tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post1888892612257249102..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Brauchen wir ein neues umweltwissenschaftliches Ethos?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73659436763984119152013-11-18T14:09:26.673+01:002013-11-18T14:09:26.673+01:00Roger Pielke Sr has sent the following email which...Roger Pielke Sr has sent the following email which I am happy to share. It is about IPCC's view of (non-)radiative forcings: <br /><br />"On the issue of the non-GHS climate forcings they continue to miss that climate forcings are much more than radiative forcings and, even with respect to radiative forcings, their role in affecting regional climate through alterations in large scale circulation features, for example, is much more important in terms of how society and the environment is affected, than changes in the annual global average surface temperature. This is true for other climate forcings such as how aerosols influence precipitation.<br /><br /> That is broader view is needed was clearly presented by multiple authors in these two assessment reports (essentially ignored by the IPCC).<br /><br /> Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, P.A., J.H.C. Gash, L. Bravo de Guenni, M. Meybeck, R.A. Pielke Sr., C.J. Vorosmarty, R.W.A. Hutjes, and S. Lutkemeier, Editors, 2004: Vegetation, water, humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system. Springer, Berlin, Global Change - The IGBP Series, 566 pp.http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/meteorology/book/978-3-540-42400-0<br /><br />National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/"@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7792916719467175222013-11-18T14:02:18.887+01:002013-11-18T14:02:18.887+01:00Soundbite HvW: "As long as you do not say wha...Soundbite HvW: "As long as you do not say what exactly you are comparing I call bullshit. Actually I am convinced that you copy and pasted this from a bullshit-blog."<br /><br />Le style, c'est l'homme? ... ;-)<br /><br />Coming to the burden of proof (that, according to HvW, always seems to be on others): quickly googling parts of the incriminated phrase does not yield any blog as source, bullshit or not. <br />Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88368461391698963452013-11-18T00:19:09.065+01:002013-11-18T00:19:09.065+01:00All these things are good news, including the lowe...All these things are good news, including the lower range for ECS from AR4. Thus, one might ask, why is not this good news highlighted? Its a good question. And that's a common theme of Annan's research for example, that in his words, some of the IPCC's more alarmist claims are not true. It would seem that this is important information for policy makers. <br /><br />Given the manifest failure of mitigation climate policy, I would argue that we need all the more good and objective scientific information.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51033508774942031172013-11-17T22:28:27.811+01:002013-11-17T22:28:27.811+01:00David Young,
It is laudable that you try to figur...David Young,<br /><br />It is laudable that you try to figure out what exactly Reiner means in his attempts to show that the IPCC is "misrepresenting the science". I have given up on that, as it appears to be a quickly moving target.<br /><br /><i>"I think the downward movement of temperature projections refers to the acknowledged 10% reduction of the "likely" forecast from the model mean projections over the next 10 years I believe"</i><br /><br />As long as you do not say what exactly you are comparing I call bullshit. Actually I am convinced that you copy and pasted this from a bullshit-blog.<br /><br /><i>So, this critical number's uncertainty is growing!!</i><br /><br />There are even more critical numbers! More knowledge often entails more uncertainty!! The ECS range has not "increased"!!!! It is hilarious that the characters who usually loudly complain about a too certain presentation of the findings now complain even louder when no number is given at all because none can be justified!!!!!hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77465020782245168002013-11-17T19:27:07.346+01:002013-11-17T19:27:07.346+01:00hvw, I think the downward movement of temperature...hvw, I think the downward movement of temperature projections refers to the acknowledged 10% reduction of the "likely" forecast from the model mean projections over the next 10 years I believe. Reiner's other points are also right out of the IPCC report. The increase of the ECS range is obvious as is the failure to give a most likely number. This is due to the fact that different lines of evidence disagree. So, this critical number's uncertainty is growing!! There is also the admission that some GCM's are too sensitive to GHG forcing.David Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17029429374522399227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28050433972216556502013-11-16T22:08:46.277+01:002013-11-16T22:08:46.277+01:00Pekka
maybe there was a misperception: I should h...Pekka<br /><br />maybe there was a misperception: I should have made clear that I do not argue against the role of CO2 as a major agent in radiative forcing. The graph in Gavin Schmidt's post shows that, over time, the IPCC has given more prominence to other drivers, and to higher levels of confidence regarding their role.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25264809597753647922013-11-15T12:18:47.398+01:002013-11-15T12:18:47.398+01:00Reiner,
