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.
Happy to be proved wrong but I somehow don’t think that the usual suspects will have any change of heart on “the science is settled” while the gravy train still rolls…
Your personal comments were of concern – for once they seemed a little downbeat. You provide a fantastic forum here for debate at all levels on natural phenomena and AGW issues: the range of topics is breathtaking. You must have friends and admirers the world over. I hope that progress continues smoothly on medical issues – subject of course to that, I am sure we all hope that you feel able to keep up the excellent work!
Is it too late to start an “Anthony to Lisbon” fund? I’ve got the first $100 right here.
REPLY: Thanks for the kind offer, but the flight at this point would be outrageously expensive. Mostly it is about my business and employees, who need me to pull for them right now, as does my family. I’d have to miss my son’s Cub Scout Pinewood Derby this Saturday, and these personal things need to take priority. As somebody pointed out the other day “on your deathbed, you won’t be saying “I wish I spent more time on WUWT” -Anthony
The problem is, that there is no common ground in the climate debate.
Either CO2 is the problem, or it isn’t.
Either the sea level is rising unusually or it in’t.
Either climate change is an anthrophogenic issue or it isn’t.
Where is the common ground?
The official program is here: http://www.gulbenkian.pt/section21artId2969langId1.html
Gulbenkian’s conferences are usually transmitted live through the Internet. At least that occurred when Pachauri was there. I could not find the link though.
BTW, Gulbenkian is a foundation that was built over the oil business: http://www.gulbenkian.pt/section2artId8langId2.html
Be aware of Viriato Soromenho-Marques: he is one of the worst alarmists in Portugal!
Ecotretas
Glad to hear that you were invited Anthony. Your responses citing Northern Ireland are spot on. The main point being that many of us in the UK mainland had got used to the idea that no settlement was ever going to be possible. Whatever view one takes of Tony Blair in other areas (insight on global warming isn’t his strong point, nor are JP Morgan likely to make it one) he had the guts to go for it, against the odds. Paisley, McGuiness, Adams did the utterly impossible a few months before. But, as always, there were heroes of the process who were much more hidden – like Brendan Duddy. It’s a wonderful story.
That’s what I take from the analogy. Sure, the vested interests crowd this area by now but some scientists have to be fed up of the corruption of a field they genuinely love. Judith stands tall as an example. I wish everyone involved (the really interesting question being the ‘dark matter’ in the 28 whose names we are not being given in Judy’s post) all the very best.
Kev-in-Uk says: January 25, 2011 at 12:07 pm
“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’.”
Hi Kev. Contrary to the impression many at WUWT seem to have, there is a vast mass of climate data and open source freely available for anyone that cares to access it. I suggest the following repository:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/.
Good luck to Watts the younger in the Pinewood Derby, Anthony! You have your priorities straight…
Reply to Girma January 25, 2011 at 12:02 pm:
Even if the world does warm up by 0.2 deg/decade, it is NOT a proof of AGW. It can happen for other reason.
Besides, warmists will fine a reason if the warming doesn’t happen. Look at the recent flooding here in Australia. After years of telling us that Australia will have permanent drought and other such predictions, we had terrible floods. They haven’t waited for the water to recede before coming out saying: ‘Actually this is what we meant… climate extremes.’ They of course have warned us about just about anything from asteroid strikes to bad beer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UNXv6IUhC4), so they will always say ‘See? this is the proof of AGW!”
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
“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.”
.
It is impossible to measure a 0.2ºC drop or increase temperature in the whole World.
This may seem harsh, but:
No taxation without representation.
No reconciliation without compensation.
I have followed Prof. Curry’s campaign to initiate civilised disagreement between sceptics and warmists fairly closely and with interest. It is worth noting that when she first mooted the idea, her treatment from some of the more prominent warmist bloggers was nothing short of scurilous, especially when she posted on sceptic blogs.
90% of the time, I think that she is genuinely interested in getting the two sides to contribute to seeking the truth about our constantly changing climate. then she posts, or supports a post, which jars with that feeling, and I wonder if she’s decided to kill the sceptic cat by choking it with cream.
