Friday, February 22, 2008
The Climate Scientists Complain Of Censorship?
From this experience, it is clear that the AGU EOS and Nature Precedings Editors are using their positions to suppress evidence that there is more diversity of views on climate, and the human role in altering climate, than is represented in the narrowly focused 2007 IPCC report.The paper is published below the explanation on his blog at the link above and is interesting. There's an approximately 18% tail in either direction (IPCC overstates/understates), and about 47% agree. Of course some didn't like being put into a box and felt their views were more complex. Since I didn't see this poll as being a threat to the idea that climate scientists take the threat of CO2 forced climate change seriously, it surprised me that it would be rejected. I suppose one could claim that it was rejected for other reasons.
Our article follows below. We invite colleagues who are expert in polling techniques to build on the polling questions that we pose in our contribution, and to provide the community and policymakers with the actual range of perspectives on climate science.
It would be odd indeed if scientists in any discipline as complex and novel as climate science were to be monolithic on such a question. Roger Pielke's views aren't easily slotted and can be found here.
My all-time favorite climate science blog is Climate Audit. It can be extremely technical, but is often lighthearted. The main focus in on the quality of the research and data. It is the botfly of such efforts and is producing very healthy change (amid hatred).
PS: My favorite science blog is The Reference Frame. This man is a gifted teacher, as evidenced by posts such as How To Disprove Spoon Bending. He is also hilariously politically incorrect.