Pretty high level, given the way they do not want people looking into the details. For the last report, they set up special procedures to try to fend off FOIA requests for IPCC reports. Phil Jones once emailed, 'Why should I give you my data when you are just trying to find something wrong with it.' and 'If they ever make and FOI request, I think I'll just delete the file.'
One of Rahmstorfs papers was suspected to have an error, but the code was not being provided. McIntyre managed to obtain it thru a 3rd party, and discovered that Rahmstorf was making untrue statements about his work.
On another instance, we discover that Michael Mann created a hockey stick by turning a graph upside down.
Their work is full of errors, and when called on it, they tend to say it doesn't matter.
In addition they are willing to hype things to get the public scared so they will push for political action. One scientist told James Annan that he likes to exaggerate the effects for that reason. Steve Schneider said you have to scare the public.
It deserves and receives the same level as any other science. Every researcher in the area continues to question the cutting edge to improve on the theory so that it becomes more explanatory and predictive.
This scientific skepticism should not be confused with re-questioning points of physics that have long been settled. Nor should scientific and statistical uncertainty be misconstrued to meaning there is not widespread agreement on the core of the theory. What some people what to do is to label their own ignorance "skepticism". Ignorance and skepticism are different things.
There is a common test. Ask some laymen "skeptic" why they don't believe AGW is real, or why they don't believe climatologists are agreed on the basic. From some people the answer will be: I don't want taxes, or scientists are Marxists. Their fear of choices overwhelms their ability to synthesize science. A true scientific skeptic will always keep the science apart from the economics and the politics. Any person may discuss either, but the science-minded person maintains awareness of which they are talking about.
Politics does not drive physics.
And btw, climate science is as new as you might believe. Global warming due to increasing CO2 was first hypothesized 130 years ago, and the first science paper showing that it was in fact happening - and the first to use the phrase "climate change" -- was published 60 years ago.
Climate science deals with many other sciences. It is not a relatively new science. It is almost 200 years old. Fourier theories of heat transfer were published back in the early 1800s. Tyndall's experiments on greenhouse gas retention characteristics were done back in the 1850s. Arrhenius's calculation regarding how much the planet would warm due to a doubling of CO2 were published in 1896. Theories for heat transfer and retention were made before Darwin and his "On the Origin of the Species" which was published in 1859. Chances are you do not regard the theory of evolution as a 'young science' do you? Regardless, all scientists should be skeptics. Though there is a certain amount of skepticism that should occur for those knowledgeable in the subject, those with ill knowledge of the subject should actually look into what they are trying to discuss and see if what they are skeptics of has already been dealt with. If you have a problem with modelling take a course and learn how to do it yourself then come up with your own model.
https://www.coursera.org/course/globalwa...
Edit: No it is not new. As stated, Arrhenius came up with a temperature reconstruction based on a doubling of CO2 way back in 1896.
http://rsclive3.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius...
Why you continue claiming an alternate reality is beyond me.
Climate science deals with many other sciences this cases.
Global Warming is a fact and denying the reality of that is not skepticism, it is purely denial. Just like the people who refused to believe the earth was round or the people who couldn't believe the earth revolved around the Sun. There is a world of difference between healthy skepticism and denial. You are stuck in denial.
Not the national academy http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
And agree with you, never likely to happen If you think that the current stance of skepticism deserves any leeway you are a flat out denier. real time temperature readings for more than a decade show the planet is warming
The idea that human activity could seriously change the global climate was first proposed over a hundred years ago.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
Most scientists, even those specializing in climate, were skeptical of this idea until about 35 years ago.
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
Nearly all anti-science posters on Yahoo Answers are so utterly ignorant of this history they don't even try to deny it.
Whatever your understanding of science (your past questions certainly give grounds for skepticism), your prior posts suggest that you're also uninformed of climate science history. Your own "answer" to your own question here (that climate science "should be afforded a higher level of skepticism") betrays no knowledge of the reality that CLIMATE SCIENCE WAS ALREADY "AFFORDED A HIGH LEVEL OF SKEPTICISM" FOR MANY DECADES ...UNTIL MORE SCIENCE MASSIVELY SHOWED THAT HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE WAS TRUE!
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
Instead of posting slightly less idiotic versions of the same prefab anti-science myths seen here hundreds of times already and thousands of times on the anti-science denier-kook blogosphere,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
why not try to actually learn a little about the science yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
As Kano suggested, there is too much politics to trust many of the conclusions. It is one thing when a climate scientists gathers data, it is another when political hacks at the IPCC rewrite papers and make conclusions that are contrary to some of the scientists. It isn't coincidence that those who argue fervently for acceptance of "climate science" conclusions are leftists because it is a leftist agenda that is the inevitable recommendations of those getting the 2 billion that Trevor claims is all poor climate science gets now. Before it was probably closer to two million dollars and now with attacks on our energy sector and proposed regulations, the real cost is probably more realistically 2 trillion dollars in the US IMO.
