Dr. Judith Curry writes over at Climate Etc about the upcoming Lisbon conference on
“Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate.”
I thought it would be good to touch on this. I was originally scheduled to attend, having been invited early on. I truly would like to be there to represent the readers of WUWT, but unfortunately, my reality is much like that of Jeff Id’s at the Air Vent. I’m a small businessman with a young family, and I simply can’t take a week long leave right now. The economy is hitting us hard.
Dr. Curry writes:
This week, I will be in Lisbon attending a Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate. The Workshop was conceptualized by Jerome Ravetz,Silvio Funtowicz, James Risbey, and Jeroen van der Sluijs.
While I (relatively) rarely travel overseas for meetings, I jumped at this invitation. The topic is certainly intriguing and an issue that I have spent a great deal of time pondering over the last year. Further, I really want to meet Ravetz, Funtowicz, Risbey, and van der Sluijs, whose papers I have been avidly reading over the past year, including citing them on a number of Climate Etc threads:
- Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster
- No Consensus on Consensus
- Decision Making Under Climate Uncertainty. Part I
- Overconfidence in IPCC Detection and Attribution. Part III
- Extended Peer Community
- Waving the Italian Flag. Part I: Uncertainty and Pedigree
- Politics of Climate Expertise: Part II
What has impressed me about their writings is that they recognize that climate change is not only a scientific subject, but also a political, economical, and ethical subject.
She adds:
I am hoping that there is some sort of path for reconciliation in this debate for the benefit of both scientific progress and social consideration of the issues surrounding climate variability and change. I don’t know what this should look like, other than:
- transparency and traceability in the science
- loyalty to truth and the scientific method
- understanding and acknowledgement of uncertainty and the possibility of error
- win-win situations such as no regrets policy.
I know what it DOESN’T look like, and that is reflected by Kevin Trenberth’s essay, where the blame is put on the deniers, the media, etc. (everybody but the IPCC scientists and their supporters). The domination approach only “works” if you can actually pull it off; climate scientists are babes in the woods when it comes to this kind of politics. A partnership approach makes much more sense and might actually produce a good outcome.
The people that really need to be there are from NOAA and NASA. Perhaps they will attend next year if the conference makes some progress that gets noticed this year.
While I regret that I am not going, on the plus side, I have delegated Steven Mosher to go in my place, and he’s all set. I look forward to his reports here.
You can read about the conference here in this summary that was sent to all participants:
reconciliation-rationale-WS2011 (PDF 57k)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
🙂
That’s all I have. I just wish a snide warmist close relative were also going. It might open up his receptivity that critiques of climate science is not a bad thing, and can actually help the field progress and morph into something more respectable.
On second thought. No. If he went, he would probably just disrupt the conference, blurt out various invectives and label everybody there “deniers”.
I’m sorry but how do you find a reconcilliation between people who lie, hide data, delete data and fudge results with people who don’t ?
Mix vanilla ice cream with dog droppings and guess what … you still don’t have edible ice cream …
anyone who doesn’t completely disaasociate themsleves with CRU and Mann now and forever is just as corrupt … those who claim that some of the work is legitimate are only self identifying as charlatons for the rest of the world to see and should be ignored forever as true scientists …
REPLY: The people of Northern Ireland did it, and that involved bombings, killings, and retributions. All we have is angry rhetoric. It would seem less of a challenge. – Anthony
Sounds like a very high minded and cautious conference. We must surely wish them well. I note that Judith Curry very properly says that. although she does not know what the path forward looks like, she is sure that it does not look like Kevin Trenberth’s latest essay. Reconciliation , if it is to happen at all, involves two way traffic.
But, But, what about that big oil paycheck Anthony?!? Isn’t Exxon going to charter you a carbon spewing jet? /sarc
On the bright side, Obama is getting ready to focus on jobs, so very soon we will all be rolling in the green stuff. (cash not nature) I wish that was sarcasm and not the message from the MSM carrying the Bamster’s water for him.
And as far as the Hope of Lisbon is concerned, I’m not holding my breath. Personally I think it is an attempt by warmies to try and regain some traction.
Anyway you have an Awesome board here, keep up the good work, and I hope the economy eases up on you…
Take post modernism out of science!
This is the sort of compromise I see coming:
Person X claims 1+1=2 while Person Y claims 1+1=11. X protests, Y offers a compromise…1+1=7. X still complains, Y offers 1+1=4…etc.
Unfortunately, the people who most need to be there probably won’t be interested.
“The people that really need to be there are from NOAA and NASA. Perhaps they will attend next year if the conference makes some progress that gets noticed this year.”
They will only go if it’s in Bali, Cancun, Hawaii, or some other vacation destination suitable for partying…
Sounds like another great excuse for all these climapate scientists to rack up their Carbon Footprint. Seriously I suspect it’s a political trap – refluse to play along and you’re unreasonable, play along and there’s really no disagreement afterall – the debate is over.
Anthony writes: “REPLY: The people of Northern Ireland did it, and that involved bombings, killings, and retributions. All we have is angry rhetoric. It would seem less of a challenge. – Anthony”
You have it backwards, Anthony. Northern Ireland “did it” because there were bombings and killings, i.e. both sides were really getting hurt. In the CAGW debate, where the only pain is rhetorical, and one side has everything to gain and nothing to lose by maintaining the status quo, the incentive to make concessions is much less.
REPLY: I hear you, but I was pointing to the fact that the level of hate and distrust was far greater to overcome. – Anthony
I give people like Judith credit for trying to build bridges.
But I do tend to worry when we need hold workshops to try and convince scientists to abandon politics for the scientific method. Science didn’t change and create this problem, scientists did.
Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate
Reconciliation can be achieved if policy is based on verified science.
