“Really, there’s no need to demonize climate scientists.”

Climate sceptics too, yes?

“We work hard, find out what we think is pretty important stuff, and the reward is to be ignored by people who can make things happen, and to be vilified by the ignorant who fear the implications of our work so much they can’t see the way through to a better future.”

Many sceptics say something similar.

Personally, I’d much rather we could have a sensible debate where we could talk about what bothered us, sort out what was right, and do it without all the name-calling and hostility. Teach people what they need to know to be able to enter the debate, and to take opposing views seriously. “You ought to believe because we’re a bunch of experts, and you’re corrupt oil industry deniers” (or the same sort of thing from the other side) doesn’t allow such a debate. “You ought to believe because this is how it works, here is the physics you need to know” is something that can be discussed. The first step is getting everybody to recognise it, and accept it applies to them too. I don’t deny it applies to many on the sceptic side as well.

There has been a lot of discussion out there recently on trying to find out what is causing the failure to communicate, and whether a different approach should be tried. Personally, I think that rather than sitting in your own huddle and concocting your own theories as to why some people on the other side doubt, it would be worth asking them, and engaging with the opposition. And I think taking a less dumbed-down approach would definitely help with the more educated end of the spectrum. However, it is important that the initial aim should not be to persuade, it should be to come to a common understanding of the issues and positions.

(Not just on the science either – trying to avoid the methodological issues raised by Climategate and the Hockeystick and pretend there’s nothing to discuss does your side no good at all – seriously, I’m saying that to be helpful. Again, the aim should not be as prosecution and defence, but to first understand what we think the issues are, and on exactly what evidential basis – besides that a panel of experts said so – you think they’re not.)

I don’t think it will solve the problem – even if it can be done. There’s too much history, and too much at stake for people on either side to make major concessions just because of a change in tone. But it would be a step in the right direction.

Really, there’s no need to demonize climate scientists. We are a pretty sincere bunch. I have no complaints about my standard of living, but if one wanted money or power, working for a hedge fund would be a much better bet. We work hard, find out what we think is pretty important stuff, and the reward is to be ignored by people who can make things happen, and to be vilified by the ignorant who fear the implications of our work so much they can’t see the way through to a better future.

Christie is a Red governor in a Blue state, and is choosing words and policies. His words reflect reality and thus are an improvement on the usual Red politicians and their nonsense. So far his policies aren’t following, but maybe there’s a chance for that in the near future.

We disagree on who has an understanding of the conduct of science, but like I said, I doubt that’s resolvable. Experts should only be valued because they are able to provide explanations and evidence – but it is the explanation/evidence that matters, not the expert.

Speaking of which, I had a look at your article, and think that it’s just the sort of thing we need more of. Something that explains the science; that doesn’t just assert it. It’s a great improvement on most of those I read, and while there are a few points I’d dispute, and some topics I’d give a lot more weight to, it’s not bad. Most of it I knew, but there were a few things in it that were new to me. Of course, it’s only a part of the story, and not the most crucial part, but obviously you had limited space.

Unfortunately, science is not always conducted the way it ought to be in theory – scientists being human – and I’ve found experts being believed and their works being passed untested even by other scientists. Sometimes undeservedly. It’s a serious problem that not enough is being done about.

And on peer review I agree with the first part of what you say – it was exactly what I was trying to say myself. The only point of that I disagree with is the idea that things not subjected to peer review – in the journal sense – have no basis for credibility. The basis for credibility for any result is that it has survived well-motivated attack in circumstances that one would reasonably expect to find any flaws if they were there to be found. That can happen by other means than journal peer-review.

Nullius is also fabricating a picture of peer review that has little to do with the real thing. Peer review is not perfect, but it does provide a basic filter to assure that arguments meet some standard of scientific credibility. Not everything that passes peer review is correct, but things that have not been subjected to peer review have no basis for credibility at all.

The science underpinning global warming has met numerous crucial tests, both in the laboratory and in observations of the Earth’s radiation budget. For an example relating to the most fundamental issue of all — CO2 and the Earth’s radiation budget, see my recent Physics Today article on radiative transfer. An open access version is available in the publications list
of my site:

geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1

http://climatechange.rutgers.edu/