I would like to refer CA readers to an excellent and relatively new blog scienceofdoom.com. Its policies commit it to a couple of things that are important departures from realclimate, climateprogress and similar sites, which spend much of their energy persecuting infidels, agnostics and perceived heretics on even minor creeds, the latter attracting particular venom.
According to its policies, it is committed to treating the “public” (which, in the technical blogosphere, is very often highly educated scientists and professionals from other fields) with respect, even if they ask heretical questions, rather than treating them as “part of an evil empire of disinformation”. It is committed to questions like: “What is this particular theory built on? How long has theory been “established”? What lines of evidence support this theory?”. These are obviously the sort of questions that are regularly addressed at Climate Audit in respect to proxies – and ones that I would have liked to be able to address in the physics if I could clone myself so that I had more time and energy.
SDoom commenced its life with many useful posts outlining the fundamentals of sensitivity of CO2, drawing heavily on Ramanathan’s work on radiative-convective models in the 1970s. (They describe him as the “great Ramanathan”.) In a few CA posts, I’ve drawn readers attention to Ramanathan’s articles on radiative-convective models, expressing my considerable frustration at IPCC’s failure to properly present a canonical and approved version of the fundamentals, embodying any advances since Ramanathan. My own sense – a view previously expressed at CA – is that in order to provide the appropriate food for a scientist from another field, there is a pressing and long overdue need for exposition somewhere between a primary school cartoon and merely reporting the results of GCM runs, meritorious as they may be. I suggested this long ago to one of the scopers of AR4 and it is something that the scopers of AR5 need to consider. My guess is that an exposition building on radiative-convective models a la Ramanathan would be the most fruitful way of accomplishing this. SD’s fresh presentations of Ramanathan’s work should be of considerable interest to people trying to understand the larger problem.
Their statement of objectives very much represents my view of the world – despite the efforts of opponents to paint me otherwise. Their emphasis on politeness is very much along the lines of what I try to do here. I try to be polite personally; I ask commenters here to be polite and have spent a considerable amount of time enforcing politeness rules. SDoom note that they may “use satire now and again as it can make the day more interesting” – something that I also do. From personal experience, I’d advise SDoom that it’s a voice that one has to watch as it requires a pretty deft touch to pull off successfully and won’t always give the intended results. On the other hand, satire and a light touch are far more agreeable than the angriness that one sees all too often in the blogosphere.
I quote their policies in full below:
What’s the blog about?
Who’s it for?
People interested in the science behind the climate stories we read about every day. People who want to learn. People who want to contribute to other people learning about climate science.
What does the author think about Science?
Science is not a religion. It’s good to ask questions. Being skeptical is a positive thing. When people of an alternative viewpoint use catchy but insulting labels for you, keep asking questions and thinking for yourself. Science isn’t settled by being able to come up with the best insults, although it can be a lot of fun – even for grown ups.
What does the author think about Climate Science?
It’s a fascinating subject and something really worth trying to understand.
A little more specific?
Some aspects of current “Climate Science” have become more like a faith. The science has been pressed into a political agenda and consequently the spirit of free inquiry has been squashed.
Opinions are often interesting and sometimes entertaining. But what do we learn from opinions? It’s more useful to understand the science behind the subject. What is this particular theory built on? How long has theory been “established”? What lines of evidence support this theory? What evidence would falsify this theory? What do opposing theories say?
This blog will try and stay away from guessing motives and insulting people because of how they vote or their religious beliefs. However, this doesn’t mean we won’t use satire now and again as it can make the day more interesting.
Comments and Questions
These are encouraged. But check out the etiquette. Otherwise the spam filter may eat your comments for breakfast. If not, the moderator will lunch on them.
A Calmer World
It’s easy to trade blows on blogs. It’s harder to understand a new point of view. Or to consider that a different point of view might be right. And yet, more constructive for everyone if we take a moment, a day even, and try and really understand that other point of view. Even if it’s still wrong, we are better off for making the effort.
And sometimes others put forward points of view or “facts” that are obviously wrong and easily refuted. Pretend for a moment that they aren’t part of an evil empire of disinformation and think how best to explain the error in an inoffensive way.