Do not be afraid to ask questions. Contrary to denialist claims, realists are not afraid of questions. When you ask tough questions, the truth is what survives; lies don't.
And what is your source for such figures?
Anyway, as far as I understand, most of the money goes to data aquisition. In other words, weather stations and satellites. Many weather stations are at airports, because weather conditions are very important for flying aircraft. Fear of AGW has very little little to do with this funding, or even with the desire to understand how climate works.
The problem with climate change scepticism is that, by and large, it isn’t scepticism at all but just an outright dismissal of anything and everything that is perceived to support the theory of global warming.
Healthy scepticism should always be encouraged as this is how science advances. To be a genuine sceptic however, requires a comprehension of the subject matter, something that is very evidently lacking in many of those who would like to be called sceptics but in reality aren’t at all.
For example, a true sceptic would look at the temperature record, deduce that temperatures have been static for several years and ask why. The self-styled sceptics who inundate forums such as this simply note that temperatures haven’t changed and conclude that global warming is disproved. By no stretch of the imagination is that scepticism.
One of the issues with climate change scepticism is that almost everyone who knows enough about the subject to be genuinely sceptical, accepts that it’s happening. That doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t ask questions – of course they should, but it should preclude the non-cognizant from thinking they are experts on the subject.
There are far too many ‘sceptics’ who think they know enough about climatologies to make an informed decision. To those of us who do actually know about the subject, their ignorance is pitifully embarrassing.
If someone were to approach me and state that they know global warming was a hoax because Antarctic sea-ice extent has increased I’d just think they were an idiot, it would be very clear that they had no comprehension of the subject matter and no desire to educate themselves. If someone were to make that same observation and enquire as to how that could happen, this would show a willingness to learn a potentially some real scepticism.
What climate science needs, like all sciences, is a good dose of healthy scepticism – people actually asking questions, wanting explanations, looking at alternatives, testing and retesting hypotheses, introducing new concepts etc. Scientists love this and welcome it with open arms, it should be actively encouraged.
Climatology as a standalone discipline is relatively new, the climates are phenomenally complicated and there is a great deal yet to be learned. Anyone who can contribute to the learning process is invaluable. They don’t have to be experts on the subject but they do need an enquiring mind.
There’s something of a misconception that climate science receives a lot of funding from the public sector. In fact, it is better funded by the private sector.
A lot of the public money people perceive as going into climate science is actually money that’s used to develop alternative power sources and technological advances. For every $1 spent on climate change related matters, $0.11 goes to international assistance, $0.67 goes into technology and $0.21 goes to the science.
Another misconception is the actual amount of money spent on climate science. It hasn’t as many people think, suddenly gone up and it’s not, as some people claim, in the hundreds of billions. Total spending by the US government on climate science is about $2 billion per fiscal year, which, after adjusting for inflation, is the same as it’s been for 20 years. Note that this is the whole of climate science, the study of climate change is just one part of this.
Spending on technology has increased over the same period from approx $1 billion per fiscal year to approx $5 billion and there’s a further billion spent on international assistance, total of $8 billion.
This also bursts another funding myth, namely that G W Bush cut climate science funding whilst Obama increased it. Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama – more or less the same amount spent on climate science.
Climate science gets the same funding from the US government now, as it did back in the days when almost no-one had heard of it. And at $2 billion per year it’s small compared to many of the other budgets.
As with all areas of government spending, there needs to be accountability and good auditing. The public have a right to know what their taxes are being spent on and should be free to ask questions. If they are skeptical then they should be heard and their concerns addressed.
This is not a question of whether or not climate science is or is not defensible to said level of skepticism, it is simply a question of whether or not climate science should be afforded a higher level of skepticism then other areas of science.
My answer is that they should be afforded a higher level of skepticism.
Generally speaking, climate science is not only a relatively new science, but its massive funding is predicated on the fear of anthropogenic global warming. Without the fear of AGW, the level of funding to this new science would be in the millions, not hundred of millions or billions.
So, without regard to whether Climate science passes said level of skepticism in all areas of climate science, WHAT LEVEL OF SKEPTICISM DOES IT WARRANT???
I am not trying to shout, just highlight the question to be answered.
A very high level, along with medical science, climate science because it has politics behind it, medical science because they have Pharmaceutical companies funding them.
Question Authority and everything . Just became a Scientist says something its not a proven fact
