Share this comment
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, daviddfriedman.substack….
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/a-climate-science-textbook.
Barry, thanks for this link!
"The way science is supposed to work is that individual scientists try to make sure what they publish is true, some make mistakes, a few may commit deliberate frauds, but both mistakes and frauds are controlled by the willingness of others in the field to spot errors and correct them. That does not work if the attitude of people in the field is that there is no need to check claims that support a conclusion they agree with."
I would bet no one takes the time to check them, because they are not paid to do so, and there is no benefit to be had from doing it, and nowhere to publish where other readers might see it. Other than the skeptical with time on their hands, an experiential sense of what is plausible, and some kind of independent blog or Substack outlet.
thanks. Your remarks go back to some of the integrity issues that Dr. Pielke has raised in previous posts.
I enjoy your insights