A new direction for Climate Science?

[jryan]

I read this article by Mike Hulme, a climate scientist as East Anglia University. I am interested in getting peoples responses to this article. I have read it, and I certainly have an opinion, but I don't want to paint others opinion before they read it.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

[iNow]

Funny.

 

I welcome looking at their data, but come on already with the logical fallacies and appeals.

 

All of us alive today have a stake in the future, and so we should all play a role in generating sufficient, inclusive and imposing knowledge about the future. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

[ecoli]

I don't think that 'appeal to society' is necessarily an intelligent argument when it comes to global warming, but it is a useful one.

[swansont]

When did Singer become a "climate physicist"? Has he done any research and published any peer-reviewed articles? Anybody can publish books and op-eds. And Singer has flip-flopped his stance; a few years ago it was "there is no warming" and now it's "there is warming and it's not anthropogenic — it's unstoppable." His consistent position has been "less/no government involvement" but that's ideology, not science.

[JohnB]

Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.

So does this mean we should only listen to the abnormal ones?

[iNow]

So does this mean we should only listen to the abnormal ones?

 

Those ARE the normal ones (if normal is somehow related to the median).