Slashdot Mirror
UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
The sun is the primary source of the far strongest greenhouse gas.. water vapor.
"His name was James Damore."
Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish. He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens."
I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another. Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Remember what used to be the mythical North-West Passage? I hope to be wrong but there is now ocean where you can sail ships through that used to be a global ice cap.
Shh.
Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, you must realize that 10 years doesn't mean anything in this debate AND if we're all honest with ourselves, the past 200 years barely scratch the surface. Both camps will claim(when it is convenient for them) that the longer trends are what is important. Hell, we just recently learned of a 60 year cycle in the climate*** and yet we're still bringing up 10 years as if it means something. Knowing there's a cycle that lasts 60 years should mean we should be looking at the past 2,000 years before we open our mouths...
I personally am skeptical of both sides. I can see how AGW would be plausible but I can also see that some of what the so-called deniers are claiming is also factually true and being glossed over.
***That climate cycle just shifted to its cool pattern in the past year so I'm even more skeptical of the claims of "global warming is causing this bad snow", though it *could* hold some truth..I just think they're declaring a winner before the race has even begun.
AND to top it off, the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side but if it's not peer-reviewed and it says the opposite then it's considered garbage. Double standards are not the way to go here if they want to be believed.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Mod this guy up.
There will always be problems with "indepenence" of scientific research when the main (only) funding agency is a political body and an incredibly long validation period. If you don't produce the results the political body wants, they'll cut funding. If they are the only funding source, your options are being broke but honest, or putting at least a little spin on your results to keep getting funded at some level.
My research has been pressured by funding agencies, but since the main funding source is industry I can always find funding from a competitor (it helps that there are several) to continue my work if the original funding agency doesn't like what my data indicates.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or
(b) The field is not as politically charged; or
(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(a) is a pretty bold claim. Got any evidence, any what-so-ever, showing that climate scientists who don't argue for climate change aren't getting funding? That they're systematically being denied grants?
(b) is nonsense, there are many politically charged fields in science. Evolutionary biology? Vaccine research lately (thanks to people like Jenny "Oops, it wasn't autism" McCarthy)?
(c) is always just silly. Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales. Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is. (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out. That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine? how much salt is OK? does wine really help with cholesterol?)
However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.
Again, that's the norm for most areas of science. Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong, even when it turns out to be way off. (Weak evidence often exists, but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge. The old joke about science is that new theories aren't so much accepted as the old theories' adherents just die off. That's because science, unlike the simple model you're taught in school, seldom moves forward from single, definitive experiments.
note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.
In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating, all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding, it's difficult to see what your point is.
Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing. (Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything.)
A fair point and one Hell of a lot better put (and more politely) than the GP. But it's essentially a different point to the one the GP was making. He was stating that anyone who says they don't know if AGW is reasonably certain or not is a "denier" and believes the default position should be that we take it on faith that AGW is correct and that it is a binary affair: you believe in AGW or you're a "denier". I, like many others, fall into the agnostic position, for want of a better term. Your point is a very valid rebuttal to the "atheist" position, those that say categorically that there is no AGW. And truly, your logic is correct, imo. My point, and I hope it hasn't become lost in this, is that it is wrong to shout "denier" at those who are simply skeptical but that unfortunately this is what appears to be happening quite a lot right now. Certainly there are examples in the comments here on Slashdot and I've seen that logic (I use the term loosely here) in the mainstream media. I think there are few if any people who say that the climate isn't changing - it's the climate, that's what it does. ;) There probably aren't that many who say that man isn't having an effect on the climate (I think we probably are). But there are many that don't know what that effect is and so far haven't been convinced that AGW is correct (to a reasonable degree). I say it's wrong to label such people as deniers, yet this seems to be popular.
This is off-topic, but I'm probably an odd case. I originally thought that AGW was very probably the correct. I grew up learning about global warming and, not being an expert on climate science, I worked on the logic that a lot of people who studied it in depth with no apparent motive to misrepresent it said it was so, therefore my best course of action in any case where I was required to act according to whether AGW was true or not was to assume that it was. Also, a few poorly thought out stunts by groups funded by Exxon and pals helped me look on those arguing against AGW with great suspicion.
Now I haven't undergone some great conversion and started denouncing AGW as a huge conspiracy or anything. But I've since had some first-hand experience with bias, propaganda and selective reporting in the mainstream media on the subject of AGW. Not in the acceptable manner of refuting AGW critics with logic or data, but with simple ad hominems, suppression and out-of-hand dismissals. And we've seen examples here and there of the same behaviour in the academic community. Having worked in academia, I also came across a frightening amount of group think on the issue of AGW and, though AGW may even be correct, I have seen first hand that a lot of its proponents are arguing it on faith rather than facts. That's very disturbing. And also in this time, I've seen it shift from "Global Warming" to (when the former turned out to be too hard to prove) to "Climate change" which is pretty much irrefutable, and pretty much useless as well. I've read more on the subject and realised just how very complex this really is. We're a long way from the 'pollutants build up in the upper atmosphere and trap heat on Earth like a greenhouse' that I was given in school. I don't know that AGW is false, but exposure and interest have caused me to move my position to one of thinking we don't have enough certainty to say 'yes' or 'no' yet, or more accurately, enough to say it's reasonably probable. Naturally I object t
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.