I do not argue against other drivers havi...Reiner,<br /><br />I do not argue against other drivers having a role. What I have tried to tell is that nothing in that evidence changes to an essential extent the understanding on the strength of the warming influence of CO2.<br /><br />The other factors affect <b>a little</b> the estimate of the climate sensitivity. They affect <b>a little</b> also the confidence levels. These changes have all been in the range where the conclusions of rational decision making are not affected much. <br /><br />In drawing conclusions on policies that target CO2 emissions the results of science must be presented in terms of the influence of CO2, not in terms of other factors that are not on the level that they would revolutionize the understanding of the role of CO2.<br />Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25452613181809589012013-11-15T12:09:48.478+01:002013-11-15T12:09:48.478+01:00Reiner,
My own experience supports largely the va...Reiner,<br /><br />My own experience supports largely the validity of the Merton norms in many fields of science, and, in particular, when the ambition level is high. Sustained success at the top level of science cannot be maintained, as far as I can see, without following that kind of ethos. The peer community is in most cases efficient in enforcing that.<br /><br />Scientific research is, however, not limited to people who hope to reach the top level. It's an industry with a large number of professionals, many of them mediocre. Succeeding well enough in building a career in the industry of science may be based on differing criteria - and certainly often is. Codified norms may be needed in the industry of science even when they may be harmful at the most creative top. <br /><br />Medical research may be clearest example of industry of science. Problems similar in nature are studied by very many scientists, often supported by manufacturers of new medicines. The results are of direct importance both to the manufacturers and to their clients. It's no wonder that practical examples of problems of science have been discussed most widely in medicine.<br /><br />Some similarities may be seen in climate related research, but my impression is that that's fully true only in research related to technical solutions. The combination of interest is rather similar in research of renewable energy solutions as it is in medicine. The same is true to a lesser extent in other cases of concrete locally important damages supposedly linked to climate change or practical solutions, but not really in the climate science itself. <br /><br />The problems originating from the fact that some scientists are influenced both by their understanding of science and by their ethical views on, how the societies should act, are of a different nature. Others do realize that they let both factors affect their actions. They are influential only when they have support on their ethical views. Those who disagree with the views claim that the scientists have too much power or misbehave, but such claims would not be needed unless so many would agree with those scientists. It's really a fight between different fundamental views on what's morally right and what works in the real world. One side is sympathetic to ideas like degrowth, while the other believes in the power of free markets in finding the best way to the future.<br />Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80621199787504074102013-11-15T11:32:38.656+01:002013-11-15T11:32:38.656+01:00Thanks for granting my point, hvw: 'That the I...Thanks for granting my point, hvw: 'That the IPCC report doesn't focus on comparing with superseded reports - granted.'<br /><br />This would have been the right thing to do for the IPCC. With pretty much every other high level advisory report which builds on a previous report, you get critical analysis either from the authors or the journalists, commenting on the changes. Why is this not the case with IPCC reports? And why do have to insult people who do such analysis as weirdo bloggers? Would be good if you could show where I have become a victim of weirdo blogs.<br /><br />With regard to climate forcings, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/" rel="nofollow">Gavin Schmidt on realclimate</a> has attempted such an analysis of the evolution of IPCC's framing of the issue through various reports. I guess he's not a weirdo for you ;-)<br /><br />Pekka - there are high confidence levels for non CO2 drivers in AR5, see realclimate link above@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29885825950995713462013-11-15T11:12:08.707+01:002013-11-15T11:12:08.707+01:00Pekka
thanks for providing the link to the Merton ...Pekka<br />thanks for providing the link to the Merton classic.<br /><br />Karl Kuhn<br /><br />As you can see Merton speaks of the 'conscience', and the 'super-ego'. Merton seems to follow Freud here (as did his teacher Talcott Parsons). This means the Merton thought the ethos of science was transmitted in the process of socialisation of young scientists. It was a given for him, and he thought the CUDOS norms were an actual description of scientists behaviour at the time, not only a 'regulative ideal'.<br /><br />The norms did not need codification because they were part of the culture of science, so to speak. Today, we seem to be less certain what the culture of science is. And it is perhaps not likely that a codification of norms (CUDOS or something else) would have the same effect as tacitly shared norms.