Experts liken
the certainty over climate science to the science that says cigarettes kill.
Not exact matches
It is not the statement of uncertainty that causes problems rather the
over statement of
certainty in press releases that causes the loss of confidence in
climate science.
regulars and those responding to this thread in particular may be interested in the class assignment I presently have underway: students are required to select an environmental issue of interest to them and compare the blogging from three sites that reflect a stasist perspective (command and control,
science certainty, centalised government, precautionary principle) with the blogging from three dynamist sites (libertarian, individual responsibility, free market, adaptation
over prevention, non-dogma): I expect that several of the students will use
climate change as a topic and would expect that
climate audit, real
climate and prometheus will be prominent in the analysis.
You have indicators that who ever stole them may have believed in the sanctity of FOIA
over the
certainty of
climate science.
So let us quote the University of East Anglia
climate scientist, and former director of the Tyndall Centre, Mike Hulme, who is concerned that
science is being used to provide
certainty over big, complex political issues:
Neither do I think it likely that advances in
climate science will give us great
certainty about exactly how bad global warming will be
over the coming centuries.
Many things are uncertain in
climate science and we really need to appreciate that our historic data is often poor and that we need to acquire information
over decades before we can say things with
certainty.