Thin Science?, Propaganda?, Hidden Agendas?….unfortunately that’s what most of us expect to find behind the headlines when the stakes are high. In this brilliantly tight presentation from TED, Cambridge Phd. candidate, Rachel Pike introduces us to her work on the molecule Isoprene and then helps us understand the enormous effort behind the scientific work about our atmosphere. Consider….620 scientists in 40 countries reviewed by 400 scientists in 113 countries. Does that change your opinion of our headlines? Regardless…make sure to watch for shots of the flying lab Rachel and her teammates use in their work.
- Follow this blog:
- RSS
Behind the headlines about our atmosphere
Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.
About Vince Thompson
Vince Thompson was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.
Vince Thompson
Contributing Editor, People
Vince Thompson is a digital revenue consultant, author, speaker and host of the popular BNET show Dog and Pony. His firm Middleshift LLC helps Internet companies build revenue by creating advertising solutions and scaling sales efforts. He is based in Los Angeles.
Vince Thompson
Vince Thompson is the managing partner of Middleshift LLC, a digital revenue consultancy specializing in helping media companies sell online advertising.
Within the scope of his consultancy Vince works with a number or startups as well as major media companies and in many cases holds stock in those companies as well.
Vince is also the founder of Media2Watch LLC, parent company of Girl2Watch.com, a consumer content company that profiles up and coming actors and the shows they are going to be in and them connects them with audiences.
If at the time he writes an article or post he has a business relationship or investment related to the company or person featured, Vince will disclose his involvement. He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.
In
Behind the headlines about our atmosphere
RE: Behind the headlines about our atmosphere
Is Rachel saying that the atmosphere and all its interactions are very complex? Again, that should be obvious to anybody who has done even cursory study of climate. You would expect large teams of scientists would be needed to study such complexity in detail.
The real question, the one Rachel can't address, is where are we in studying the climate? Have we identified all the interactions, however subtle, which can cause major changes? For example, after the last two decades of intense study, why did no one predict the plateauing of temperatures in the last decade? Does this plateau have anything to do with the plateau of 1940-1970? It's quite possible that this is all part of man-made global warming, but the fact that the science still is not to the point that this could be predicted indicates that our knowledge is not nearly complete as the newspaper headlines would like us to think. If thousands of scientists with petaflops of computer processing at their disposal could not predict what actually is happening, isn't that an argument that we don't know as much that we think we do?
Derivative Scientific Hypotheses are Promoting Dramatic Headlines
That definitely isn't molecular weight and can't be by volume in the atmosphere because it isn't a gas. As I could entail even by the brevity of this presentation that it may ride on the condensate above the forest canopy or the fog machine.
Huge amount of stuff important to the atmospheric system?
As condensation nuclei for near surface moisture formation phenomena especially around forests but I'd like to see the hypotheses testing for global effects.
So this is the source of all the simplistic, pretentious, and derivative self-validation that promotes the dramatic headlines fit for publishing on the European's version of Enquirer? No wonder there is a credibility problem. The public is sensing that some scientists are contributing to the drama by exaggeration and conjecture. The goal may be to pursue funding from taxpayer dollars but it is getting to seem like pork barrel ventures.
Even worse to usurp people into financial schemes that will have no bearing on environmental issues or oversight to determine the effectiveness and where the money goes. Actually, the cap-and-trade or other schemes could be just the transition for the financial underwriters and petroleum industry to make their next huge bundle. Wouldn't that be ironic?