As many know, I recently returned from ICCC4. It has taken me a couple of days to get back on track and I want to share over the next couple of days, some of the things I saw there.
One thing I witnessed was a story of courage and of professionalism in the face of adversity. As many know, Heartland formally invited many scientists and scholars who are AGW proponents from the other side of the aisle.
This has been done for every conference since the first one in 2008.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at the sponsoring Heartland Institute and the person who recruited all of the 70-plus presenters Including yours truly) at the May 16-18 conference, said this about the invitations:
“I personally and cordially invited literally dozens of high-profile scientists who disagree with our speakers, including Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, William Schlesinger, and many others,” Taylor said. “I planned to give each side equal time at the conference.
Regrettably – and predictably – only two ‘warmists’ accepted my invitation to participate: Scott Denning of Colorado State University and Tam Hunt, a consultant on renewable energy and a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s School of Environmental Science & Management.”
All others declined, nearly all of them cordially.
Scott Denning was warmly and respectfully received, leading him to request a second opportunity to address the audience. He was granted that opportunity at the May 18 closing luncheon that I attended, where he said,
I want to thank you very much for inviting me to this conference. I have to say that I’ve learned a lot here. It was very gracious of [Heartland Institute Senior Fellow] James [Taylor] and of the organizers to bring me here. And I actually feel that it’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community didn’t attend and haven’t in the past, and I hope that we can remedy that in the future.
Denning’s remarks, with the applause he received throughout, can be seen on the YouTube video below. It is well worth watching because it illustrates the mood of the conference well.
Many scientists missed a chance to bridge the gap, and it is sad for them that they choose to keep the wall up, rather than participate in discourse and debate. Maybe Scott Denning’s courageous example will lead to more attendees next year.
Videos of all presentations from the two-and-a-half-day conference are being posted on the Web site of the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don’t mind being gracious…. Just so long as Science is the focus.
He says he is not a warmist.
Why do you call him a “warmist” when he says – flatly – in the video you posted, “I am not a warmist?” It seems odd.
REPLY: Humor on that very point he made, note the quote marks. -A
This is exactly what I always thought… the way that the universe works is independent of how we think it works. And I think that the majority of true scientists think that. Unfortunately, some people will try to make people believe in their (wrong) way of thinking, on how the universe works.
Nice guy! Can’t help thinking that a lot of what we know about what’s gone on before – RealClimate’s adversarial mindset for example – is either news to, or lost on Scott. What he says is entirely right with regard to opening the debate and dropping the “them vs us” attitude, but he doesn’t realise that when he says this he’s actually facing the choir square on.
Top bloke.
Why don’t people get the “warmist” jest? Is SOH on lunch?
What he calls himself is not an issue, it is what he is advocating.
jcrabb, Paul Daniel Ash; In the same way this is not a “denialist” site and those who post here are not “denialists”. It seems just as odd that there are those who still use that label. On the strength of this post it seems both he and we are nothing more or less than seekers after the truth.
Next up on the scientific front: Artificial DNA to create carbon gobbling bacteria. Does anyone see a potential problem with this concept? I know I’d like to keep the 18% of me that is carbon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
“If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide.”
Clearly he’s (Watt) being sarcastic.
It was very positive that he both asked to and was encouraged to speak at the final lunch and he made some really good points.
There is a danger of a void in the middle ground (between warmists and skeptics, for want of better terms). Looking at conflict resolution, the importance of neutral language and non-emotive language cannot be overstated. Perhaps we need to develop some new terms. If we have a battleground, is there a reluctance to be in the ‘no man’s land’ in the middle? Or is it just that those with the loudest voices shout from the back of the battlelines?
I agree that this guy was a very stand up guy.
I do see a problem that needs to be watched for though when you allow these opponents into the society. They are primarily very progressive people in general, and progressives have a tendency to work towards infiltrating with one or two people into the leadership of such endeavors. Once they have these one or two token progressives in the leadership, they work diligently to shut out everyone else and increase their numbers. They did this with the UN., Education, Foundations and so forth. You have to make certain that ideologues of the progressive persuasion are not allowed at any level of the leadership, or it will be a short 5 years before your organization will resemble the UN IPCC.