<br /><br />Very few science courses do have a philosophy, history or sociology of science component (we heard often how useless they are from scientists on this blog) and few practicing scientists will have heard about Merton or CUDOS. But they all know what counts in the cut throat competition of the academic labour market, which makes CUDOS almost appear as obstacles. Careers are usually made by following established approaches, not trying to prove them wrong.<br /><br />The norms seem have to be replaced by explicit rules and regulations about dilemmas regarding<br />- intellectual property rights and the need to share results (recently through FOIA law)<br />- universalism (through HR guidelines in appointment procedures)<br />- disinterestedness (Merton thinks that the self policing of the scientific community is effective -- we don't have codified rules apart from recently enacted journal policies to demand a conflict of interest statement)<br />- organized scepticism v tribal science (not much in terms of codified rules)@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72886822536177998512013-11-15T10:59:51.198+01:002013-11-15T10:59:51.198+01:00Reiner #33,
thanks my toes are fine and I am igno...Reiner #33,<br /><br />thanks my toes are fine and I am ignorant about aerosol science as well.<br /><br />I very much appreciate your frankness about your point of view. It is a quite strong statement to accuse WG I of "stealth advocacy" and of "misrepresenting the science" to falsely imply that "only massive reductions in CO2 now will solve the problem." This is contrast to stealth-"sceptics", who imply the same thing but in a way they can't be called on it. I guess it is also such sources from which you derive your belief in the "hiding" of an alleged "significant finding" regarding projections of tropical cyclone hazard. The claimed "downward movement of the expected range of temperature increases" must come from a mistake in matching the old and the new scenarios, otherwise this claim is totally opaque to me. How "hidden and oblique" can be applied to a topic that has been pulled into the highest and most visible level of dissemination (SPM) remains your secret. That the IPCC report doesn't focus on comparing with superseded reports - granted. Even though there is quite some comparison in it. But such assessments have been made in the literature for example with regard AR4 vs SREX/AR5 by the lead authors of SREX (dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0818-0). Recommended reading to get future statements about tropical cyclones right :).<br /><br />Reiner, if you really tried to substantiate such allegations - all power to you. It would be a formidable interdisciplinary task, involving the social sciences' expertise to examine theory and practice of the IPCC process and nail down where it failed, supported by climate science experts to supply the necessary domain knowledge. But unless this is tackled and as long as your arguments are sound-bites and random quotes that originate from weirdo-blogs, it is just your credibility that suffers.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-60837508502797758202013-11-14T21:16:32.362+01:002013-11-14T21:16:32.362+01:00The original 1942 text of Merton can be found from...The original 1942 text of Merton can be found from <br /><br />http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf<br /><br />The paragraph that describes the ethos of science reads:<br /><br /><i><br />The Ethos of Science<br /><br />The ethos of science is that affectively toned complex of values and norms which is held to be binding on the man of science. The norms are expressed in the form of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences, and permissions. They are legitimatized in terms of institutional values. These imperatives, transmitted by precept and example and reenforced by sanctions are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist, thus fashioning his scientific conscience or, if one prefers the latter-day phrase, his superego. Although the ethos of science has not been codified, it can be inferred from the moral consensus of scientists as expressed in use and wont, in countless writings on the scientific spirit and in moral indignation directed toward contraventions of the ethos.<br /></i><br /><br />In my judgement it has been essential that the ethos of science has not been codified as any codification might have counteracted progress that may often proceed in unforeseen directions and thus against any earlier codification.<br />Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-52870639337743917122013-11-14T19:10:52.963+01:002013-11-14T19:10:52.963+01:00Raffa
I think you and and your friend need a bett...Raffa<br /><br />I think you and and your friend need a better dictionary ;-)@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36653688993314445732013-11-14T19:10:25.230+01:002013-11-14T19:10:25.230+01:00hvw
