Since I did not attend Lisbon even though invited and initially accepted, (other business and family obligations took precedence) the very least I can do is to help elevate the discussion. Here’s a report from Dr. Judith Curry, and I urge WUWT readers to read it in it’s entirety. Hopefully Mosh will weigh in here with his report once he’s recovered from the trip. I’m sure Steve McIntyre will be posting on the conference also. Since this is a new topic, and one bound to be widely discussed, I’ve added a “climate reconciliation” category to WUWT. I’ll have some thoughts later. – Anthony
Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation: Part II
by Judith Curry (excerpts from her blog)
Here are some reactions from the Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Debate. These are my personal reflections, and include some of the perspectives and statements made by others (without any attribution of names).
The first issue is what exactly is meant by reconciliation, and who actually wants it? Reconciliation is defined (wikipedia) as re-establishing normal relations between belligerents: re-establish dialogue, reinstate balance, restore civility. It is not clear that there has ever been normal relations between, say, the mainstream IPCC researchers and the skeptical climate blogosphere. Consensus building was not seen as having any part in a reconciliation. Rather there was a desire to conduct impassioned debates nonviolently, and to create an arena where we can fight a more honest fight over the science and the policy options.
So who actually wants some sort of reconciliation or an increase in civility? One perspective was that the alarmists shooting at the deniers, and deniers shooting at the alarmists, with a big group in the middle, with both the deniers and the alarmists ruining the situation for reasoned debate about the science and the policy options. Another perspective described the fight as entertaining theater. One perspective was that there is no incentive for conciliation by either side; both sides like the “war.” In the context of the “war,” the hope was expressed that more moderate voices would emerge in the public debate.
The issue of civility and nonviolence in communication was regarded as an important topic by the Workshop organizers. They brought in an expert to facilitate nonviolent communication. This frankly didn’t go over very well with the Workshop participants, for a variety of reasons. This particular group of participants wasn’t very volatile in terms of emotions running high, use of offensive language, or heated arguments. The main format of the Workshop was for groups of 7-8 to discuss various controversial topics. Each group had a different dynamic; the group I was in had some colorful personalities but not terribly impassioned positions on the alarmist-denier spectrum. One table did encompass the entire spectrum, but the dynamic of that group seemed collegial. So the issue of getting skeptics to sit down with alarmists (these were the two words that were generally used to describe the two poles of the debate) and talk politely and constructively didn’t turn out to be a problem. This is partly a function of the individuals invited, who for the most part weren’t too far out there on either extreme and expressed their willingness to communicate by actually agreeing to attend the Workshop.
…
Towards reconciliation
Some principles/strategies that were discussed to improving the scientific debate:
- Acknowledge that there are real issues and we don’t agree on how to resolve them
- Disagreement with mutual respect
- Find better ways to communicate criticism
- Find better ways to admit mistakes without damage to reputation
- Find some common ground, something to work on together
- Find where interests intersect
- Importance of transparency
- Communication engenders trust
- Search for win-win solutions (i.e. both sides work to increase the funding base to collect more paleoproxies).
==================================================================
I urge readers to read the rest in entirety here: Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation: Part II
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks to Dr. Curry for trying to bridge the gap between ‘alarmists’ and ‘deniers.’ And good luck!
A good first step would be to get away from using an inflammatory term like “violence” to characterize the conflict. Such hyperbole only hardens the barrier to reasoned debate, and feeds the mainstram media hype.
Is there a full list of participants?
My sense is that the gathering was one of those in the middle rather than of the edges. I wouldn’t place McIntyre, McKitrick or Mosher as being too far from Curry have read material from all three.
I doubt very much that the true alarmists , such as the team, would have participated. They have too much pride, too much invested, and still have the ears of those in power.
“They brought in an expert to facilitate nonviolent communication.”!!
That’s an awfully sad commentáry. Some people must be terribly frustrated
things aren’t going their way.
If should would clarify what a denier is it would help understand what she means in certain areas.
(i.e. both sides work to increase the funding base to collect more paleoproxies).
Also working together to substantially reduce funding for alarmism.
Anthony — I am so happy that you let family obligations take precedence. I think a person’s family is the most important thing in the world.
When they stop trying to pass this science off as facts…
…when they stop pretending to predict the future
and stop lying
When the shouty protectors of Al Gore accept those points above, there can be reasoned debate.
“Trust of the scientists is especially important, given the role that expert judgment plays in the IPCC assessment.”
