Will the IPCC loose credibility with this event described by Mark Lynas: http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/ ?
I suspect so, at least among non-scientists.
You can feel the frustration in Mark Lynas's response. You see, science needs to be 100% perfect in it's communications and on the Internet. It can't make mistakes or have people associated with it that have other, non-scientific, purposes.
The majority of critics get to play by different rules than science. James Hansen has noted that policy discussions and most public discussions take place using rules of Law. Climate Change is treated as the prosecutions case and all that is needed is to create reasonable doubt in at least one of twelve juror's. In other words, critics behave as lawyers and look for flaws.
Scientists look for flaws too and often discuss all possibilities. That is why the legal approach to science criticism is so effective, your 'opponent' provides more than enough 'evidence' to create doubt and spread the impression of confusion and malfeasance in the scientists.
Mark is right about the IPCC 'blowing' this. From a scientific perspective throwing out the possibility that renewable energy can reach 80% is ok, especially if it sparks examination about that goal. But that is not what is happening, because this was not science, it was a press release. Different rules are at play here. Climate Change, for the public, is a propaganda war now, not a scientific exercise.
No comments:
Post a Comment