Early reports from the Lisbon conference

Just to get some context into this.
Viriato Soromenho-Marques is the organizer on Gulbenkian’s side. Everyone can see his CV here which includes:
“Viriato Soromenho-Marques (1957) teaches Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Nature, and European Ideas in the Departments of Philosophy and European Studies of the University of Lisbon, where he is Full Professor. Since 1978 he has been engaged in the civic environmental movement in Portugal and Europe. He was Chairman of Quercus (1992-1995).”
Please remember that Quercus became famous for this highly disgusting video, shown before at WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/23/climate-craziness-of-the-week/
Ecotretas

John Phillips says:
January 26, 2011 at 7:26 am
“• violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.
• disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields ”
I think the word violence is being mis-used. A vigorous and even rancorous debate is not violent.
Also, I don’t think much can be accomplished if the majority of the attendees are social scientists.
=======================================================
I agree, although I suppose one could stretch the use with the definition such as , fervor: intensity of feeling or expression “the violence of her response to our suggestion”
But it causes me to pause at the use of the word. Is “vigorous” disagreement being equated with “violence”? If it is, I would suggest that all participants remove themselves from the meeting. It would be an insidious perversion of word usage with legal implications. I would never consider entering a discussion with a person that would seek limit expressiveness under the pain of being called violent.

One does not need attend high-minded conferences to get at the source of the vehemence; simply follow the history of money and fame lavished on the one side and derision heaped upon the other. Now that Mother Nature has begun to show her hand, the new losers, dressed in all their finery, seek “reconciliation” while the winners dance a jig in their bare feet and raise their tattered sleeves in victory.
After years of suffering abuse and public ridicule, I doubt that “the tattered ones” will be magnanimous in victory. Judith was very astute to begin hedging her bets some time ago. In so doing, she demonstrated a certain rationality sorely missing in many of her academic peers who, to date, show every intention of “going down with the ship”.

Stephen Goddard is there:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/

Keep Post Modernism out of science!

Lets just ask why such a ‘meeting’ requires such a rule?
The skeptics and lukewarmers are unlikely to require identity protection, are they? So presumably, it is to protect the warmists?, especially if they have to ‘fess up’ to anything – questions like, is this paper realistic? or did you know this was wrong? etc etc….

Anthony,
Climate Science scientists need an “OUT”. Room that they can change their finding without being ripped apart for their stance.
If not careers and reputations are at stake. And they will fight too and nail no matter how much the science is not on their side.

Chris Riley says:
January 26, 2011 at 8:46 am
The climate debate is, at its heart, all about violence. The climate debate is a proxy war in the age old struggle between the power of Government and the natural rights of the individual.
Benjamin Franklin commented on this.
“Those who exchange security for freedom deserve neither”
We are being asked to give up some of our freedom, thus increasing the proportion of decisions we make under a threat of violence. In exchange we are promised an amount of”climate security”, the value of which is claimed to exceed the value of the freedom we are to give up for it.
Skeptics want to know if the exchange is worth it. History tells us that we will not receive a refund of our freedom if it turns out that AGW is a myth, or that the programs to alleviate it fail to deliver as promised.
—————————————————————————–
Chris Riley sums this up accurately in my opinion. This talkfest is a waste of time. The horse has long bolted. Already the governments of the world are taxing their citizens to death (because they will not be able to pay for the energy they need to keep warm) to replace cheap energy sources with expensive and inefficient alternatives – all on the basis of an unproven belief that co2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming unless it is reduced.
Taxing people to death – That is violence.
And President Obama intones in his State of the Union address ‘We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people’
Business as usual ‘clean energy technology’ = Windmills. Countless new jobs = building windmills. Protect our planet. Utter hubris. I know he is the president of the US – but – those words are the words of God! The horse has truly bolted. And Obama is a babe compared to the Euro demigods.
If he is going to protect the planet we have to acquiesce – game set and match.
And these people are indulging themselves in a talkfest about violent argument?
Douglas