When the expert judgement accepted the Himalayan glaciers would melt in 2035, etc. how can they be trusted in anything else they said in 2007?
When the MSM start to question the extreme commentators rather than rushing to press with the wonderful bad news, then we may see some progress towards trust.
Thankyou, Dr Curry, for saying ‘There is no organized “group” of skeptics’
Now tell that to the organised group of alarmists who constantly dismiss their critics with that accusation!
■Find better ways to admit mistakes without damage to reputation
A recent movie depicted an advisor to the U.S. President, in the oval office, stating, “I was wrong.” to which the President comments, “Those words have never been spoken in this office.”
This is the heart of the issue. None will acknowledge error, to which I would add, nor will the true extent of uncertainty or ignorance.
Desire for recognition, esteem, personal gain and influence all flow from this point.
Steven Goddard also went.
I’ll be interested in his take on it also….
I really like this sentence:
“One perspective was that there is no incentive for conciliation by either side; both sides like the “war.””
Well, on the one hand, what am I to do with my favorite hobby “climate-research” if this particular “30 year war” ends.
And on the other hand I, well eh, erh–, the wife will be pleased—?
@Doug in Seattle 1156. Those whom you have listed are all interested primarily in nailing the truth about the science : politics takes a very distant place from the debate as far as they are concerned. Those who wish to use the science for political ends see the fulfilment of an ideological goal as the primary aim of their studies, and they are on both sides of the debate. The white noise endured by Anthony while Lisbon was happening is an example of the lengths to which the opponents of reasoned discourse will go – as was the scurrilous campaign to disuade Prof. Curry from her course when she first mentioned the idea.
I like and respect Judith Curry, but she’s still a bit too dependent on the teat of government grants to be truly objective. In the larger sense this isn’t just a squabble between climate scientists (and journalists). This is, indeed, a war. There is national sovereignty, entire economies and human liberty at stake. There are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars of global wealth at stake. And, as “violent” a term as it may be, we ARE fighting fraud.
I find this “reach across the aisle” posturing objectionable. I don’t want my tax dollars squandered on funding to collect more paleoproxies, but if you’re entrenched in academia this sounds like a grand idea. I don’t want AGW theory taught in public schools as though it is fact. We’re 20 years and $80 billion into this ridiculous scam and to date there exists absolutely no empiric evidence that mankind’s emissions of CO2 have warmed the planet or changed the global climate. Maybe the next conference can concentrate on everything both sides agree we understand too poorly to base anything on (e.g. clouds).
Where was this call for civility and cooperation 5 years ago when skeptics were being savagely silenced and having their careers threatened? One does not win a war by “making nice” with the enemy. Besides…MOST of this battle is political, not scientific. If it were purely scientific the skeptics would clearly have won years ago.
Dr Curry comments:
“So the issue of getting skeptics to sit down with alarmists (these were the two words that were generally used to describe the two poles of the debate)…”
But throughout her article Dr Curry refers to “deniers.” As a first step in reconciliation, I propose using “skeptics” instead of “deniers.”
We all know what some folks are trying to equate deniers to.
And the problem has never been getting skeptics to sit down with alarmists. The problem has always been that the alarmist contingent avoids debate. When has Al Gore ever debated?
Another thought: the media picks so-called skeptics to speak for genuine scientific skeptics. [A prime example is Mr Nurse’s choice of an incompetent NASA employee who stated that human activity emits several times as much CO2 as natural emissions.] Let each side choose their own representatives. I would enjoy watching Prof Richard Lindzen discuss AGW with anyone at all on the alarmist side.
Some principles/strategies that were discussed to improving the scientific debate:
* Acknowledge that there are real issues and we don’t agree on how to resolve them
I think we are at that point already.
* Disagreement with mutual respect
Disagreement is currently highlighted in one direction only (ie warmists disagree with realists) in the MSM. The opposite direction is only covered on the ‘net. This must change.
* Find better ways to communicate criticism
Criticism must be allowed BOTH WAYS and given equal weight.
* Find better ways to admit mistakes without damage to reputation.
It’s largely too late for that – many ‘careers’ are already in tatters as a result of what has happened and will unfold in the months to come. Untarnished contributors will be welcome.
* Find some common ground, something to work on together
Peer review to be carried out by both a warmist and a skeptic. No more Pal Review.
* Find where interests intersect
Not many realists want global governance, communism, more unelected heirarchy (EU etc) or taxes. Intersection probably at energy conservation and adaption levels.
