 |
| Quien Sabe? |
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies indicates that a paper was published in the journal Oxford Open Climate Change recently.
Here is a quote from the referenced paper which I found interesting:
"Richard Feynman needled fellow physicists about their reticence to challenge authority, using the famous oil drop experiment in which Millikan derived the electron charge. Millikan’s result was a bit off. Later researchers moved his result in small increments – uncertainties and choices in experiments require judgment – and after years the community arrived at an accurate value. Their reticence to contradict Millikan was an embarrassment to the physics community, but it caused no harm to society. Scientific reticence, in part, may be a consequence of the scientific method, which is fueled by objective skepticism. Another factor that contributes to irrational reticence among rational scientists is “delay discounting,” a preference for immediate over delayed rewards. The penalty for “crying wolf” is immediate, while the danger of being blamed for having “fiddled while Rome was burning” is distant. Also, one of us has noted evidence that larding of papers and research proposals with caveats and uncertainties notably increases chances of obtaining research support. “Gradualism” that results from reticence seems to be comfortable and well-suited for maintaining long-term support. Reticence and gradualism reach a new level with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The prime example is IPCC’s history in evaluating climate sensitivity, the most basic measure of climate change, as summarized in our present paper. IPCC reports must be approved by UN-assembled governments, but that constraint should not dictate reticence and gradualism. Climate science clearly reveals the threat of being too late. “Being too late” refers not only to assessment of the climate threat, but also to advice on the implications of the science for policy. Are not we as scientists complicit if we allow reticence and comfort to obfuscate our description of the climate situation and its implications? Does our training – years of graduate study and decades of experience – not make us the best-equipped to advise the public on the climate situation and its implications for policy? As professionals with the deepest understanding of planetary change and as guardians of young people and their future, do we not have an obligation, analogous to the code of ethics of medical professionals, to render to the public our full and unencumbered diagnosis and its implications? That is our aim here."
(Global warming in the pipeline, "It should make everyone sit up and take notice", Editorial Comments). It is not only cosmologists who think that life comes from death and/or death comes from life is it - what about the IPCC scientists and/or religious groups (Pew Research: Religious groups’ views on climate change)?
The previous post in this series is here.
