In short, there is PLENTY of ROOM within the climate science to hold extreme views, both about the science and policy. However, there is no room for the luncacies of unicorns, for sun nuts, fo folks who dont get chaos, for radiative physics deniers, because you cant hold those views and actually Do science. you can do blogs and blog comments.. but that is about it
Saturday, October 08, 2016
Mosher
Steven Mosher, at Judith Curry's blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
My comment at Curry.
Steve Mosher, exactly. Before I started blogging I had heard that America had some problems with mitigation sceptics. I had imaged that would be within the scientific range of possibilities and just being extremely optimistic. There are so many really difficult problems when it comes to changes in extremes and impact studies. Impacts have to do with humans, who are very unpredictable. Extremes are rare and thus hard to study.
Nothing prepared me for the deluge of nonsense on WUWT. Or the denial that the CO2 increase is due to us on this blog.
What I had not considered at the time was that the more nonsensical something is, the better it works as pledge of allegiance for the mitigation sceptical cause.
Is there really plenty of room to hold extreme views? My impression is that scientists who think ECS is extremely low are less successful at getting funded.
David in Cal wrote:
"My impression is that scientists who think ECS is extremely low are less successful at getting funded."
Based on what evidence?
For one thing, I've seen a number of papers that assume ECS is around 3.5 deg C and predict some biological calamity based on that assumption. I've never seen similar paper based on ECS of under 2 deg C.
David in Cal said...
"For one thing, I've seen a number of papers that assume ECS is around 3.5 deg C and predict some biological calamity based on that assumption. I've never seen similar paper based on ECS of under 2 deg C."
So you have no evidence whatsoever that "scientists who think ECS is extremely low are less successful at getting funded."
Just what I suspected.
DiC: I've seen a number of papers that assume ECS is around 3.5 deg C and predict some biological calamity based on that assumption. I've never seen similar paper based on ECS of under 2 deg C.
If you're curious, here's a paper on the Implications of potentially lower climate sensitivity on climate projections and policy.
Very interesting read.
For one thing, I've seen a number of papers that assume ECS is around 3.5 deg C and predict some biological calamity based on that assumption. I've never seen similar paper based on ECS of under 2 deg C.
Alternate explanations using that data:
- few climate scientists think that ECS is under 2 degrees.
- few papers with low ECS are of sufficient quality to pass peer review.
Neither of these translate into "scientists who believe in low ECS have a harder time getting funded". There are just not many such scientists around, and they have trouble getting published, because most of the evidence suggests that they're wrong.
Post a Comment