news, and not much in the news
Oct. 30th, 2017 07:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljgeoff"The rate of increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over the past 70 years is nearly 100 times larger than that at the end of the last ice age. As far as direct and proxy observations can tell, such abrupt changes in the atmospheric levels of CO2 have never before been seen." WMO GREENHOUSE GAS BULLETIN No. 13 | 30 October 2017
Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO's global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News: "It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network. The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998, and it was 2.7ppm; and now it is 3.3ppm. It is also 50% higher than the average of the last 10 years."
From Reticence, Responsibility, and Climate Science: Why Climate Scientists Sometimes Need to Think Like Emergency Room Doctors - Kent A. Peacock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge
"It is worth reviewing the reasons why scientists may voluntarily choose to be reticent:
1. A good reason: In science it is very hard to be right, very easy to be wrong. Scientists
are understandably reluctant to publish a prediction unless they are virtually certain about
it, or at least about the level of uncertainty they can attach to it.
2. A not-so-good reason: stubborn pride. A notable historical example is the eminent 19th
century mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss. His personal motto was pauca sed pura,
“few but ripe” [22]. Gauss would not publish anything until it was polished to perfection,
with the result that some of his important discoveries (such as non-Euclidean geometry)
were scooped by younger and slightly less cautious mathematicians.
3. A regrettable reason: a scientist might lose funding if he or she pursues unorthodox
topics or extreme case scenarios [1].
4. A very regrettable reason: scientists can become subject to personal attacks [23,24].
5. Also very regrettable: climate scientists may be unconsciously hesitant to say what they
know because of possible “seepage” into professional discourse of the often-poisonous
atmosphere of climate science denialism [25].
6. Yet another bad reason: fear of disapproval of colleagues [3]."
Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO's global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News: "It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network. The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998, and it was 2.7ppm; and now it is 3.3ppm. It is also 50% higher than the average of the last 10 years."
From Reticence, Responsibility, and Climate Science: Why Climate Scientists Sometimes Need to Think Like Emergency Room Doctors - Kent A. Peacock, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge
"It is worth reviewing the reasons why scientists may voluntarily choose to be reticent:
1. A good reason: In science it is very hard to be right, very easy to be wrong. Scientists
are understandably reluctant to publish a prediction unless they are virtually certain about
it, or at least about the level of uncertainty they can attach to it.
2. A not-so-good reason: stubborn pride. A notable historical example is the eminent 19th
century mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss. His personal motto was pauca sed pura,
“few but ripe” [22]. Gauss would not publish anything until it was polished to perfection,
with the result that some of his important discoveries (such as non-Euclidean geometry)
were scooped by younger and slightly less cautious mathematicians.
3. A regrettable reason: a scientist might lose funding if he or she pursues unorthodox
topics or extreme case scenarios [1].
4. A very regrettable reason: scientists can become subject to personal attacks [23,24].
5. Also very regrettable: climate scientists may be unconsciously hesitant to say what they
know because of possible “seepage” into professional discourse of the often-poisonous
atmosphere of climate science denialism [25].
6. Yet another bad reason: fear of disapproval of colleagues [3]."