Exploring different views on climate change
Goal of ClimateDialogue.org
ClimateDialogue.org offers a platform for discussions between invited climate scientists on important climate topics that have been subject to scientific and public debate. The goal of the platform is to explore the full range of views currently held by scientists by inviting experts with different views on the topic of discussion. We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views; they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.
Obviously, there are many excellent blogs that facilitate discussions between climate experts, but as the climate debate is highly polarized and politicized, blog discussions between experts with opposing views are rare.
Background
The discovery, early 2010, of a number of errors in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report on climate impacts (Working Group II), led to a review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council (IAC). The IAC-report triggered a debate in the Dutch Parliament about the reliability of climate science in general. Based on the IAC-recommendation that ‘the full range of views’ should be covered in the IPCC-reports, Parliament asked the Dutch government ‘to also involve climate skeptics in future studies on climate change’.
In response, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment announced a number of projects that are aimed to increase this involvement. Climate Dialogue is one of these projects.
Topics
We are starting Climate Dialogue with a discussion on the causes of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by global warming. Also, the projected timing of the first year that the Arctic will be ice free will be discussed. With respect to the latter, in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, IPCC anticipated that (near) ice free conditions might occur by the end of this century. Since then, several studies have indicated this could be between 2030-2050, or even earlier.
We invited three experts to take part in the discussion: Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Walt Meier, research scientist at the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado; and Ron Lindsay, Senior Principal Physicist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle.
Future topics that will be discussed include: climate sensitivity, sea level rise, urban heat island-effects, the value of comprehensive climate models, ocean heat storage, and the warming trend over the past few decades.
Our format
Each discussion will be kicked off by a short introduction written by the editorial staff, followed by a guest blog by two or more invited scientists. The scientists will start the discussion by responding to each other’s arguments. It is not the goal of Climate Dialogue to reach a consensus, but to stimulate the discussion and to make clear what the discussants agree or disagree on and why.
To round off the discussion on a particular topic, the Climate Dialogue editor will write a summary, describing the areas of agreement and disagreement between the discussants. The participants will be asked to approve this final article, the discussion between the experts on that topic will then be closed and the editorial board will open a new discussion on a different topic.
The public (including other climate scientists) is also free to comment, but for practical reasons these comments will be shown separately.
The project organization consists of an editorial staff of three people and an advisory board of seven people, all of whom are based in the Netherlands. The editorial staff is concerned with the day-to-day operation of researching topics, finding participants for the discussion and moderating the discussions between the experts. The main task of the advisory board is to guard the neutrality of the platform and to advise the editorial staff about its activities
Editorial Staff
Project leader is Rob van Dorland of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Van Dorland is a senior scientist and climate advisor in the Climate Services section and is often operating at the interface between science and society.
The second member is Bart Strengers. He is a climate policy analyst and modeler in the IMAGE-project at the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and has been involved in the discussion with climate skeptics for many years.
The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer, who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.
Questions
We welcome comments on this blog and are happy to answer any questions regarding this project. You can send an email to info [at] climatedialogue [dot] org.
Website: ClimateDialogue.org
Im glad someone is promoting discussion about this. No matter who is right we need to get better at keeping the planet clean.
Expert commentary by Judith Curry? Pass. I prefer scientists that know what they are talking about.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html
Last I checked Mosher BA in English Literature and Philosophy does not get to define what a “good skeptic” is or does. I am really tired of the inflated ego.
Regarding the use of the term Denier as requested above. This is one example of its use where those so labelled are associated with the Holocaust.
“I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”
~ Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, February 9, 2007 “No change in political climate”
on the Wayback Machine here
http://web.archive.org/web/20070214041353/http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
HaroldW says:
November 16, 2012 at 9:09 am
An excellent goal. Where the IPCC went wrong was in forcing a consensus view in their summaries,
=======
Very much like what has happened with wikipedia. you end up with a one party system. where facts become subordinate to politics.
