2 ms·

I would also highly recommend reading through some of Thorne's detailed review comments[1] It's clear he thinks the paper is extreme but nowhere near ridiculou

by themgt 11y ago

I would also highly recommend reading through some of Thorne's detailed review comments[1] It's clear he thinks the paper is extreme but nowhere near ridiculous, perhaps except regarding the "boulder" issue (which seems his best argument, but tangential). Specifically the Eemian, the IPCC/AR5 defenses, the non-linearity. A lot of it is disagreement over tone and maybe Hansen dialing things to 11 instead of an 8 or 9. I sort of agree with both of them, but the larger issue is the public sees this whole thing as maybe a -3 to 2 level of severity and they're arguing over 9 or 11. [1] http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015-RR1.pdf http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15...

manachar 11y ago
The public seeing something as a -3 to 2 level of severity while scientists seeing something as a 9 or 11 seems to be the standard way science and public policy interact. 1. Scientists potentially find $somethingBad in the world. 2. The world mostly doesn't pay attention, especially if the $somethingBad makes someone money. 3. More scientists investigate and start fleshing out the $somethingBad as a genuine concern. 4. Industry related to $somethingBad dumps money into science that refutes $somethingBad. Such science seems to be unable to refute $somethingBad completely, so it start nit-picking and fostering doubt. 5. $somethingBad becomes a political issue, with industry calling for more study and focusing on doubting the severity of $somethingBad. 6. Hollywood makes a movie about $somethingBad. It wins an award despite taking creative liberties in describing $somethingBad. Those creative liberties are lampooned by those who don't think $somethingBad is real. 7. Politics either continues at step 5 or finally manages to pass some laws. We've seen this with leaded gasoline, clean air/water, endangered species, tobacco, marijuana prohibition, asbestos, seatbelts, etc. Maybe it's just the way democracy handles it. The downside is that scientists who overstate the case with conviction tend to garner more of the headlines. The probabilistic truths of science just don't survive the onslaught of criticism from entrenched interests.

by themgt 11y ago

manachar 11y ago

The public seeing something as a -3 to 2 level of severity while scientists seeing something as a 9 or 11 seems to be the standard way science and public policy interact. 1. Scientists potentially find $somethingBad in the world. 2. The world mostly doesn't pay attention, especially if the $somethingBad makes someone money. 3. More scientists investigate and start fleshing out the $somethingBad as a genuine concern. 4. Industry related to $somethingBad dumps money into science that refutes $somethingBad. Such science seems to be unable to refute $somethingBad completely, so it start nit-picking and fostering doubt. 5. $somethingBad becomes a political issue, with industry calling for more study and focusing on doubting the severity of $somethingBad. 6. Hollywood makes a movie about $somethingBad. It wins an award despite taking creative liberties in describing $somethingBad. Those creative liberties are lampooned by those who don't think $somethingBad is real. 7. Politics either continues at step 5 or finally manages to pass some laws. We've seen this with leaded gasoline, clean air/water, endangered species, tobacco, marijuana prohibition, asbestos, seatbelts, etc. Maybe it's just the way democracy handles it. The downside is that scientists who overstate the case with conviction tend to garner more of the headlines. The probabilistic truths of science just don't survive the onslaught of criticism from entrenched interests.