Sceptics and the convinced clearly can’t agree even on very simple things like what to call Prof Salby. So if we can’t agree what we know, can we at least agree on what we don’t. The honest answer is no, because this will end up in another “you/we don’t/do know – war, which I know will be like counting broken pencils – pointless.
So, can we agree on …. mmmm …. not sure how to put this as even this question could be fractious. I did wonder whether I could devise an HTML a button — and depending on whether you are a sceptic or other, you would get the appropriate question:
- Sceptics the question is: what could be done better?
- Academics the question is: where should we put funding?
But life is too short, … and eventually I think an appropriately neutral question** might be phrased thus:
“where should we put effort in climate science”?
**but I’ve lost confidence I can say anything without getting attacked so — maybe I should just issue a blanket apology right now?
My centigrade’s worth:
I’ll start by suggesting that a lot more funding should go into short-term regional forecasting aimed at predicting floods, famines and the progress of tropical diseases. This is a perfectly achievable aim with the potential to save millions of lives.
The next obvious one is that we need a lot more effort to understand the relationship between solar activity and climate.
And the last is that I’m fed up arguing about temperature records. Let’s stop these stupid arguments by spending say $1000 million on the most reliable network of surface sensors & ocean sensors for meteorology that us engineers can produce. And the reason it will cost so much, is not because I want some backpay, but because I’m not having any of this nonsense of debating how much the surrounding buildings & vegetation have influenced the readings. Most of the money will be to pay to flatten a one kilometer square with the sensor in the middle fenced in and filled with sheep to keep the grass down.
Obviously this might have problems in places and some of the sheep will need woolly hats in Antarctica – but I’m sure if we do enough research we will be able to genetically modify sheep to grow their own woolly hats.
Pournelle suggested that 10% of research money in ALL fields should go into sceptical research. In theory all science should be like this but in practice, particularly in “climate science” we know grants go to those who ay their research will “prove” or support the case.
I suggest that there is already to much money in climate “science”. Basically if you throw money at a “problem”, human nature being what it is, people will tend to find it “worse than previously thought” and few will turn it down as no problem.
If security from weather is the objective I suggest (my own hobby horse)of putting more money into space based observation. We know where and when hurricanes arrive because we see them from space and it has been calculated that the whole space effort has long ago been paid for in improved weather forecasting alone.
The other thing I think should be taught is the philosophy & history of science. I think if climate academics understood how many times established theories failed and had to be replaced, they wouldn’t be half as ready to assert the god given truth of their current theories.
More money for researchers
At the moment much of the research is done by an army of underpaid youngsters not long out of school who really have no idea about the world outside school and university.
In contrast sceptics are mostly long in the tooth, with a wide variety of experience who still remember when computers were things that lived in mysterious places which no one but the very select few were allowed to touch.
So, perhaps what is needed in climate science is to send all us sceptics back to school (cheers heard from all climate academics) … send us back to carry out research on the climate under the supervision of climate academics!
It would be a little difficult for a few years … but eventually they would learn we do not bite.
And of course, you would have to pay for all that experience!
btw Mike THANK YOU re Salby lecture.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/latest-news/398-breaking-astonishing-new-element-in-climate-fraud-uncovered.html
I feel one of my excel sheets coming on re the Bern model.
I may be some time….. Like the IPCC’s residence time….
I am wondering what people over here think of Myles Allen’s proposal to bury the carbon problem? – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/26/green-levies-crap-carbon-burial-fossil-fuels
Has there been any discussion in the blogosphere about it from bloggers who do not accept the IPCC consensus? Feel free to comment at http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/26/myles-allens-proposal-to-bury-the-carbon-problem