In case you missed it Gavin Schmidt, one of the founders of the RealClimate blog, "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000316the_uncertainty_trap.html#comments">responded
thoughtfully to my post “ "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000316the_uncertainty_trap.html">The
Uncertainty Trap” where I suggest that their claim to focus on science
and not politics “is a noble but futile ambition.” He writes in response,

“Let me make one more thing clear: we are not taking a political stand on
this [climate debate]. That someone else decides to support their
political point by using bogus science is not our fault. If we correct
their errors it is because we don’t want to see bogus science used at all.
It does not necessarily imply that we are taking a stand against their
political premise.”

Readers of Prometheus will know how much we value the "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/health/000272wanted_honest_broke.html">honest
broker. And to be sure "http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/author_pielke_jr_r/index.html#000234">climate
science certainly needs more honest brokers. So RealClimate has great
potential to fill a much needed niche. But unless RealClimate carefully
considers policy and politics as they go about their business, they run
the risk of simply becoming viewed as yet another voice on the internet
pushing a political agenda through science, not unlike "http://www.cosscience.org">CO2science.org but with a different slant.

There are a few simple things that RealClimate might do to enhance its
role as an honest broker. Here is some unsolicited advice.

1. No free passes.

RealClimate’s focus thus far is very much framed in one political
direction, e.g., on attacking George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael
Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. These
criticisms are perfectly justified, but RealClimate shouldn’t give a free
pass to anyone, especially those whose political agenda they may find more
compelling. Here are a few items from the past week that RealClimate might
have focused on:

*Worldwatch released its "http://worldwatch.org/pubs/sow/2005/tocid/225/">2005 State of the
World report and linked the 2004 Florida hurricane season and typhoons
to signs of an “accelerated global warming.” There is no scientific basis
for making this linkage.

*An AP "http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-01112005-430601.html">story
linked a spell of warm winter weather in Russia to global warming.
Perhaps such a linkage exists, but I’d be surprised if there was a
scientific basis for making such a claim.

Excesses abound in the climate debate on all sides. Don’t ignore this
fact.

2. Be transparent.

Some RealClimate contributors have in other venues openly presented their
political and policy commitments on climate change. In some cases these
commitments are very strongly held. When such commitments have been made,
RealClimate readers will be better served by being open about them. The
bios on the site might simply present such information. Don’t ="http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/Bush_op-ed.pdf">hide behind
science.

3. Diversify.

The blog will be viewed as more legitimate and authoritative as an honest
if the set of scientific contributors is comprised so as to have a
diversity of political perspectives represented. If everyone who
contributes shares a similar perspective, it can be more difficult for the
participants to see the biases that result. In addition, it is important
to be careful about moderating the posts to ReaClimate. If a diversity of
perspectives is allowed to express their views then it will enhance the
credibility of the site. This also means allowing legitimate scientists
with different points of view to respond to your posts on topics that
remain under debate in the scientific literature. Gatekeeping is another
means that unstated biases can be reflected.

4. Distinguish policy and politics.

If RealClimate wants to avoid being labeled an advocacy site then rather
than pretending to be disconnected from politics it might consider openly
discussing policy issues. For example, questions related to policy, but
which are apolitical, that might be addressed include:

What effect might emissions reductions of various sizes have on arctic ice
cover?

What effect might emissions reductions of various sizes have on sea level
rise?

What are the implications of the IPCC and FCCC using different definitions
of “climate change”?

The honest broker’s role will be better served by working to expand the
scope of policy options available for discussion. Everything posted on
RealClimate has implications for policy and politics, when not openly
confront this reality?

Finally, it is important to understand that there is a large body of
scholarship that shows that efforts to focus only on “the science”
actually exacerbate the politicization of science. Any scientists
claiming to focus on “scientific topics and not get involved in any
political or economic implications of the science” should read and
carefully think about the following two papers by Daniel Sarewitz:

How
science makes environmental controversies worse

"http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/ScienceandEnvironmentalPolicy.htm">Science
and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity

Here at Prometheus we wish the RealClimate folks well, it is a great
experiment in honest brokering.