CLIMATE POLICY MUST BE GROUNDED IN ACCURATE SCIENCE

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

A geologist would be part of the group but that doesn’t mean all geologist’s but they definitely are one of the go too disciplines wouldn’t you agree?

well only sort of. the list might look as if it supports your position - but it does so only in part. my explanation is a bit patchy but I will try.

for example someone may be called a geologist but actually be a paleobotanist or paleontologist or a vulcanologist or a field geologist or mining geologist or a polar geologist. you really wouldn't consult some of them over climate change matters because they would have no idea, just as you'd probably prefer not to have a paleobotanist making judgments about gold deposits.

there is a reasonable amount of intellectual freedom to pursue an area of interest within a broad discipline and category of that discipline. so people with a special interest in climate and climate change would explore that within their specialist area and may develop a particular expertise. in my fathers case he was a field geologist so needed a very broad brush knowledge of an awful lot of geology but because of the characteristics of NZ needed to have a good understanding of fault lines and its impact on land and soil. eg microzoning wellington. he also understood plate tectonics well and the impact of climate changes over long (geological time) periods and became well versed in carbo dating because it was useful and comparatively new and therefore fascinating. but that's it!

atmospheric scientists include a range of disciplines. and so on. my friend is an atmospheric scientist who in the process of measuring atmospheric changes started to see patterns, trends and data that disturbed him. can't tell you exactly why he first worked in nuclear science but then e worked in the national institute of water and atmosphere.

but a good close look at the list and their disciplines suggests that the breakdown from broad discipline to specialised focus is a pattern. I think you get a better perspective of the disciplines and how they collaborate from the intergovernmental team on climate science. where they landed is the result of a team effort with multiple disciplines but people with connected specialist knowledge. in fact that is why i think that report is convincing - it is the result of different perspectives and scientific rigour being brought to bear.

so - not sure if i am agreeing or not with your proposition but not sure it was that much of a debate anyway.

Expand

I’ve been told by a few people over various discussions on the matter that a geologist isn’t a climate scientist but as I’ve said and the position you have put forward, in my mind are the same.

There’s no such thing as a “Climate Scientist” as such because the study of climate requires information from a multitude of specialists from many disciplines.

Climate scientist is just an umbrella for those people who use their knowledge of specific areas to add information to the pool.

Suggesting that a geologist, mathematician, palaeontologist or whatever who gather information for their respective disciplines that also adds climate information in their process doesn’t mean that the information is worthwhile or that their findings are irrelevant to the discussion on climate.

Our friend a few posts back was a classic example “A good geologist “ but knows nothing about climate/not a climate scientists ( can’t be bothered to check his exact turn of phrase).

It seems as if he supports the science but only the science that supports his views, that type of thinking isn’t very scientific to my mind.