well, I think you need to calm down a bit and...hvw<br /><br />well, I think you need to calm down a bit and grant non (aerosol) scientists to make a comment. Sorry if this means getting on your toes, but if you think there is something you can to illuminate us, please do so. <br /><br />The issue about non CO2 drivers of climate change is not a question of my (however unqualified) opinion. There is a literature out there, Ramanathan and Carmichael is part of it. The policy question is about short term and long term effects of different CC drivers. And here aerosols (among other factors, such as halocarbons, precursors of tropospheric ozone) offer an opportunity for effective policy interventions in the short term, as developed in the Hartwell paper and discussed many times on Klimazwiebel.<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-66331160889876398382013-11-14T18:08:40.394+01:002013-11-14T18:08:40.394+01:00Now that we are taking English may I ask the quest...Now that we are taking English may I ask the question again that I posed earlier on in the comment stream. I am genuinely puzzled and an answer would be very much appreciated.<br />Reiner, <br />It took me a while to digest this, as I needed some help from a German friend. We have come up with this summary of the blog/article and wondered whether it was a fair summary: Climate science/environmental science (which are treated here as largely overlapping sciences) have come into disrepute. Climate/environmental scientists are authoritarian, secretive and corrupt. They have contravened a number of Mertonian norms. This means climate science/scientists (environmental science/scientists…) need to be reformed/rehabilitated. They should start to follow a new ‘ethos’ (guiding beliefs or ideals that characterise a community), meaning a ‘better’ (?) (better reinforced?) set of Mertonian norms. In the meantime they (especially if they belong to an ‘institution’) should not make any political pronouncements based on the insights they achieve in their sciences. Environmental/climate politics should be left to society and politicians alone (who, it seems to be implied, are less authoritarian, secretive and corrupt than scientists). Scientists can still give some advice but only on a strictly need to know basis (and once they follow the new rules laid down in the new 'ethos'). <br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47385767451149567102013-11-14T17:04:06.293+01:002013-11-14T17:04:06.293+01:00What I'm trying to say is that wrong uncertain...What I'm trying to say is that wrong uncertainties are discussed far too often. What's known about the influence of CO2 on the average global temperature is not known accurately, but it's known much better than many other related issues.<br /><br />Reducing as fast as possible the use of fossil fuels is justified also for other reasons, the question is here only what the word "possible" should be taken to mean, and what are the real possibilities for doing that without causing other similarly severe negative effects. It's an important priority, but not the only important priority and it may conflict with some of the others.<br />Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-11957187716571188812013-11-14T16:32:05.739+01:002013-11-14T16:32:05.739+01:00Reiner,
now Pekka has you there again ... quoting...Reiner,<br /><br />now Pekka has you there again ... quoting one paragraph from one technical paper, to support fundamental criticism and grave allegations towards the IPCC.<br /><br />What is that, do you really want to have a debate about aerosol science here?<br /><br />As an addition to what Pekka mentioned: If you counterfactually assumed that BC had a radiative impact equal to CO2, and that we were 100% percent certain about it, can you make an argument, based on the information in that paragraph you quote, why CO2 emission reductions would still be much more urgent and important than BC emission reductions?<br /><br />Are you sure you understand enough about the subject matter to claim that the focus on CO2 is "a misrepresentation of the science"? In the same vein, do you know what there is to know about tropical cyclones to judge whether the topic is properly addressed in AR5? And the same goes for your alleged "hiding" of the temperature record of a particular decade (which in fact got its own alert-box).<br /><br />If you answer yes to all of the above, then you have to explain why it is only you, who has that opinion and can defend it, and apparently not enough of the reviewers.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71982740976536424632013-11-14T15:26:19.597+01:002013-11-14T15:26:19.597+01:00Pekka
this what Ramanthan and Carmichael say:
&q...Pekka<br /><br />this what Ramanthan and Carmichael say:<br /><br />"Given that BC [black carbon, RG] has a significant contribution to global radiative forcing, and a much shorter lifetime compared with CO2 (which has a lifetime of 100 years or more), a major focus on decreasing BC emissions offers an opportunity to mitigate the effects of global warming trends in the short term ... Reductions in BC are also warranted from considerations of regional climate change and human health."<br /><br />Have they got it wrong?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-9150765476041429742013-11-14T15:18:57.301+01:002013-11-14T15:18:57.301+01:00Reiner,
Only something that's very certain to...Reiner,<br /><br />Only something that's very certain to dominate the warming would be essential. Anything only possibly significant has essentially no influence on rational reaction to the the warming influence of CO2.<br /><br />If a decision is 50% likely to lead to very serious consequences it's certainly prudent to take that seriously. A similar risk with the likelihood of 30% would probably lead to the same conclusion. <br /><br />At this level of likelihood the precautionary principle is certainly accepted by almost everybody. Thus the real questions are:<br /><br />- Is the possibility of very severe consequences significant (30% is definitely significant, but 0.01% perhaps not, where the actual threshold is, is more difficult to say)?<br /><br />- If it is, do we have choices that mitigate the risk without causing (certain or possible) costs that are of comparable magnitude? Costs include here all negative consequences.<br /><br />The possible roles of black carbon, solar variability, and other proposed drivers may change the certainty of a specific level of warming from CO2 to some extent, but their combined potential does not halve the probability or have even nearly that potential. Therefore they are essentially irrelevant for the decisions that concern CO2 emissions. They may, however, lead to additional decisions on reducing releases of black carbon.<br />Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17462988150362307512013-11-14T14:57:54.752+01:002013-11-14T14:57:54.752+01:00Pekka
