WHBM,
You're on the money there. One should always scratch beneath the surface for the reality, not take
PR at face value. This situation is no different.
Flawed computer models may have exaggerated the effects of an Icelandic volcano eruption that has grounded tens of thousands of flights, stranded hundreds of thousands of passengers and cost businesses hundreds of millions of euros. The computer models that guided decisions to impose a no-fly zone across most of Europe in recent days are based on incomplete science and limited data, according to European officials. As a result, they may have over-stated the risks to the public, needlessly grounding flights and damaging businesses. "It is a black box in certain areas," Matthias Ruete, the EU's director-general for mobility and transport, said on Monday, noting that many of the assumptions in the computer models were not backed by scientific evidence. European authorities were not sure about scientific questions, such as what concentration of ash was hazardous for jet engines, or at what rate ash fell from the sky, Mr. Ruete said. "It's one of the elements where, as far as I know, we're not quite clear about it," he admitted. He also noted that early results of the 40-odd test flights conducted over the weekend by European airlines, such as KLM and Air France, suggested that the risk was less than the computer models had indicated. – Financial Times
The US is to slash all funding for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the result of a proposed budget amendment by Republican Party Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer that was voted in on Saturday.
The US House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority, has agreed to remove $2.3m from the IPCC funding budget as part of $61bn in cuts that were voted through.
Luetkemeyer slammed the cross-governmental IPCC for engaging in ‘dubious’ scientific methods in what was dubbed the Climategate scandal.
The UN environmental body was accused of covering-up scientific results and arguments that opposed climate change theory, as its employees were asked to destroy certain emails.
Luetkemeyer reportedly wrote, ‘The IPCC is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for.’
with income sources being limited, the 'scientific' community needs new sources of income?
Ash cloud models – overrated? A word on Post Normal Science by Dr. Jerome Ravetz | Watts Up With That?
Here is what Professor Jerom Ravetz of Oxford has to say about the issue (via email):
Interim contribution to the Post-Normal Science debate.
Considering the effects of the Icelandic volcano on air transport, we seem to have:- Facts Uncertain: how thin must the dust be, for it to be safe enough for flying?
- Values in Dispute: Regulators wanting safety at all costs, others needing to get flying now.
- Stakes High: Crippling costs to industry, versus big risks to aircraft and people.
- Decisions Urgent: Every day the immediate costs mount, and the long-term costs grow.
Is this analysis an invitation to scientists to cheat? Some of my critics would say so, and perhaps even some of my supporters as well!