Models Methods Software

Dan Hughes

Scientists Create Their Own Communication Problems

Scientists urge Senate action on global warming

In a move to shore up credibility for climate change science, American scientists and economists are asking the Senate to enact immediate legislation to reduce emissions related to global warming.

Two thousand US economists and climate scientists, including eight Nobel laureates, are sending a letter Thursday to the Senate urging lawmakers to require immediate nationwide cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions tied to global warming.

. . .

“We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions,” the scientists write in the letter. “The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase.”

Only the last blockquote is in the letter. But the summary by the writer of the article seems to me to be correct.

Oh, and their own creditability problems, too.

Advertisements

March 11, 2010 - Posted by | Uncategorized |

2 Comments »

  1. Hi Dan,

    I agree that this letter only adds to their credibility problems. (Although, you could explain in a little more detail what you mean by communication problems. Was the letter poorly written or presented poorly?)

    Taking the description of the letter and quote at face value, these guys are attempting to shore up their authority by making an appeal to their authority. Just what kind of person do they expect could possibly be swayed by such logic? Politicians? LOL.

    Logically then, the letter can’t be taken at face value. Therefore, there is some hidden agenda. But that means the letter can only lower climate scientists’ credibility as merely doing science further. Bizarre.

    BTW, note the use of adjectives. Swiftly implement policies. Deep reductions. Yet merely a growing risk of irreversible consequences. Logically, just the added risk of too swift or too deep could exceed the entire risk (growing or not) of irreversible.

    Nope, the letter is just not written to be at all convincing to anyone even slightly rationally skeptical of the infallibility of the climate science/economics establishment. Ah, I think I see now what you meant by communication problems.

    George

    Comment by George Crews | March 12, 2010 | Reply

  2. Hi George,

    If these people would sit down and do a little simple arithmetic they would know, with certainty, that deep reductions in emissions is not consistent with rational possibilities. And when you factor in the reporter’s summary, require immediate nationwide cuts you know someone has approached the irrational. The content of these statements relative to actions is not at all creditable.

    A someone recently said at Pielke Jr.’s, a pencil stub and the back of a small envelope is all that is needed to bring some reasoned light to the table. That commenter mentioned a nine-year old could do this, but that’s a stretch, IMO.

    I’ve generally stayed away for these parts of the discussions, but I’m beginning to get concerned that we will see spill-over from a certain segment of science / engineering / technology onto all of us. Although I could limit that class to only science, as this particular segment hasn’t even started to think about engineering or technology.

    Comment by Dan Hughes | March 12, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: