Developing our own set of "right questions"

[br...@chesdata.com]

I had originally thought trying to reach a consensus of a plurality of climate scientists on the greatest acceptable temperature increase might be a way to focus the discussions on global warming. But Mike MacCraken had another thought:

First, I don't think it is a plurality of scientists is the issue. The ones who are able (at least potentially) are those in the Conference of the Parties on behalf of their governments.

And what we need to do is get them to ask the right questions in the right way, by which I mean the possibility, likelihood, and consequences of some particular severe types of impacts on society and the environment. So, chances of severe weather impacts, etc. Frame in terms of the decision-making framework of decision makes, so about risks--and not based on the typical high confidence decision framework scientists tend to be prone to (wanting confidence of two-sigma or more, etc.), also citing examples of extreme weather, diminishing glacial ice, SL rise, intense heat waves, etc.

How about starting the process of developing our own set of "right questions" and then work with those in the Conference of the Parties on behalf of their governments to refine the "right" questions?

 

Is this a worthwhile project?  Who is interesting in contributing?  Perhaps a “google doc” where we can enter and refine the questions (and eventually work toward answers)?

 

Cheers!

 

Bruce Parker