Let us begin with the frank admission that Climate Science 1.0 did not work. It did not help us understand what will happen to our climate in the future, because it did not resolve the fundamental question of atmospheric sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. It did not help us understand the present, because scientists acquiesced in the hijacking of globl warming by hysterics, politicians and activist environmental lobbies. It did not help us understand the past, because they twisted the history of paleoclimatic data.
To move forward we need Climate Science 2.0. We need to learn from our mistakes and create a framework that will accommodate ranges of opinion as well as uncertainty.
I have on several occasions described such a format--I'll do so again briefly here. A responsible organisation would undertake to host a platform on the internet supported by a robust database with mediated input via the internet using various levels of permission. It could be something as simple as a wiki linked to a blog farm with varying levels of commentability and rateability.
The wiki would be organised by topic and would be refereed by acknowledged figures of credibility from at least four differing groups (scientists, general public, interest groups and commentators). Each topic would begin at a basic level and get progressively more technical as it scrolls down an infinite page. The referees would shade description by color, with statements approved by all referees appearing as the gold standard for consensus.
Each wiki page would have a linked weblog to it for discussion and commentary on that particular topic.
The database, in addition to hosting the wiki and weblogs, would also be a repository for documents such as academic publications (as permission warrants) and data from field experiments or metastudies. This would be available for inspection by all, and associated weblogs would be assigned for comments and corrections.
The general public, interest groups and commentators would be invited to ask questions via submission to a general page, and responses solicited from each of the refereeing groups.
On a quarterly basis, a Consensus document would be prepared and published showing what all sides agree on, and how that has changed during the quarter. It would note what had been published in the academic literature during that quarter and what it might affect going forward. It would chart government actions and legislation, progress on mitigation and adaptation, and keep track of emissions, concentrations and the spread of green technology and renewable energy.
It would also contain a Horizon Scanning section designed to lower uncertainty about what might be required from us in the future if global warming proceeds towards its potential upper bounds. This would be done by soliciting opinions from appropriate industry figures on costs involved in addressing various scenarios, and updating them as required.
A financial section would highlight investment opportunities, timing of feed in tariffs and portfolio requirements for utility companies, status of emission trading schemes and performance of publicly traded green technology companies.
The entire site would be indexed and searchable. Its goal is to improve the state of communication between various parties concerned with climate change. Its standard will be to improve the interplay between interested parties in comparison with what is happening today.
Any questions?
Comments
If I could do one thing to advance science, it would be to banish the word "consensus" from scientific discussion.
"Consensus" is the ignorant man's substitute for facts. The scientifically illiterate hide behind the word "consensus" and issuing a monthly "consensus" document is not going to help resolve any scientific issues.
I agree with Nuke that "concensus" is nothing we should expect anytime soon on climate science. After all, we don't have anywhere near a concensus on GUTs, TOEs, string theory, etc., after 100 years of work (and arguments). Einstein didn't discover the quantum nature of light until 300 years after Newton developed the Standard Model. We can't force our rate of understanding, no matter how hard politicians push for actionable facts.
This is great up until the idea of a "Consensus document." Consensus is political and has no place in science. The process itself would destroy the honest advancement of science. Consider the Royal Society which went 300 years with a policy of advancing science without taking a position on an issue.
"Consensus" is irrelevant for the scientific method.
I don't have a problem with consensus -- only with the outright abuse of the word. Consensus will never be a case of "Gee, 10 out of 10 of those who agree are in good agreement!", with anyone who does not agree marginalized and vilified. That's not consensus. That's rubbish.
Wherever scientists like Hansen, Christy, Jones and Lindzen are all found to be in good agreement (and there really is plenty of that to go around) call that a true consensus. Wherever there is strong disagreement, rightly label that controversial. Identify ALL of those.
Also, refereeing could not be done by AGW proponents alone, nor should anyone be expected to buy into claims of neutrality by ANYONE. Like the BBC, for example, talking to both sides, ostensibly to establish where there is a true consensus, but really only as a guise, as they focus only on simplistic pro-AGW planks so that a "false question" (argument from ignorance) can be offered up at the end.
Oh, and great job, as usual, Tom.
I like your idea (and you really should start that blog), and I admire your stamina in this. I follow your column faithfully because you really are one of the very few people I would call "neutral" in all of this. I wouldn't expect anyone else to see it my way, however, given that I consider John Christy the most neutral (and therefore purely scientific) of them all.
Nevertheless, clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you!
I should clarify that what I mean by consensus is something that skeptics, lukewarmers and warmists agree on.
How do you avoid the "Wikipedia Effect," where certain editors and meta-users control the information and censor entries they don't like?
Hiya Nuke,
Partially at least by allowing the dispute to appear on the website--using different color codes for authors or sides. By letting the blog drive the agenda, with the referees having responsibility for responding to what's pointed out on the blog, and by having four 'sides' have at least one party able to contribute.
I agree with Nuke that "concensus" is nothing we should expect anytime soon on climate science. After all, we don't have anywhere near a concensus on GUTs, TOEs, string theory, etc., after 100 years of work (and arguments). Einstein didn't discover the quantum nature of light until 300 years after Newton developed the Standard Model. We can't force our rate of understanding, no matter how hard politicians push for actionable facts.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!