Over at GristMill Dave Roberts discusses hurricanes and global warming and asks some “tough questions.” The first of these questions focus on whether or not greens should misuse science to achieve their political goals:

“In the end, greens concerned about global warming face a choice. Do they stick to scrupulous standards of scientific accuracy, with all the hedging and qualifying that entails, at the risk of being boring and losing an opportunity to galvanize action? Or do they fudge a bit, propagandize a bit, indulge in a little bit of theater and showmanship?”

Let’s take a look at the reasons that Roberts gives for why fudging science might be worth doing (and to be clear, I don’t think that Roberts is calling for a misuse of science, but instead suggesting that there is a complicated calculus underlying why one might choose to do so).


First, Roberts states, “arguably the urgency of generating a large-scale response is great enough to warrant some fudging on strict rules of accuracy and precision. Many, many lives are at stake.” Surely this is the exact same logic that motivates anti-abortion groups to advance that false claim that abortion causes breast cancer. If the righteousness of a cause dictates when it is appropriate to misuse science, then this is a pretty slippery-sloped end-justify-the-means approach to science.

Second, Roberts notes that the complexity of the climate systems makes it exceedingly difficult to make a scientifically sound linkage between global warming and a particular hurricane, perhaps suggesting that there is some wiggle room in there to assert a linkage, as no one can disprove such an assertion. Undoubtedly this is the exact same logic that underlies the repeated exagerrated claims by some that adult stem cells can be used instead of embryonic stem cells. After all, scientists are pretty smart people and who knows what they might discover in the future? Who is to say that one day they won’t be able to replace embryonic stem cells with adult stem cells? To quote Donald Rumsfeld, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Anything goes!

Third, Roberts correctly asserts that a big event opens the door for policy change, “It opens up a cultural space for dialogue and action at a time when getting the collective attention of the American public is extraordinarily difficult.” Without a doubt similar words were spoken by Bush Administration officials in the days after September 11 to justify invading Iraq based on false claims of a linkage between 9/11 and Iraq.

Roberts suggests that the question of fudging science is a tough one. Not for me. I’m pretty much all for scrupulous standards of scientific accuracy. Fudging science can certainly lead to some short term political gains, but in the end it is not good for science and certainly not good for democracy.