Steven E. Koonin, once the Obama administration's undersecretary
of energy for
science and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl of turbulence in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much a
science and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl
of turbulence
in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «
Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much a
Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much a
Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about
areas of deep
uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much a
climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much a
science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and
climate policy are based on values as much a
climate policy are based on values as much as data.
I think part
of this comes from scientists, both those working
in that specific
area of climate science and particularly those from outside that
area, speaking not as scientists with their inherent tendency not to claim something conclusive without a good deal
of statistically tested certainty, but speaking as someone who has been imposed upon or volunteered to give a scientific best guess without bothering the public with the details
of uncertainties.
The politicization
of climate science (due
in part to having Gore as the public face for so long) is one
of the primary reasons why there is so great public doubt even over the basics (leaving out
areas like sensitivity where there are large and real scientific
uncertainties).
N.B. Even if Schmidt is right
in his characterisation
of the skeptics, that does not imply that the
science must be settled, simply because there are
areas of real
uncertainty in climate science, but they may not be the issues on which he percieves skeptics generally attack.