climatology

If there were ever a field in which it's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, climatology is it.

And yet, despite this lack of consensus in climate modelling, there is remarkable consensus among the climatology community regarding AGW.

For that matter, solar x-rays and extremely low frequency radio waves are both part of sunlight, but play little role in climatology.

However, climatology has remained one of my interests, and I've continued to try to understand it.

This is in stark contrast to the debate in climatology, where scientists would like data to be publicized so that they may verify the results.

The article opens by citing an alleged integrity problem in climatology and saying that lack of access to the relevant software is an even bigger problem.

They have interesting guests with some neat theories about things -politics, economics, social justice, climatology, sexuality, etc.

This is part of climatology, which is one word.

Members of all fields of science are calling for open data and source code, so I read a political message in your opposition (and focus on climatology).

But in my judgement as a scientist in general (and to some degree as a chemist who has done advanced spectroscopy including IR spectroscopy) I am losing confidence in climatology.

Perhaps you feel that pundits, politicians, and oil barons should get equal time when I want the established current models of climatology, but that's just not the way I roll.

I am biased - not about climatology, but having been in grad school and seen it first hand, I am biased about scientists motives, especially when you are competing for millions of dollars of grant money.

With climatology the "there isn't enough evidence" argument is really a very solid scientific critique.

And yes, on the current topic, experts in climatology do pretty consistently agree on the science (proposed political "solutions" are another matter entirely...).

So, for example, rather than taking the time to absorb the myriad complexities of climatology, and rather than reading the emails ourselves and analyzing their content and context, we instead take the "simpler" solution, the shortcut: we say, these emails are evidence of what I always believed all along, that the entire field of climatology is a hoax.

Climatology is an incredibly complex field and working out what the climate is requires multivariate modelling in order to try and work out what has happened and what will happen.

Climatology is concerned primarily with physics and chemistry, but also geology and in some cases, paleontology.

It's like International Journal of Climatology, but with better op-eds and stock listings.