The scientific establishment do want to come out with alarming findings, but only if they are absolutely sure of the evidence and their interpretation of it. THAT is the nub, i.e. the nub is the difference between opinion and evience.
What would be the consequences if they made a big announcement that was a little bit speculative, though mostly sound, only to find later that their guess (opinion) was wrong?
Tom
________________________________________
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Nissen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 28 July 2012 21:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Global Warming's Terrifying New Math
Hi all,
This is the nub of the problem. The scientific establishment do not
want to come out with alarming findings. They don't even want to
acknowledge to themselves that there is a crisis, so they apply
groupthink to pretend that all is well. And they think smugly to
themselves that they are "maintaining scientific integrity" by avoiding
being alarmist!
The media are no better, and consistently try to look on the
super-optimistic side, e.g. looking for a possible cycle of 150 years of
Greenland's remarkable 97% ice surface melt the other day.
It's pathetic and laughable if it were not so tragic for us all, since
nothing effective will be done until it's too late. That is unless some
brave person with authority takes a lead to get us all out of the
dreadful mess we find ourselves in, a mess well described by Peter Carter.
Nevertheless we must remain positive - amazing things can be done with
determination and when failure is not an option.
Cheers,
John
---
On 28/07/2012 11:30, Brian Orr wrote:
> Explanation for this: the IPPC have yielded substantially to the
> political pressures inside and out to avoid as far
> as possible coming up with alarming findings, consistent with
> maintaining as much scientific integrity as they can.
|