Whatever, if sceptics turn up praising Science and keeping their powder dry, to paraphrase the English Civil War General Monk, Little harm will come of it and much might be gained in making Climate Scienceonce more a reputable area of study in the eyes of the general public.
Well ‘Senator’ John McCain plans to cross the aisle and sit with the Democratic Party for the Bamashow tonight; so called State of the Union speech.
The “Union” is a Union of “States”, not of the representatives of the People; who sent their reps to the Congress to get something done, to get the gummint off the backs of the people, so we can actually accomplish something.
You cannot get anything done to further the interests of your constituents, if you start the ball rolling by sleeping with the enemy. Just look at Arnuld Schwarzenegger for a start; he’s married to the enemy; and chose Robert F Kennedy Jr, to be his environmental advisor. So we know who wears the pants in that girlie man family. He took in Grey Davis’s Democrat team, and kept them in place so he could turn them over to Jerry Brown for his illegal third term as Governor; he even advertises that it is his third term; and presumably he will want an also illegal fourth term.
I don’t have a problem with the pro AGW folks going to Lisbon, to figure out how to get their act together so they don’t look like a bunch of crooked boobs; but don’t see any reason for the realists to go. In war, the winners write the history, and they make the rules. The last time we won a war, and made the rules and wrote the history, it meant something; and we haven’t had to face the same sort of problem again.
Note to Judith Curry.
Ravetz: “But from my earliest years I combined my concerns for science with an awareness and commitment to politics, which on various occasions was realised as activism, but for most of the time in reflection.”
http://www.jerryravetz.co.uk/work.html
“Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
It is a trap by the thermists. Judith Curry is not to be trusted.
No good will come of this as there’s no point in any “reconciliation” , just science.
Any result will be a public perception that the realists have given ground to the thermists.
Ammonite says:
January 25, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I am aware of the current (which is fairly recent, to be fair) availability of data. However, perhaps you might like to explain how it takes months, nay years, to deconstruct say, Manns Hockey stick and where we might be able to find the published method and code used actually by Mann? Or for that matter many other pro-AGW ‘demonstrating research’ papers ?
Or perhaps you might like to point me to the site that describes all the CRU/Hadcrut dataset adjustments over the last 20+ years? (Clue – if Jones says he doesn’t know what they are – I am pretty sure you and I can’t find out! – HARRYREADME anyone?) You see – it is all very well having a ‘dataset’ – and let’s just assume its valid for the moment – but how the feck do you or I know what they did with the data to get their ‘conclusions’ ! Methodology is required, and detailed methodology at that!
And computer models – WTF? How many models have their code as open source? granted, I believe some have been made public but perhaps that is only because now they have ‘sorted’ the data they can release it! LOL
The AGW theme has been built on initial fantastical theory and layered and layered by composite errors (lies if you like?) on top, with data altered to suit, code ‘fixed’ to suit, etc, etc. And like all complex lies, the Team simply cannot back down because they simply don’t remember what all the falsehoods (adjustments?) are!
I really don’t give a monkeys toss about how much data there is – it is most likely to be tainted at best (and completely fudged at worst) – and unless the various proponents of such data as ‘good’ can produce all the genuine real McCoy raw data, the subsequent adjustments and reasons, etc, all in original written ‘notebook’ form (you know, kind of like scientists normally keep!), with copies of the backup stages of each data change, etc, etc – we are, to all intents and purposes, p*ssing against the wind!
The ‘Team’ guard this kind of stuff with their lives ! – why? – this is supposed to be the proof of thermogeddon and will save us all from eternal hell fire and damnation! Funny that it has still not been demonstrated from start to finish with full and detailed workings – or have I missed Al Gores sequel??
I suppose the analogy is like fixing a blown car engine – you can dismantle it and rebuild it – but unless you know that both the brand new and original parts are fully compatible, you may as well not bother because the reliability in the finished engine will simply not be there, if it works at all!
Regarding live transmissions, Gulbenkian normally transmits at:
http://live.fccn.pt/fcg
I cannot guarantee it will transmit at this location, but I have seen past transmissions there.
