3 ms·

> The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper sci

by anamax 16y ago

> The IPCC has 3 panels from what I remember: the scientific stuff, the effect these will have on society, and ways to prevent them. The former gives proper scientific assessment but the later two less so. One of the problem of the IPCC is that many of its complains came from mistakes in the latter two groups, but they cast a shadow of doubt to the first one (the scientific one) despite the three groups have little connection to each other. (the stuff about the Himalaya melting, for example was something added by the second group, not the first one). Which group was Hansen part of when he said that "deniers" should be jailed? Scientists are people and often behave as such. For example, most of the scientists who sign the various petitions don't have relevant qualifications and haven't done relevant work. Their signatures are tribal support, not scientific evaluations.

nanairo 16y ago
1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC 2) I agree scientist are people too: you need to distinguish between their work (e.g. their papers) and the rest of their lives. Only the formers have to undergo scientific scrutiny. Outside of that they are normal people like everyone else. 3) When a scientist speaks about something which is not his field, of course his titles and such don't count for much. But my impression is that people complain of scientist even when they speak of what they know, and back their statements with evidence from their studies.
- anamax 16y ago
  > 1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC Hansen wasn't the only climate scientist who expressed that point of view. Also, the "jail them" sentiment isn't uncommon among the IPCC. I'd like to see evidence that the IPCC scientists decried such stuff, or, better yet, the "beyond the science" proclamations, but I don't expect it because that almost never happens when science and policy are mixed. And that's a shame, because policy is a place where we desparately need the best science. Instead, we get the worst science, reserving the best science for things that don't have much impact on human lives.

by anamax 16y ago

nanairo 16y ago

1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC 2) I agree scientist are people too: you need to distinguish between their work (e.g. their papers) and the rest of their lives. Only the formers have to undergo scientific scrutiny. Outside of that they are normal people like everyone else. 3) When a scientist speaks about something which is not his field, of course his titles and such don't count for much. But my impression is that people complain of scientist even when they speak of what they know, and back their statements with evidence from their studies.

anamax 16y ago
> 1) I had to Google this, but I don't think James Hansen was part of IPCC Hansen wasn't the only climate scientist who expressed that point of view. Also, the "jail them" sentiment isn't uncommon among the IPCC. I'd like to see evidence that the IPCC scientists decried such stuff, or, better yet, the "beyond the science" proclamations, but I don't expect it because that almost never happens when science and policy are mixed. And that's a shame, because policy is a place where we desparately need the best science. Instead, we get the worst science, reserving the best science for things that don't have much impact on human lives.