look into this area too much but a greta deal of dust debris and soot is generated through out the globe.
These points point out to a pressure build-up in the atmosphere rather than temperature measurements that are only fluctuating after or during occurring events. Temperature measurements do not forcast events.
10
I am afraid I can see something with which I am familiar very well from a former communist country. Communisms declared itself as a scientific theory. Their politic was declared as following to scientifically found historical necessity. Every scientist and each science textbook writers must have pretended doing science is necessarily developing communist doctrine. Each student regardless the subject he really studied had to have exams from scientific communism etc.
All this is the only return to the well proven communist conjunction between science and politics.
10
But Scientists, who ought to know,
Assure us that it must be so…
Oh! let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about!
With apologies to Hilaire belloc
10
RE No1.
What??!!
Might I recommend the author take a couple of bex and have a good lie down.
10
Off Topic a bit but this is on Fox News (who but Judith Curry of course).
It would seem that the UN is not willing or able to deal with the AGW problem fast enough so now the call is to take care of it in other venues, the G8 for instance. Interesting read.
10
Meanwhile Japan says NO to the extention of Kyoto. So the list is :
Japan — no more Kyoto
USA — no Cap & Trade
Russia – don’t agree with AGW
France — no to its planned ETS scheme
Germany — reviews agreed emmission levels
down and increases time on nuclear
plants
China — doing its own thing but more to do
with pollution reduction and
alternative energy sources
India — doesn’t agree with IPCC so setting up
its own climate research
Canada — senate blocks climate legislation
I’ve probably missed some but let’s hope the list keeps growing.
10
I have a general question.
Of the usual readers and commenters amongst us, who has taken measurements of temperature or rainfall or ocean pH or positions of glacier snouts or sea levels or ….? It seems that criticising scientists’ measurements and techniques isn’t getting through. If we had our own data that we could line up next to theirs and say “Here is a sequence of temperature records/tide gauge records/acidity records/etc etc. going back x years and they flatly contradict yours” then more people would listen.
It seems to me that if someone 6’10” claims to be seven feet tall and they ain’t, you’d be better to measure them than just say “I don’t believe you”.
Who has climate data?
10
Ross @ 5:
You missed Australia – blocked ETS bills three times (was it? I lost count).
10
For those who may have missed it, Japan threw a spanner in the works in Cancun (aka the Throne of the Snake) by saying no to an extension of the Kyoto Protocol:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-talks-setback-as-japan-calls-for-new-deal-20101202-18i4g.html
Cancun will not amount to anything, other than a huge waste of resources of course. I wonder how much Australia wasted on this party…
10
Bulldust @ 8
Last I read, it was 35 party-goers from Australia to Cancun. Well down on last year’s effort, if that’s any comfort. But you can bet your socks that if these guys travel at the front of the plane, stay at the best hotels and dine at the finest restaurants, then their many sins will be balanced by carbon offsets. Paid for by the us taxpayers, of course.
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Bulldust @ 8 . Sorry you are right. I was thinking of the more recent “events” when I made the list.
10
@ #7. As a farmers son growing up in the wheatbelt of WA,I recall EVERY farmer recorded rainfall and many recorded temperatures – often done by the kids or mother.
Ours was situated in the middle of a large open plain-field roundabout in fornt of the sheds ~30m away or more from any structures ( trees or buildings). The data was hand-written on templated booklets. I bet there is a possibliity to get around the farmers and ‘back-fill’ a singificantly close-spaced set of records. The opportunity is waning though due to increasing size of farms (and less farmers). Dad still measures rainfall at his hobby farm (retired).
I’d guess the same applies in other agriculral farming states too.
10
Macha, Joanne
What would it take to aggregate the extensive collection of temperature and rainfall data recorded on farms? How can the data be made public?
10
I think it would need to be at quite grass roots and low key. Small-ish towns tend not to have much population turn-over so the elderly (not that my dad is that old) still have contacts. My grnadmother is still alive too and I am 46 myself!!. The old fashioned drive-up the front door for a cuppa, writing a letter, maybe a few CWA type groups are still around and some country newspapers – more like a few page gazette. Dad still peruses the old countryman type mags,etc.
I can’t help but think of the Royal Show and Field-day Coordinators, where country shires put together a display/sales, would have the right person(s) to spread the word people are interesting in gathering a copy of their historical records.
10