On criticism of scientists and their work

After reading the following article http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2012/mar/26/climate-change-oceans  and the comments left regarding it, I wish to consider the role of climate scientists as well as their public perception.

Climate scientists’ work seems to be the subject of some of the most fierce criticism aimed at any scientific work.  Intelligent scientific criticism can only be a positive force, encouraging improvements.  Climate predictions are based on models and models contain uncertainty.  However much of the criticism climate scientists receive regards not the parameters used in their model (criticisms which, if correct could lead to an improvement of the model), but more general criticism.  They are accused of being alarmist for reporting worst case scenarios (as well as best case scenarios) or flat out dismissed on the basis that members of the public have no confidence in scientist’s ability to model future climate change or accurately incorporate their uncertainty into their model.

In the face of this criticism I feel it is important to reflect upon the role of climate modelling.  I maintain that it is the role of conservation scientists (including climate modellers) to inform policy makers such that better informed decisions can be made.  For example, the article to which I have posted a link above refers to a paper yet to be published.  Based on the article the authors have, in my opinion, attempted to answer a very relevant question: based on current knowledge and understanding what is the projected cost of not reducing CO₂ emissions?  Their answer appears to be 2 Trillion Dollars per year by 2100 (worst case scenario).  Next they ask another relevant question: what would be the benefit of reducing CO₂ emissions (to a quantified lower level)?  Their answer is 1.3 Trillion Dollars per year by 2100.  With these two pieces of information (particularly the later) as well as the costs of reducing CO₂ emissions (which I hope will be included in the full paper) policy makers are in a better position to decide whether, from a purely economic perspective, investments in reducing global CO₂ emissions are economically viable.  As a result, I feel that this paper will only contribute to our understanding of the potential costs and benefits of mitigating CO₂ emissions.

paper will be peer reviewed before being published and once published is open to scientific criticism.  The authors themselves acknowledge that ‘much is still unknown and uncertain’ and have only quantified the costs of changes to the 5 best understood components of the oceans yet it has still be fiercely by members of the public (please see comment section of above link).  On another point, the costs of climate change considered do not take into accounts the costs of damage to terrestrial ecosystems and changes in rainfall pattern etc.  This is not a flaw of the paper and the paper should not be criticised as being incomplete because of it.  In a similar way, many papers which promote land sparing (intensive agriculture coupled with preserved ‘pristine’ habitat) are criticised as not taking into account whether ‘pristine’ habitats will be preserved or socio-economic impacts of intensive agriculture.  I also believe that these criticisms, which may be correct, are misguided.  A scientific paper should be assessed on its responce to the question it attempts to answer.  Stating that it considers the wrong question may be helpful for further research but each paper should be assessed on its attempt to answer the question which was considered.