Comments on: Not Nearly Top of the League Table http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523&cpage=1#comment-10809 Roger Pielke, Jr. Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:08:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523#comment-10809 Hi Tom- Dan Sarewitz and I discussed an action-focused approach to climate science funding in this paper: Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2003. Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, pp. 27-30. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.01.pdf A more complete treatment can be found here: Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 5-16. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2485-2007.02.pdf Hi Tom-

Dan Sarewitz and I discussed an action-focused approach to climate science funding in this paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A. and D. Sarewitz, 2003. Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, pp. 27-30.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2003.01.pdf

A more complete treatment can be found here:

Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 5-16.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2485-2007.02.pdf

]]> By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523&cpage=1#comment-10803 TokyoTom Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:23:00 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523#comment-10803 Roger, it would be interesting to hear your own thoughts on actual climate science funding priorities, in addition to fuller criticisms of the arguments that have been advanced. You might note, by the way, that conservative Jim Manzi (the guy with the lead essay over at Cato) has made a case for a climate change DARPA, with annual funding in the level of single-digit billions, here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Game+plan:+what+conservatives+should+do+about+global+warming-a0164830927 Roger, it would be interesting to hear your own thoughts on actual climate science funding priorities, in addition to fuller criticisms of the arguments that have been advanced.

You might note, by the way, that conservative Jim Manzi (the guy with the lead essay over at Cato) has made a case for a climate change DARPA, with annual funding in the level of single-digit billions, here:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Game+plan:+what+conservatives+should+do+about+global+warming-a0164830927

]]> By: JamesG http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523&cpage=1#comment-10769 JamesG Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:35:26 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523#comment-10769 "now that it has been generally accepted that climate forecasts are plenty good enough for action," Generally accepted maybe but entirely faith-based, since there hasn't been any proper verification of "good enough". In the absence of said verification, (if you exclude dogma) it's 50-50, ie the same as having no model at all! But because we are on a rising trend, albeit haltingly, people just assume it'll continue. Like house prices or stocks perhaps? “now that it has been generally accepted that climate forecasts are plenty good enough for action,”
Generally accepted maybe but entirely faith-based, since there hasn’t been any proper verification of “good enough”. In the absence of said verification, (if you exclude dogma) it’s 50-50, ie the same as having no model at all! But because we are on a rising trend, albeit haltingly, people just assume it’ll continue. Like house prices or stocks perhaps?

]]> By: cah95046 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523&cpage=1#comment-10767 cah95046 Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:20:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4523#comment-10767 "call by climate science organizations for a doubling of their current level of funding during the period 2010-2014, asking for almost $20 billion" If the science is settled then the money should be spent on mitigation or adaptation. Why isn't it obvious to everyone that much if not most of the AGW alarmism is driven by money. Simple self interest. “call by climate science organizations for a doubling of their current level of funding during the period 2010-2014, asking for almost $20 billion”

If the science is settled then the money should be spent on mitigation or adaptation. Why isn’t it obvious to everyone that much if not most of the AGW alarmism is driven by money. Simple self interest.

]]>