Climate Expert Demands Credentials of Deniers

[code1211]

To be clear on this, you are of the opinion that membership in a political party and memebership in a scientific society are governed by the same principles?

More to the point that if you want to be associated with a group and have their "blessing", don't be surprised if you are asked to conform to their standards. If you are uncomfortable with their standards, seek a different affiliation.

I'm not a fan of AGW, as you'll see if you read my comments in other threads, but one thing Dr. Cullen is correct about is this: If you claim to be an expert on Meteorology, then you ought to be up to date on the Global Warming Debate.

I'm currently a member of the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America, two of the professional organizations of my profession. They do not have high certification requirements, but if they required, say, basic proficiency in the Intuitionalist vs. Axiomatic approaches, I'd be obliged to pay attention if I wanted to continue my affiliation with them. I'd still have a right to disagree with one side or the other, but it would be expected that my reasoning be on an informed, mathematical, basis.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does.

My understanding of Math ends right about where the Tax Code begins, so you have my unbridled respect. Math has certainty. I think from what you write that in your affiliations, adherance to the methods is more important than adherance to conclusions. That is to say, if a conclusion departs from mathematical logic, like Quantum vs. Newtonian physics, the conclusion is to be examined as well as the methods to determine accuaracy.

Accuracy is the goal and will sweep aside any conclusion and/or method that does not produce or increase accuracy. Is this true?

AGW science does not seem to follow this paradigm. The conclusion that CO2 is the cause of warming is the Truth and any logic or data subordinates to this Truth. In this way, AGW seems akin to Creationism. As long as there is one Truth in any debate that cannot be challenged and at the same time cannot be proven, it is something other than science.

If the AWS or Metrorlogical Societies demand a buy in on AGW, that seems to reach beyond the scope of their "science". Maybe like demanding that a student driver endorse or reject techniques to pilot the space shuttle.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If the AWS or Metrorlogical Societies demand a buy in on AGW, that seems to reach beyond the scope of their "science". Maybe like demanding that a student driver endorse or reject techniques to pilot the space shuttle.

I'd have to go back to Dr. Cullen's controversal statement and see what she was saying, but IIRC, the point was that there were "certified" meteorologists that disagreed with AGW, but when pressed couldn't say why.

Now, you can disagree when you're in the fields of mathematics or science, or even refrain from participation, but if you want to express an opinion on a topic you should be able to back that opinion up.

 

[rdean]

So what is the point here? Some sort of knock against Dr. Cullen, who was perfectly correct in her statement, or yet another knock on Al Gore's lack of scientific know how?

At this point I think there are very few folks that would make the mistake of thinking Al Gore is a scientist.

Al Gore's lack of scientific know how?

When has Al Gore claimed to be a scientist? Link?

 

[DickCheney]

Uber-capitalist Al Gore a scientist? No, no, no he is a Titan of industry. A democrat too I believe.