have a look here:
M.Z. Jacobson, Strong ra...Pekka<br /><br />have a look here:<br /><br />M.Z. Jacobson, Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric<br />aerosols, Nature 409, 2001, pp. 695-697<br /><br />V. Ramanathan & G. Carmichael, Global and regional<br />climate change due to black carbon, Nature Geosci 1, 2008, pp. 221-227.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29872580036096600882013-11-14T11:01:07.043+01:002013-11-14T11:01:07.043+01:00I think it would be nice to continue the discussio...I think it would be nice to continue the discussion in English to broaden the audience.<br /><br />For me, the key sentence in the Merton quote is that:<br /><br />"Ihre Legitimität erwächst daraus, dass sie als Werte institutionalisiert sind... [und] vom einzelnen Wissenschaftler internalisiert [werden]…" <br /><br />I'll try to translate it back:<br /><br />"The legitimacy of norms emerges from the fact that they are both institutionalised as [social?]values ... [and] internalized by the individual scientist ..."<br /><br />How much internalization is actually needed, as it is a long-term process? Does internalization follow or precede the establishment of the mutually accepted norm?<br /><br />Moreover, I gather from the blog post that Merton assumes the norms to be informal, not formalized ... a 'gentleman's agreement'?<br /><br />Do we have to formalize the norms/insititutions to substitute for slow or insufficient internalization?Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-20851657803450057912013-11-13T21:54:10.978+01:002013-11-13T21:54:10.978+01:00The uncertainties related to the possible role of ...The uncertainties related to the possible role of non-CO2 drivers is essentially irrelevant for the IPCC argument, as the argument is not based on certainty but on sufficient probability. In this case a 50% probability gives almost as strong support as a 99.9% probability, and even a 20% probability might result in very similar conclusions. The other drivers have little influence on such levels of probability. <br /><br />There are major problems in the standard arguments for proposed climate policies, but other drivers are not among them.<br /><br />Switching to the consequences of warming the likelihoods of some of them may be so low (like less than 1%) that this has a major influence on rational decision making. The uncertainties in the consequences of the proposed policies are even more important:<br />- Are the policies effective?<br />- What's the real cost of a particular policy including possible unforeseen detrimental consequences?<br />- Are the policies such that they can actually realized in a democratic society?<br />..<br />..<br /><br />All these questions are totally outside of the task of WG1. The other WGs should have more to say on them, but this is an area where I am rather skeptical on the sufficiency of the present knowledge. Here the role of uncertainties is different as it operates in both directions.Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47089629940476908442013-11-13T21:26:28.750+01:002013-11-13T21:26:28.750+01:00Ordway comments:
"…not one *currently as of ...Ordway comments:<br /><br />"…not one *currently as of 2009* rejects anymore the IPCC findings, (to the best of my knowledge) that we humans are warming the Earth. However, it was a different story several years ago before the world-wide mainstream climate science’s evidence advanced enough to become indisputably solid in mainstream science (with the help of intense contrarian arguments and became so strong)… <br />While some of these statements go back to 2001 (and in a few individual cases, even earlier), most were published in 2007 (14) and 2009 (10)."<br /><br />Now this sort of bandwagon effect seems to be the expression of a political campaign, or of wider social pressures of being seen to 'do the right thing'. <br /><br />Or maybe someone wants to make the argument that strictly and objectively speaking, the science was crystal clear in 2007 and this merited the extraordinary attention of the august Academies? But if this were the case, how did they learn about it? And what was their motivation to get into action? To save the planet?<br /><br />The book which I refer to is <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/sociology/sociology-science-and-medicine/power-scientific-knowledge-research-public-policy" rel="nofollow">The Power of Scientific Knowledge. From Research to Public Policy</a>. German version <a href="http://www.suhrkamp.de/buecher/die_macht_der_erkenntnis-reiner_grundmann_29590.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-5063645437508538692013-11-13T21:19:31.522+01:002013-11-13T21:19:31.522+01:00Karl Kuhn
