One problem in the communication of climate science is that "experts climate communicators" make quick judgments for reporters on deadline on papers they have not read & data they have not analyzed and then, when paper is shown to be fatally flawed, defend their original comments
Example: A scientist in this @capitalweather@washingtonpost article cites hurricanes Michael (2018) and Ike (2008) to emphasize the results of the paper & both of these storms decayed FASTER than the average rate reported in study
However it has come about that the leader of the next US national climate assessment will work from an agency as a career scientists (not politically appointed & not working from White House) is good news for the integrity of the NCA as an advisory mechanism
Climate science has been overseen from the White House since the 1980s & the US NCA since the 1990s
There now appears to be a growing consensus that RCP8.5 (and by extension SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) are inappropriate when used as reference scenarios (for definition of what a "reference scenario" means see @jritch &I --> osf.io/preprints/soca…)
There is a bit of unfortunate historical revisionism in the paper
Compare Pedersen et al (left) with the original description of RCP8.5 in Riahi et al 2011 (right)
The use of RCP8.5 as a reference scenario can be found in thousands and thousands of papers, with more added daily
First, this case hinges on rules, processes and science
On the latter it is remarkable to see IAAF demanding access to data, when they refused (to this day) to release data in their research re: Semanya
Similarly, I had a good chuckle seeing IAAF emphasize peer review (Semenya research wasn't) & the necessity of data release for CAS to do its job
In this case the data was shared by Leeper's team, in Semenya case IAAF never shared its data
"On October 22 2020, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research’s (CBER), Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) will meet in open session, to discuss, in general, the development, authorization and/or licensure of vaccines to prevent COVID-19"
I'm still amazed that we are using college football players as study subjects & (apparently) ignoring research ethics and corporate research protocols applied everywhere else on campus 10news.com/news/local-new…
OK, I'll ask
What happens if we find out that the answer to the research question posed below is, no or not much?
Do we say, "well at least we got some games in, thanks for participating in our study"
Vulnerability has decreased globally:
"Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human & economic vulnerability, with global average mortality & economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980–1989 to 2007–2016" sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
None of us are prepared to examine evidence ourselves & judge which experts are more reliable than others
Fortunately, there are formal & informal mechanisms which play this role
That’s the short cut
Such “short cuts” — which we can call science advisory mechanisms — generally (but importantly, not always) work well in contexts like climate & GMOs, but have for the most part failed miserably in the pandemic
Included in the shortfall was $25m for a "COVID-ready campus"
To mitigate shortfall we had salary reductions of $14m
So CUB staff paid for the "Covid-ready campus" out of our salaries
Not that it failed, do we get our money back?
Had CUB simply started off online on Aug 24 rather than going online Sept 21 no campus employee would have needed to take a salary cut & campus would still have had an extra $11m as a buffer against enrollment declines
It is not a comfortable subject, but these are the facts