What’s the Trick of Good Science?
Lately, I’ve had a few folks ask me about the release of more stolen climate science email and what it means, especially with respect to the one or two of the emails that are appearing on blogs and involve me. Hard for me to guess all the motivations behind stealing email and then releasing it periodically to the public right before international climate negotiations, but then I was a Boy Scout and was taught stealing is bad. Or did I learn that first in church? Or from my parents? Probably all of the above.
One obvious motivation is to dupe the public into thinking climate science is somehow suspect, and to do this right as diplomats from around the world are negotiating what to do about the growing challenge of climate change. Another motivation of the email thieves seems to be to get unsuspecting accomplices to write letters to the scientists themselves, or to the employers of the scientists saying the scientists are dishonest and should be at least ashamed or even fired. Those letters do get written (and received), and it saddens me that Americans can be so gullible. However, ours is a system of checks and balances, so it’s ok to be questioned every now and then. Maybe it’ll help promote understanding.
This year, accusations are once again focused on something I wrote a few years ago—an email that was stolen from my scientific colleagues and then taken way out of context. Let me explain what I mean, but in doing so, let me also shed some light on how science and science communication works. Everyone needs to understand how science works, especially since science is a foundation for innovation and economic growth.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out.”
That’s the quote that has been reported in blogs and that has confused people. Rather than thinking about it, or asking for context, some readers have rushed to the conclusion that I must have done something dishonest.
The truth: not even close.
Let’s talk about the full context of the quote and what it illuminates about the scientific process. The email in question stems from early in the 4th Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC – the one that eventually won the Nobel Peace Prize). It takes several years of work to complete this assessment in the form of a roughly 1,000-page report for policy makers in countries around the globe. Scientists create a draft and get it reviewed. They then do it again, and again. The reviewers number in the hundreds and are comprised of experts and government representatives (mostly more experts). The goal is a final report that is accurate and focused on what policy makers want to know and perhaps use for their decision-making. It is, after all, an intergovernmental panel run by government representatives. They are the audience. The scientists are working for them.
The quote in question stems from a December 2004 email from me (I was Coordinating Lead Author) to Ricardo Villalba (Lead Author). Here’s the full quote with the cherry-picked part highlighted in bold:
“I think the hardest, yet most important part, is to boil the section down to 0.5 pages. In looking over your good outline, sent back on Oct. 17 (my delay is due to fatherdom just after this time), you cover ALOT. The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data - not inconclusive information.”
The context for the email is as follows: material in the IPCC report needs to be focused on an assessment of what is relevant to policy-makers, not a more general review of the science for other scientists. This was what I meant by “main message” – in Ricardo’s case, boiling the assessment down to the science related to modes of climate variability that is relevant to policy-makers. I was asking Ricardo to figure out what this message was (i.e., what the science says), and also help us meet our very tight page limits. “The trick,” in this context, is the same as saying “the solution.” Not an uncommon usage, nevertheless I have to wonder if this whole uproar would have been avoided if I’d simply used the word “key” or “solution” instead of “trick…”. At any rate, like just about everyone else at that stage of the IPCC process, Ricardo’s list of topics was too unfocused (e.g., more a review than an assessment) and too long. My job as the co-lead of that chapter was to help him and other chapter authors solve these issues. He needed to focus on what is most relevant and useful for policy-makers, and to do this by summarizing and assessing the most policy-relevant peer-reviewed science in a limited amount of space. It’s harder than it sounds!
Of course, what we’re talking about is typical of all quality science writing: the need to focus on your audience, base what you are writing on solid science, and meet page limits. The IPCC is no different, and there is a reason the IPCC process includes many drafts and review steps – the goal is to be as focused and accurate as possible.
I hope this helps clear up some questions. It’s worth spreading the word on how science and science communication works.