This is a subject i put up on the blog today, and which we have been
discussing on the weather forum. Enough background.
In response to my 'summary' of the main discussion points (numbered
below), another poster wrote the following:
[quote]
1 Most obvious are the number of people who think that the data being
used, or the methods being used to turn the data into models, is
flawed, or imperfect.
Some of the criteria that goes into a climate model is a best guess
this is not that the experts involved are incompetent it is just that
some areas have not been fully researched. For example the changes in
plankton bloom due to warming and its feedback on the carbon cycle and
climate.In effect there are areas of climate change with incomplete
knowledge.It is the model which is imperfect not individual expertise
that goes to make up the model.
2 Then there is the suggestion that climate science is in some way an
'inferior' science, practised by second-rate scientists.
I would not argue that and don't think many would argue that. You
could argue that some aspects of climate modelling need to mature and
there are scientists work in fields currently outside climate control
who perhaps should have more of an input into the modelling. Here I am
thinking about mesosphere modelling and aspects of oceanography. It is
what is missing from the modelling that raises concern.
3 Then there is the perception that there exists a substantial number
of scientists in some disciplines (though still a minority) who
disagree with the 'mainstream' climate science 'picture'.
Some scientists disagree with aspects of the mainstream picture but
not the general overall view.The argument here is that there is enough
disagreement in the probabilities boundaries of individual parameters
that the stated probabilites boundaries of the whole is suspect. The
concern is with the statistical arguments.
4 Finally, for now, the suggestion that climate science is uniquely
influenced 'in the process' by political pressure to produce certain
results in favour of a particular conclusion.
The idea is probably not that scientists deliberately set out with a
bias but in the process of attaining research funding they may
investigate avenues of research they may not have otherwise have done.
The bias is in the reasearch funding.
[quote]
I'm curious to know what the response from climate scientists is to
this perception. Please keep it polite :)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