Denning strikes me as kinda nieve and so vunerable. He is like a priest going to a meeting of agnostics, not realising that so many of his fellow priests are, at some level, agnostic too. As Linzen reminds us, the science hangs on a thread of positive feedback on CO2 warming. And no one wants to discuss this. And there are some many strategies to avoid discussing it. Because such a discussion threatens the whole popular funding base for the cloister. Only a very few doomsayers prophets need lead with statements of ‘99% certainty,’ immanent collapse of greenland ice etc. Only a few need doctoring the temp stats. How many times do you see a scientist say “well, while this research of mine does not point to AGW, there is still all the other masses of evidence.” They dont want to know, or they dont want to ask…that there are no such masses. Look at Denning’s CV. He is not doing the propaganda. And its probably great research he is doing. But this research surely benefits from huge funding surge since folks like Schneider started pushing the panic buttons in the 1970s. It’s like Denning doesnt get it. It’s like he is looking for the extra-biblical evidence for the various and contradictory biblical accounts of Jesus, not realisng, as many believers will tell him, that that’s not what it is really about.
Well, I think this is interesting, but this statement is disturbing:
“And I actually feel that it’s really too bad that more of my colleagues from the scientific community… ”
Just who the heck did he think he was addressing? The “non-scientific community?”
Being a graduate of CSU, however, I will give him the benefit of doubt….
Reminds me of the Nixon “I am not a crook” speech.
He is a warmist make no mistake.
Despite the conciliatory tone he references solutions to climate issues.
Have the courage to do nothing.
Curiousgeorge says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Yes, I saw the report of the ‘historic’ achievement on the news.
They took the DNA out of a cell and inserted chemically engineered DNA.
There are enough problems with invasive species of plants and animals getting spread around the globe without adding computer generatedl life forms to Earth. They have crossed the line.
I defer to Steven Hawking’s take on Alien Life Forms.
I found one comment from Professor Denning rather difficult to understand. Perhaps it arose from his earlier involvement in the conference and the context has evaded me. He said what was missing from the debate was “constructive solutions that come from the political faction, or whatever we want to call it, that’s represented in this room”.
Leaving aside liquids, one can only have a solution if there is a problem. Those who don’t believe something to be a problem are unlikely to offer a solution. In a highly politicised field offering a solution on the basis: “if you’re right, this is what I’d suggest”, is a hostage to fortune and will be treated by some as acknowledgment of the problem.
Professor Denning expressly recognised that both sides of the AGW debate are highly politicised and I think that means he is asking for the impossible.
If the debate extends wider and looks at oil and gas usage as a problem because the raw products are becoming more expensive to extract and are supplied by some pretty unreliable countries, then solutions are offered aplenty from all political hues.
Well said Fat Bigot.
Re: remarks by astonerii. “Progressive” is coming predictably into increased use but we should instead call them “progressivist.” All the same they’re often reactionary.
His publication record will provide evidence of his views no matter what he said! Just like others who want to offer an Olive Branch that stand behind their past work.
Ben U.,
How about plain old “Liberal.” That’s what they are.
A communist is just a socialist in a hurry, and a socialist is just a liberal in a hurry. They all want to take what you’ve got, and own you.
Do you know if Prof. Curry was invited?
Anyone who has spent the last few winters in Fort Collins is going to have a very tough time believing that the world is warming out of control.
Before this debate is settled it has to address what is at its core – the precautionary principle.
Until this is done, the lack of evidence in support of the AGW premise and the abundance of contradictory evidence that refutes it will continue to be dismissed.
rbateman says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Curiousgeorge says:
May 20, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Yes, I saw the report of the ‘historic’ achievement on the news.
They took the DNA out of a cell and inserted chemically engineered DNA.
There are enough problems with invasive species of plants and animals getting spread around the globe without adding computer generatedl life forms to Earth. They have crossed the line.
———-
Agree. Scariest thing yet. Scientific hubris gone totally overboard, with potential consequences too horrifying to ponder.
[REPLY – Or wonderful. It’s too soon to tell. ~ Evan]