Ecotretas
The “bad guys” often call for peace when they’re about to lose the battle. It’s merely a tactic in their arsenal. The question is: are the organizers peacemakers or merely peace-lovers (when it suits them)? The conference will fail unless true concessions are made concerning egregious behavior and disdain for the other side. Call me skeptical that it will succeed until I see the evidence. OTOH, true reconciliation is always a good thing.
Anthony,
I’m sorry you are not able to attend. I think the conference is a great idea. Hopefully it will add some civility to the debate. But the debate should go on. I would be very unhappy if this turned out to be some kind of forced consensus.
As I posted on Judith Curry’s blog, the best way to go forward is to pressure the IPCC to publish two reports, a Majority Report and a Minority Report. It is the only way I know of to air all of the scientific evidence, otherwise someone is going to be complaining their perspective was not considered.
My idea is to have one report lead by Jim Hansen or Gavin Schmidt. The other to be led by Roger Pielke Sr or Judith Curry. You have 4,000 qualified climate scientists invited to take part in the writing and review process. If you are part of the process, then you get to vote on which report best represents the science. After the two reports come out, you might be surprised which report wins the vote to become the Majority Report.
Of course, voting doesn’t determine truth. Truth would still be open to debate. The vote would only determine which report was called the Majority Report.
Would this be a Truth and Reconcilliation!!
In any reconcilliation, facts play a big part and i’d bet the facts have hit these clowns hard over the last couple of winters and with global temps plummeting it feels a tad
contrite for these offerings,still at least they will have a nice jollie…..again,
Never heard of video conference’s
Reconciliation is fine, so long as the end product arrived at reality. I don’t think that’s possible for warmers. Their entire universe exists in an alternate reality.
Judith is right and wrong at the same time to state that this is a political and ethical issue also. It IS only because warmers are using this scientific issue as a vehicle for Malthusian or Marxist religious ideologies, but it ISN’T and SHOULDN’T BE because those motives are contortions of dispassionate, brutally objective observation- the very foundation of science.
As for citing Northern Ireland reconciliation, did that not allow for murderers and bombers to be released from prison for the crimes they committed to be simply wiped off the books as a part of the reconcilliation (Good Friday Agreement). Do we sceptics have to allow these B****** to get away scott free with the biggest lie/con in human history??
Stated another way: If objective science had arrived at a legitimate conclusion of AGW, Judith’s assertion about politics and ethics as part of the discussion might have merit.
But this is another leftie bean swap beneath the teacups. Political and ideological notions have been the very driver behind the pseudoscience of AGW, not the resultant impacts of its objective conclusions.
For the left, down is up, wrong is right, and anything can be true if they merely wish it so.
Saying ethics and politics are relevant is allowing the tail to wag the dog.
@-Girma says:
“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.”
Well it seems that your suggestion has already been rejected by some ‘skeptics’, who noticeably fail to provide alternative criteria…
And on the ‘warmist’ side the objection might be – ‘what about if there is a major explosive volcanic event….’
But ignoring the shallow polarized binary dichotomy…-grin-
I’m with you on this.
Nature gets the first, final and only vote, (anyone know the source of that quote?) the political froth of AGW alarmism fails if it cools.
What happens if the rate is 1.5degC/decade?, wait another 30 years for another half a degree….
I like the trend/flat comparison used here :-
http://rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/did-global-warming-stop-after-1998/
It can be summarized by stating that if any year after 2021 is colder than 1998/2010 then there is no trend and anyone holding AGW theory to be accurate needs to reconsider.
If all years after 2021 are warmer than now then anyone still skeptical of AGW had better have a very good counter hypothesis…!
But I am open to other suggestion for criteria of falsification of BOTH possibilities of AGW or unforced variation.
While climate science has political, economic and ethical overtones the science of AGW must be studied (from all points of view) and measured further until we have a more complete picture of it. We especially cannot make rational political and economic policy until we know more. In the mean time the world should be hard at work adapting to whatever climate changes comes along (a warmer world or an ice age), by providing everyone the means to confront it: clean water, reticulated electricity, education, access to medical care, etc.