Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stevec's avatar

Nice clickbait.

Two comments:

1. Climate scientists do write about this in papers. Reducing uncertainty of past observations is an important area of climate research, but when the past is unknown (or has large error bars) because no one was able to measure it, it's unknown (or continues to have large error bars). But still, they try.

Here's one example:

Prospects for narrowing bounds on Earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity, Bjorn Stevens, Steven C. Sherwood, Sandrine Bony & Mark J. Webb, Earth's Future (2016)

2. There are lots of areas of climate with major uncertainty but rule #2 of climate scientists *in media communications* is not to mention major uncertainty. Rule #1 *in media communications* is not to mention good news.

Expand full comment
Paul Drake's avatar

The process that allocates funds for research is far from rational, but a "scandal", I don't think so.

I have known or known of quite a number of scientists specializing in atmospheric chemistry, which takes them to aerosols. The one I know best has won major awards for that work; it has not been a path to obscurity.

What is notable, for that scientist among others, is that their research over time produces results that are taken as strengthening or reducing the case for climate alarm. They have reported that their treatment by that crowd changes incredibly based on what their latest result is thought to imply.

The reality is that no one result in that field can be definitive and, as you say, you would need to pour buckets of money into it to make progress more quickly. Which raises questions about the motivations of the climate alarmists.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts