Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 52 out of 52:

51. Marcus at 09:54 AM on 17 May, 2011
    Sorry if this is OT but, as a scientist myself (though not a climate scientist), I get *deeply* offended by implications that scientists in the public sector are part of some big "Gravy Train". Trust me, no-one working in the public sector is getting rich, & research grants-be it from the public or private sector-are incredibly hard to come by. Now, with my level of expertise, I could easily move into a big Bio-tech firm & earn a six figure salary-with about half of the headaches, but I *choose* to work in a *public* institution that has a reputation for *good* science. Now, if we want to look at Gravy Trains, we really need look no further than the bevy of most vocal critics of AGW-politicians from regions currently dependent on coal or oil extraction; politicians who get nice kick-backs from lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry; so-called "think-tanks" who also get a hefty amount of money from the fossil fuel industry & Mainstream Media Outlets who are also heavily dependent on advertising revenue from a number of big business entities-including the fossil fuel industry. Anyone want to place bets on which group I'd think are less likely to be influenced by motives of personal gain? As the sayings go-"Que Bono?" (Who Benefits?) and "Follow the Money".
    0 0
52. Jerry at 12:15 PM on 17 May, 2011
    Not a Bud comment. In response to scientific certainty you say That humans are very likely (>90%) responsible for most of the temperature rise post-1970 due to fossil-fuel GHG emissions (primarily CO2). I recognize the need for scientific accuracy, but shouldn't it really be >99%, or even >99.99%? Someone could easily take >90% to mean there is a 1 in 10 chance--not horrible odds--when the reality seems more like 1 in a million. Jerry
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] You speak to the issue of scientific reticence (the over-arching need to "be right") vs colloquially-used language in the real world.  In my response earlier, I phrased the expressions of certainty as used by both the National Academies of Sciences and the IPCC.

    In the terms you reference, in the common tongue, you may well be correct.  After all, unless the physics of human-produced GHGs differ entirely from those of GHG of natural origin (in worlds populated with Iris effects, cloud-causing ENSO and low-flying bacon), what other surmise can be drawn?

    In order to effectively communicate with the outside world, scientists must learn to speak comfortably in the common tongue.  As things now stand, scientists may as well be speaking in the high tongue of the Noldor.

    Namárië

53. JMurphy at 20:29 PM on 17 May, 2011
    Response: [DB] You mean like this? To make one last very off-topic comment : Yes, a bit like that but more like this last line from a classic Carry On film - if you like that sort of thing (which I do).
    0 0
54. Bern at 22:26 PM on 17 May, 2011
    [DB] response to #52: no, it's not like scientists are speaking in a different language, no matter how Tolkienesque. It's like the scientists write a journal article saying "It would appear that the sky is predominantly blue in colour, except at dawn & dusk when preferential scattering and refraction may produce a pinkish hue at times", whereupon the skeptics immediately start jumping up and down and screaming to their media contacts "Those scientists are saying the sky is pink! Everyone knows it's blue! It's never pink! They're corrupt liars, don't believe a word they say!" The press, of course, immediately write their headlines along the lines of "Breaking News: Scientists Say Sky is Pink!", followed by opinion columns by prominent skeptics about how the sky is blue, has always been blue, what are those scientists talking about, they obviously don't know anything about atmospheric physics, they must be either incompetent or conspiring to defraud the public, etc. The problem, of course, is deliberate miscontruing of scientific statements by deniers, aided by 'reporting' by the press that consists of little more than writing about or even just reprinting press releases from various thinktanks. If a little more effort went in to understanding what the scientists were saying, and reporting it accurately, then I think the message would get out quite easily.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.