Verification of the science can be achieved as follows:
Here is IPCC’s projections on global temperature trends:
http://bit.ly/caEC9b
Here is my suggestion on how reconciliation in the debate can be achieved
a) For the period from 2000 to 2030, if the global warming rate is 0.2 deg C per decade, the AGW theory is proved and policy follows.
b) For the period from 2000 to 2030, if the global warming rate is less than 0.1 deg C per decade, the AGW theory is disproved and it is rejected.
This is one of those wait and pray situations. For us here in the deep south with our lack of preparations for snow and ice and extended below freezing temps, these last couple of winters the global climate disruption is about to freeze us out.
Bill Derryberry
As I posted overthere:
Reconciliation?
Reconciliation as in conflict resolution.
To achieve what, a new consensus?
Bad for the science.
Facts and data should be a battleground field for the conflicting views and ideas.
I suppose it depends on what kind of reconciliation we are talking about?
I agree with Jeff – you cannot reconcile with cheats and liars.
It is crazy to think that the likes of the major Team members will be concilliatory for any reason other than their own self benefit based on what we know of their pasts.
Yes, the science is strongly polarized – a good part of that polarization is because the data ‘haves’ have avoided giving the data and methods to the data ‘have nots’.
Also, no matter how ‘nice’ you want to be about it – the main climate science players have been seriously unscientific in terms of their methods – this simply cannot be swept under the carpet with a load of back slapping.
Until there is some serious backtracking by the team and their cohorts I will view any type of supposed ‘reconciliation’ with deep suspicion much like pretty much any of the so called peer reviewed AGW papers of the past couple of decades!
The only way to sort it out – IMHO – is to start from scratch with a fresh lead ‘team’ and total transparency and availablity of data/methods etc for scrutiny by all interested parties. i don’t doubt that SOME of the pro-AGW stuff is valid, but as we see all too often, a lot is not and skeptics have been totally downtrodden and despised as basic ‘heretics’! That is not the science method in anyones textbook but the current ‘Teams’!
Proferring the olive branch is a decent thing to do – but given the history, I would always be looking past the hand thats holding the branch!
Ben G says:
January 25, 2011 at 11:57 am
totally agree!
I think it is a net plus. If more true scientists focus attention on defending not “TEAMS” but the scientific method, it has to have a positive effect in the debate. Dr. Curry and others like her can bring a lot of cred to the issue. We will see how the conference plays out, but I don’t think it is beneficial to disparage it in advance.
If they are talking reconciliation the first thing they have to do is to mend relations with Bjørn Lomborg He is a warmist but a rational one who does not draw apocalyptic conclusions from the mere existence of warming. The existence or otherwise of warming is a separate scientific issue and must be settled on its merits, not by consensus that they are looking for.
Am I being too cynical in wondering whether the point of conferences like this is to try to “co-opt” the climate skeptics? Will the AGW people, at some point, start offering to support NSF grants for the climate-skeptic representatives in return for … ? Actually, in the “wink and a nod” culture of government-funded science, nothing need ever explicitly be said about what the people giving the grants will be getting in return.
With how this whole thing has been conducted over the past decades, whose desire is it to come together? Who are we trying to rehabilitate? The scientific sceptics have only being doing the job of science. Naturally there are those adherents on both sides who aren’t scientists and putting them together wouldn’t make sense. Why can’t the main offenders in the ‘debate’ just give up political science and re-adopt the scientific method? I think some have had a major education over the past 10 years both by compelling arguments of sceptics and by the behaviour of nature herself. Hey, just come on in.
Ahh, hope springs eternal. I’m not near the optimist. In my view, the only way for this to occur is to remove the ideology from science. For many of us, it is quite clear it is ideology driving the alarmism. Once the ideology and advocacy is removed, science can once again move forward.
Interesting, Mosh, Curry and Goddard are going to be there.
Jeff says: January 25, 2011 at 11:36 am
We will get nowhere in the future unless we bring Scientific Method into our psyche as not just a practice for science labs but as an attitude of mind. This blog is one that stands at the frontier of these important developments. Curiously, those best able to cope and survive in the Nazi camps were those who could forgive their persecutors. I live in a world where nothing (including my recent renaissance of passion for Science) happens by accident, everything can be handled positively (but not without looking the worst in the face), and miracles happen, as in scientifically verifiable. Future Science will not progress without underpinning by attitudes like these. Warfare is less and less of an option, and we need truly new energy alternatives like LENR to survive. But most of all we need truth without judgement, and ways to help people know it’s ok to say “I was wrong”. IMHO.
BTW, since I too was invited but unable to go in the end, I would like to think that participants there will read our contributions to their conference here. And maybe add some questions.
It’s a pity I cannot attend, due (also) to professional matters… But we’ll all try to pass on what’s happening.
If anyone needs some translation, I might also help.
Ecotretas
The warmists are as bent on increasing the prize of energy, prohibiting exploitation of fossil fuel resources (Tyndall centre), and keeping their funding as ever. As usual, they argue with a total impending desaster if their requirements are not fulfilled real soon now. While their institutes are even farther in post-normal hand-waving mode than ever, see the PIK’s latest utterances. (Cold winter caused by Climate Change etc…) And they flat out deny they would ever try to influence policy (as usual. We are just innocent scientists.). Trust me, i had the displeasure of talking to some.
How can a compromise with somebody who wants EVERYTHING be possible? First of all, they must stop all activist activity and kick every activist out of their institutes (yes, i mean you, Hansen and Rahmstorff). Second, they must accept peer review of their papers by non-warmists. Only after that could warmist climate science regain respectability.
Oh, and they should define clear criteria for falsifiability in their “theory”.
Ah well, it won’t happen, it will stay political post-normal agitation…
You have probably seen this:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/17/green_techies_want_to_shake_climate_baggage?wpisrc=obnetwork