

Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate - retro
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?hp

======
lotharbot
Imagine an engineer who normally comes to work in jeans and a t-shirt. One day
the boss says "I want you to present your product tomorrow. Here's the
address." So the engineer cobbles together a demo, dresses up in his kakhis
and a polo shirt, and shows up to present... at a nationally-televised, black-
tie event. That's analagous to the situation in which climate scientists now
find themselves.

For the most part, climate scientists are doing normal science, and thinking
in terms of presenting their work to other scientists. But their work has
become the centerpiece for huge global initiatives with large economic,
environmental, and political impacts. This means their results, methods, and
even personalities are being subject to an unusual degree of criticism (some
valid, some not.)

Given the situation, it's absolutely vital for climate scientists to be as
forthcoming as possible -- engaging critics, admitting mistakes, and opening
up data (as in the article's subtitle.) It's absolutely vital for climate
scientists to do a better job of explaining than they've done thus far, and to
be very clear about what's known to what level of certainty based on what
evidence.

(IMO, it's also absolutely vital for scientists, rather than politically
polarized figures like Al Gore, to do the explaining.)

~~~
ErrantX
Excellently put! Especially the last sentence.

------
patio11
"“We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn,
always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental
scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind
people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a
scientific heretic are very, very rare.”"

That is a... _curious_ word choice for the White House science adviser.

~~~
tome
Could you explain what you mean? I don't understand your subtext.

~~~
ErrantX
I think he means the use of the word heretic.

Heretic: _anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or
principle._

The word plays on lots of negative connotations (when actually there is no
reason that it is bad to be a Heretic). Initially it seems a weird choice of
word: basically "hey, if your not with us your against us. Oh and were going
to burn you out". On the other hand I think it's one used in science history
books quite a lot (still in a negative context though) so perhaps it is
because the guy is a scientist and that's how non-conformists are considered.

Or then again maybe it is just a political choice of words attempting to
undermine anyone that does pick at the data.

(as an aside the guy is wrong - some of the biggest scientific advances come
from "heretics" making big and controversial discoveries)

------
timr
Is there a non-editorial reason that a new title had to be submitted for this
article? The original title:

 _"Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate"_

is more succinct, and carries a different connotation than the one invented by
retro:

 _"Climate scientists beginning to admit mistakes and open up their data."_

------
retro
In case anyone questions why the HN title is different from the NYT title, I
adapted it from the subhead which reads as follows: _"Grudgingly, many climate
scientists are beginning to engage critics, admit mistakes and open up their
data."_

------
ahk
Definitely a good thing if they start opening up more and start engaging with
skeptics in debates instead of just appealing to authority.

But the true reason no one will believe their claims till it's too late is
that they have no good solutions other than pushing us to the dark ages in
terms of energy consumption.

IMO climate scientists should also start thinking about solutions to the
climate problem (even if its not exactly their field). We could definitely use
more people thinking about solutions rather than just describing the problem
or its extent.

~~~
lukifer
> But the true reason no one will believe their claims till it's too late is
> that they have no good solutions other than pushing us to the dark ages in
> terms of energy consumption.

That may be true of some environmentalists, but certainly not all. For
instance, a much greater number now support building new nuclear plants, as a
lesser evil when compared to oil and coal.

~~~
ahk
My opinion is that nuclear is a non-starter due to the weight of regulations
surrounding it and its capital intensive nature. We need to see radical game-
changers which cannot happen in such an environment.

The recent news on the Bloom boxes has me quite hopeful however.

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Bloom boxes are nothing more than more efficient natural gas powered
generators. If anyone truly believed that anthropogenic CO2 will cause
catastrophic climate change in the 21st century they would not be looking
toward Bloom boxes as a meaningful solution to that problem.

~~~
teilo
Though, perhaps they may be looking toward Bloom boxes as an effective way to
reduce carbon emissions. Cutting emissions per kW in half is nothing to shake
a stick at.

