I just skimmed through Michael Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars". A couple of thoughts flashed through my head. First, Dr. Mann has tenure at an excellent University (Penn State) and should have no fear of being "blacklisted". All publicity is good publicity. I don't know how much time it has taken him to defend himself in the midst of all of this "climategate" and that is time lost.
Second, academics are not naive. In this Internet age, we know that the "blogosphere" is waiting patiently for the nerds to generate interesting (and perhaps sexy?) results that it can then pontificate about and amplify. There is a symbiotic relationship between core researchers and bloggers. Dr. Mann must have been aware that his research would be debated. Some strong economists have entered this debate. My friend Ross McKitrick is one of the debaters and here is his work. I certainly do agree that Dr. Mann has the right for his private emails to remain private but all academics now understand (and should have anticipated) that any private communication can become public. When I want to have a private conservation, I email a person that I need to call him/her and then we talk.
UPDATE: For those interested in the "hockey stick" debates (and I am certainly no expert on these time series processes), here is the recent editorial in the WSJ by a Berkeley physicist who agrees with Mann and had been a "skeptic".
Slightly Switching Subjects:
Dr. Mann is part of a coalition seeking to educate the public to support policies to reduce the world's GHG emissions. I am a full supporter of the "big goal" here. Mitigation is a much easier option than adaptation. But, I'm on record that mitigation won't work so we have to tackle adaptation head on. Neither the U.S nor India nor China is on board with reducing emissions. If they don't play ball, good luck with Russia and the others. The IPCC is the leading organization of "low carbon nerds" leading the intellectual fight for decarbonizing the globe. I have mixed feelings about the IPCC's work.
I will admit upfront that I am biased. I was nominated to serve on the new panel but must have been rejected. It is known that I'm an optimist concerning our collective ability to adapt to many of the challenges that climate change will pose. The IPCC takes peer reviewed studies and boils them down to a single sentence each. A lot is lost in translation. The IPCC produces translational research but in truth the policy makers already know their positions and I doubt that the insights from the IPCC informs their positions. So, if I'm right, who is the marginal person who the IPCC is trying to influence? The Koch Brothers? Joe Romm? Neither. For an example of what the IPCC produces; read this recent paper.
UPDATE: Using Google, I have found a list of the new IPCC authors. I have never heard of 85% of the authors listed in the social science chapters. Geoff Heal and Max Auffhammer are both listed and that is great news but U.S academics appear to have been down weighted perhaps to achieve international representation goals? I will read chapters 17 and 18 closely when they appear.
So, at the end of the day --- what are the "climate wars"? This is a debate about what are the costs of mitigating climate change and what are the benefits of doing so and which nations and people will bear the costs and benefits of a changing climate? Ultimately much of this is an economic exercise. 99% of economists support a carbon tax but economists have not been clear about about what are the social costs of climate change. We have "macro estimates" from William Nordhaus and Marty Weitzman and we have other predictions from micro economists (such as myself and Michael Greenstone's recent work on death rates and outdoor extreme temperature). There is much work left to be done here!