* Importance of transparency
Yes, let’s have some then ! – without having to resort to FOI’s.
* Communication engenders trust
Can’t argue with that, best not to communicate via the foghorn of the MSM or ‘net though as this generates distrust.
* Search for win-win solutions (i.e. both sides work to increase the funding base to collect more paleoproxies).
Funding from UN and other vested NGO interests will need scrutiny in future as this is where we came in…………………….
“■Acknowledge that there are real issues and we don’t agree on how to resolve them”
Is the first point suggesting we agree that Climate Change is happening, and is man-made? Is that what ‘real issues’ means?
“Journalists struggle……”
You know, they don’t. The preponderance of journalists, like much of non-North American politicians and, of course, academia from all over are “collective” in their philosophies. This has crippled social science irreparably and in the last number of decades has invaded hard sciences. The wisdom of separation of church and state might be a good model to apply to science and society. E=mc^2 doesn’t need an alliance with politics – do the science and let the politicians and society decide how to fit it in. “Interventions” and coming together has its place but not in deciding whether society should accept pV=nRT (ideal gas law – low pressure monatomic gases) or not, or how they could advantageously change it to support policy goals.
Objectivity – its so nice to see it laid out so flawlessly.
Writes Anthony Watts of how “other business and family obligations took precedence” over attending the conference in Lisbon, without mentioning – of course – his natural reticence to undergo teratogenic doses of radiation and/or Heimatsicherheitsdienst grope-downs at the airport en route thereto.
“Climate reconciliation” is one thing. A blanket pardon for the AGW fraudsters?
Not until they’ve made restitution and we’ve adjudicated the matter of punitive damages.
Dr. Curry,
Who are these deniers you’re refering to, and where do the skeptics fit into this?
Thanks,
MikeEE
Having attended a number of these types of meetings, albeit on a much smaller scale, in relation to the debate over nuclear weapons and nuclear power it seems to me that positions become far more polarised on the blogosphere because there is no real human contact.
When you are face to face with people you recognise, basically, that they are human too and generally rarely totally bad no matter how much you may disagree with what they say.
It is easy to be contemptuous and dismissive in words posted on blogs. And such words, unfortunately, tend to feed of each other.
Sorry, but it seems a long, expensive, journey, to practice role playing and “how to discuss” lectures. Results seem to be wishy-washy, at best. IMHO GK
The tide of this “war” between the alarmists and skeptics has turned. That is the only reason the lukewarmers of both sides are sitting down and talking peace.
As with all wars this is prelude to the final capitulation and you will find that the real warriors are still out on the battlefield. I fully expect that the winning side will be taking scalps when the war is over. This is the nature of mankind.
Personally, until the alarmists get to some serious mea culpa, there is little reason to reconcile. I also see little need to help them regain any credibility – their actions have been so abysmal being shunned professionally seems reasonable in light of their acts.
However, if they wish to begin a scientific debate they need to admit:
(1) Their data and conclusions were exaggerated. Get on with producing the error bars on measurements and derived values (e.g., gridded data). Admit today’s temps are statistically the same as the 1930’s (within the error bars).
(2) Admit trees and other organic proxies involve so many other biological factors that local historic temps (let alone global ones) are beyond their capacity. Stick with chemistry (e.g., ice cores and elements) where the reactions and relation to local temp are known to a high confidence.
(3) Admit you cannot smear a thermometer over 1200 km’s and call it warming. Realize that temp readings decay (e.g., the error bars expand) over distance and time.
(4) Admit that the 1880-1960 temp record is spotty and only valid to within +/-3°C (or prove otherwise)
(5) Admit the skeptics were right in many cases, and accept the new scrutiny as the required test for the niche science of global climate to graduate to the level a serious leading science like physics, biology, engineering, etc. Peer review is the process of growing up and growing robust.
If the alarmists would accept these 5 points at a minimum, then maybe there would be a reason to expend some energy salvaging their reputations.
Otherwise there is not reason to lift a finger.
Fine that they’re all getting along. Did they already find a compromise about the worldwide economic domination the alarmists want to achieve (to prevent us all from a terrible catastrophe, of course)? Did they invite Chinese or Indian participants? Russian? Is there even an alarmist in these countries?
Philip Thomas: Thank you. That was my first impression also. I also disagree with Dr. Curry about the win-win be getting more money from the hard pressed taxpayers. Sorry, but you’ve had 20 years of free wheeling spending on climate, now it’s time to reduce ALL governmental spending and especially in areas where we can’t do much of anything about anyway.