Science Forums 2

[InfiniteNow]

Here's an interesting article from Richard Black:


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

<...>

...if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject [of anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science] from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

"And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided."

...and another article regarding the IPCC itself:


BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The IPCC: As good as it gets

The process of producing the IPCC assessments is a long, painstaking and sometimes painful process.

It is careful and controlled but, of course, it is not perfect.

The three 1,000-page volumes do not always make gripping reading. However, they represent by far the most comprehensive and authoritative statement that we have about climate change, its potential impacts and how we can respond to the challenge.