you raise an interesting point about Ac...Karl Kuhn<br /><br />you raise an interesting point about Academies of Sciences and how they felt obliged (?) to join a bandwagon. At the height of climate alarmism in the media (2007-2009), several science organisations issued statements about climate change and the 'need to act now'. I have listed these in a book publication. Here is the relevant excerpt:<br /><br />"Richard Ordway, ‘the public face of NCAR,’ compiled the following list of scientific professional associations and posted it on Realclimate.org. He says: <br />The following world-wide established scientifically-oriented bodies have all issued verifyable [sic] written statements that human caused-global warming/human-caused climate change is now happening: <br />1) European Academy of Sciences and Arts - 2007<br />2) InterAcademy Council - 2007<br />3) International Council of Academies of Engineering and<br />Technological Sciences -2007<br />4) 32 national science academies (Australia, Belgium, Brazil,<br />Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana,<br />Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya,<br />Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia,<br />Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda,<br />United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) - 2001<br />5) The national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a<br />joint statement declaring - 2009<br />6) Network of African Science Academies (Cameroon, Ghana,<br />Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan,<br />Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African<br />Academy of Sciences) - 2007<br />7) Royal Society of New Zealand - 2008<br />8) Polish Academy of Sciences - 2007<br />9) US National Research Council - 2001<br />10) American Association for the Advancement of Science - 2006<br />11) European Science Foundation - 2007<br />12) Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological<br />Societies - 2008<br />13) American Geophysical Union - 2007<br />14) European Federation of Geologists - 2008<br />15) European Geosciences Union - 2005<br />16) Geological Society of America - 2006<br />17) Geological Society of Australia - 2009<br />18) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics - 2007<br />19) National Association of Geoscience Teachers - 2009<br />20) American Meteorological Society - 2003<br />21) Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society - (As<br />of 2009)<br />22) Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric<br />Sciences - 2005<br />23) Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society - 2007 <br />24) English Royal Meteorological Society - 2007 <br />25) World Meteorological Organization - 2006<br />26) American Quaternary Association - (from at least 2009)<br />27) American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians - (from at<br />least 2009)<br />28) American Society for Microbiology - 2003<br />29) Australian Coral Reef Society - 2006<br />30) UK’s Institute of Biology - (from at least 2009)<br />31) Society of American Foresters - 2008<br />32) American Academy of Pediatrics - 2007<br />33) American College of Preventive Medicine - 2006<br />34) American Medical Association - 2008<br />35) American Public Health Association - 2007<br />36) Australian Medical Association - 2004<br />37) World Federation of Public Health Associations - 2001<br />38) World Health Organization - 2008<br />39) American Astronomical Society - (from at least 2009)<br />40) American Chemical Society - (from at least 2009)<br />41) American Institute of Physics - (from at least 2009)<br />42) American Physical Society - 2007<br />43) American Statistical Association - 2007<br />44) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."<br /><br />[to be continued]@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80531482027357940762013-11-13T21:09:43.022+01:002013-11-13T21:09:43.022+01:00Hvw
The problem rests with stealth advocacy by th...Hvw <br />The problem rests with stealth advocacy by the IPCC (well some critics would say it is quite open advocacy, but then the IPCC might not agree… insisting that while it is policy relevant, it remains policy neutral).<br />I give two examples. The first has to do with the focus on CO2 as main driver of climate change. There may be a difference between WG1 and other WGs, but what WG1 says in its SPM and press releases leaves no doubt that it thinks only massive reductions in CO2 now will solve the problem. This is a misrepresentation of the science. Non CO2 drivers are sidelined, as Roger Pielke Sr has pointed out numerous times.<br /><br />The second has to do with the IPCC presenting its findings to the audience. One gets the impression that there is a dramaturgy which leads from less alarming to more alarming statements. But if you compare AR4 to AR5 there should be a message that while some basic tenets hold true (long term temperature increase, partly due to rising CO2, already observable climate change in the Arctic and glaciers, etc), in some aspects there is less evidence for things becoming worse. One example is the ‘downward revision’ with regard to tropical cyclones, which has not been advertised by the IPCC as a significant finding of AR5. This is completely hidden in the text, and did not make the IPCC 'headlines' although one might argue it should have. Another example is the lost consensus on a best guess of climate sensitivity, and the downward movement of the expected range of temperature increases. Another example is the somewhat hidden and oblique treatment of the ‘hiatus’ over the past 15 years. In all these cases the IPCC has not made a candid assessment of how its current report dovetails with previous reports, and with model projections, and what this means for the debate and issues about scientific certainty and uncertainty. <br /><br />One could argue that In all instances the iPCC has violated its own ethos of being policy neutral.<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.com