It is important society has an understanding of what science is and what science can and cannot do in helping settle issues of climate change.

Most people understand that science is a process of seeking the answers about how nature works. It is the process itself that lies at the heart of science. Fewer people realise that this process virtually guarantees the integrity of science.

This guarantee stems from research published and examined by scientific colleagues in the most esteemed journals and refereed publications. Scientists who detect an error often gain as much credit for their scrutiny as those whose work survives it. Scientists who deliberately avoid this scrutiny by publishing their work in less respected journals or daily papers are understandably given less credence for their efforts.

Science does not offer 100% certainty and the findings of modern science are typically presented in the language of statistics and probabilities. This is especially true of scientific studies of complex phenomena; climate science is but one example.

In the absence of 100% certainty, some people less familiar with science interpret this ‘uncertainty’ as evidence of “a major scientific controversy” even when there is none within the scientific community.

The general public is then vulnerable to the claim that a major scientific dispute over climate science is underway between two equally large and well-qualified groups of scientists, when this is simply not so.

This false claim is often made by those who wish to discourage action to address the problems associated with climate change.

There are a few genuine scientists who remain sceptical about the details of climate change and we can all hope they are on to something. However, they are far out-numbered by other scientists (from a diverse range of sciences) that believe that climate change is occurring and who are very confident (not 100%) that humanity has caused this latest climate change.

The real issue at stake is what to do in light of what science has uncovered? Here there is a real controversy – evidenced in this thread.

Con’t

Con’t

One side favours action in response to the evidence that climate change is occurring, very likely driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while the other side opposes this view for reasons mainly due to concerns of a political-socio-economic nature.

Typically, the latter group is dominated by those fearing change and tend to be more vehement in advocating their position. Therefore, it is important to address both the dislocations and opportunities that will result from actions to mitigate the effects of climate change.

There is an understandable tendency to want to continue with ‘business as usual’. However, this produces a natural inclination to oppose change unless it becomes disastrous not to do so, which can lead to overlooking the many opportunities associated with pursuing more climate-friendly and eco-friendly technologies.

Major public policies depend on science for their proper formulation – this is particularly true of climate science today. It is the duty of the scientist to inform the public and the political establishment of the best science available on the issue, especially when there are others exerting a major effort to deny that global warming is happening at all.

_______________________

Col

Ok, you posted twice in error.

The “missing linked” is here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6812#102807

So, have you any comments given that the common thread from these diverse bodies is that the planet is faced with huge risks?

As far as my quals go, it was you who categorically said “you asked me what credentials I held, I replied out of courtesy; I do not recall asking you the same.” No matter, my response is the same I gave Graham;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6745#101586

As far as my posts go – it seems to me you are quite prepared to *give it* (Q&A slithers out of the debate, a battered whimp, defeated, credibility in tatters”) to people who don’t share your views, but you get testy when your views are challenged … you can’t *take it* so you resort to vitriol.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Wizofaus, AGW is just a symptom – the planet has many woes.