En fornuftig stemme

Diverse — Drokles on December 12, 2010 at 11:58 am

Atmosfære og klimaforskeren Judith Curry henregnes ikke som nogen klimaskeptiker. Kort tid efter orkanen Katrina havde hærget New Orleans udkom hun og et mindre forskerhold med en stor undersøgelse, der konkluderede at klimaforandringerne ville betyde flere og kraftigere tropiske orkaner. Timingen skabte en del røre, hvor aktivister og politikere ikke var sene til at veksle tragedien til almindeligt dommedagshysteri, mens skeptikere derimod rasede over hvad de opfattede som usmagelighed. Timingen var dog helt tilfældig da rapportens offentliggørrelse var annonceret måneder i forvejen. Siden faldt på antallet og intensiteten af tropiske orkaner i øvrigt og Curry måtte tilbage til arbejdsbordet.

For nylig fik Curry så nye modstandere blandt hendes tidligere støtter da hun brød, hvad der ligner en partilinie hos klimaforskningsmiljøet omkring FNs klimapanel da kastede sig ind i debatten om de lækkede emails fra East Anglias klimaenhed og beskyldte klimaforskningen for at lide af tribalisme, en stammekrig, hvor almindelig forskning trænges i baggrunden af loyaliteter overfor alliancer skabt omkring bestemte teser. Dette blev af nogle set som et forrædderi og deres pludselige og voldsomme smæden af hendes navn i medierne forstærkede Curry i en nagende mistanke om at klimadebatten havde ødelagt noget væsentligt i klimaforskningen. Siden har hun opfordret sine kollegaer til at tage seriøse argumenter alvorligt uanset hvorfra de stammer og selv kastet sig ind i debatter på ledende skeptiske blogs, som Watts Up With That og Climate Audit, som hun også har oprettet sin egen blog, Climate Etc. Herfra stammer følgende beskrivelse af en af FNs Klimapanel indbyggede problemer (min fremhævning)

Climate science got caught up in a highly charged political debate: the consequences predicted by the models were dire, and many of the climate scientists were persuaded by the predictions of the models.  Climate science is a relatively young field, and one that was ill prepared for participation in such a highly charged political debate.   The traditions of science in disclosing all of the weaknesses of their work were at odds with this adversarial political process.

The actual shift within the community seems to have occurred in the context of the IPCC process. The entire framing of the IPCC was designed around identifying sufficient evidence so that the human-induced greenhouse warming could be declared unequivocal, and so providing the rationale for developing the political will to implement and enforce carbon stabilization targets in the context of the UNFCCC. National and international science programs were funded to support the IPCC objectives.  Scientists involved in the IPCC advanced their careers, obtained personal publicity, and some gained a seat at the big policy tables.  This career advancement of IPCC scientists was done with the complicity of the professional societies and the institutions that fund science.  Eager for the publicity, high impact journals such as Nature, Science, and PNAS frequently publish sensational but dubious papers that support the climate alarm narrative. Especially in subfields such as ecology and public health, these publications and the media attention help steer money in the direction of these scientists, which buys them loyalty from their institutions, who appreciate the publicity and the dollars.  Further, the institutions that support science use the publicity to argue for more funding to support climate research and its impacts. And the broader scientific community inadvertently becomes complicit in all this. When the IPCC consensus is attacked by deniers and the forces of “anti-science,” scientists all join in bemoaning these dark forces fighting a war against science, and support the IPCC against its critics. The media also bought into this, by eliminating balance in favor of the IPCC consensus.

Det er en ganske ligefrem, logisk og ukontroversiel analyse. Hvornår har De hørt en journalist tage udgangspunkt i dette?

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress