…

NREL is a federal facility, owned by the Department of Energy. Its funding comes from Congress, where polarized opinions on human-caused climate change are the order of the day. Keller lamented that climate change is too often talked about in terms of whether someone “believes” in it or not, which pushes it out of the realm of science and into a sort of religion.

“We are not creating religions, we are creating science and engineering,” he said. “On climate change, on the renewables side, we as scientists have to do a better job to explain what the driver is for the science and engineering that we’re doing.”

…

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Dangerous Scientific Reticence[/font]

23 March 2016

[font size=4]James Hansen[/font]

[font size=3]Sorry for another long note, but no time for a briefer note right now – will work on that later.

Several years ago I wrote a paper|1| on scientific reticence, naively thinking that drawing attention to the phenomenon might ameliorate its incidence. Specific reference then was to likelihood of large sea level rise, which also is a central topic in our current paper|2|. However, here I address a broader issue of scientific reticence, because, I believe, the affliction is widespread and severe. Unless recognized, it may severely diminish our chances of averting dangerous climate change.

It may be clearest if I describe two of my experiences in the last few years, and then comment on why this topic is important. However, I want to emphasize that my experience with Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics was exceedingly good. First, I recommend their open procedure, i.e., publication of a discussion version of the paper in ACPD, and a final version in ACP, if the paper passes review, and publication of Comments by the scientific community, referee reports, and author responses, which is helpful for public understanding of the publication process. Second, we appreciate the exceptional help of all people at ACPD and ACP, and are especially grateful to the ACP editor for his generous work in support of publication of our paper and the paper’s title. Without his help the paper may still be unpublished.

The paper’s subtitle differs between the ACPD and ACP versions of the paper. The main issue about the title concerned the word “dangerous,” as in the case of an earlier paper|3| that provided the scientific basis for a law suit aimed at requiring stronger action by the U.S. government to avert dangerous climate change. We ultimately lost that case at the United States District Court Level, one level below the Supreme Court. Recently 21 youths and I have filed a new case in which we have made clearer the Constitutional rights of young people and future generations, as described in my recent Communication Our Children’s Right to a Viable Future.

…[/font][/font]