To avoid this, the Supreme Court publishes both the decision and the dissenting view. Apparently the IPCC never got the memo.
The first use of the term “warmist” was to counter the “denier” framing, this was presented in “No Loophole for Your Soul” and directed at Dr Gerry North of TAMU. The first use of the term “luke warmer” was directed at Judith “Fence Sitter” Curry for her use of the term “skeptic” in her faux debate with Mikey Mann in Discover magazine April 2010 and published in the article “Non Science Nonsense”. Both articles are posted in archive at Canada Free Press and both terms were universally adopted on first reading. If you cannot be “skeptical” of the 24 hr insolation with P/4 distribution, along with the violations of Thermodynamics, then you are not a skeptic, you are merely debating semantics. Curry NEVER questions the magic GHE hypothesis and cannot be lauded for intellect or objectivity. Sorry….the Dutch Parliment is going to have to dig a lot deeper to fund a believable foil.
timothy sorenson says:
November 16, 2012 at 10:01 am
I have been having discussions with other faculty members and referencing this site. A real uphill battle. But does anyone have the origin of the use of ‘denial’ and does anyone have compiled a bibliography of warmist or skeptic JOURNAL articles, or even AGW and CAGW papers whose conclusions are quite moderate?
_____________________
Do not know the origin of ‘denial’ but Poptech has been kind enough to compile the 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm He has gotten the usual mud-fling response from the CAGW side so do not reference the list just the papers.
Yes there’s lots wrong with the way ClimateDialogue.org is set up, and with the first question, and with the choice of speakers. But, having said that, may I compliment Judith Curry on her contribution so far. She has single-handedly held the “middle ground” and has very correctly highlighted the enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding this topic – something that the other two have been unable IMHO to overcome (not that Walt Meier particularly wanted to overcome it, he seemed comfortable with the idea that the level of uncertainty was very high).
But for later topics, we need a more balanced choice of speakers (and of topics).
It would be helpful if some enterprising young chap would review all the comments made and summarize the various assertions and their supporting points, and the corresponding counterpoints, and the counter-counterpoints in some sort of a tree format.
@Mike Jonas,
As an overall basis I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. However, if you truly feel strongly about it, you should be commenting over there, not over here.
Mick J, I was compiling quotes like those some time ago relating to the Holocaust. You might find this helpful,
“But refusal to recognize global warming or evidence of man’s role has become, …a 21st century equivalent of Holocaust denial.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2005
“These are not debunkers, testing outrageous claims with scientific rigor. They are deniers – like Holocaust deniers.” – Jim Hoggan, DeSmogBlog, 2005
“An Inconvenient Truth is so convincing that it makes opposers of the argument as credible as Holocaust deniers.” – Jon Niccum, Lawrence Journal-World, 2006
“It’s about the climate-change “denial industry”, …We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg.” – David Roberts, Grist Magazine, 2006
“If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” – Scott Pelley, CBS, 2006
“There are now proposals that ‘global warming deniers’ be treated the same as ‘Holocaust deniers: professional ostracism, belittlement, ridicule and, even, jail.” – Paul JJ Payack, Global Language Monitor, 2006
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” – Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe, 2007
“Bluntly put, climate change deniers pose a greater danger than the lingering industry that denies the Holocaust.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
“Global-warming skeptics make more excuses than Holocaust deniers.” – Joel Connelly, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2007
“At its core, global warming denial is like Holocaust denial, an assault on common decency.” – David Fiderer, The Huffington Post, 2009
“Some people don’t believe in climate warning – like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.” – Paul McCartney, 2010
Wiith Marcel Crok in the editorial team I am assured that Climate Dialogue will stay on course and will not become another platform for alarmism.
“We are starting Climate Dialogue with a discussion on the causes of the decline of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the question to what extent this decline can be explained by global warming.”
Hopefully they’re first discussing whether the “decline” is outside the range of natural variability. If they can’t establish that it is, there’s nothing else to discuss. Same goes for storm intensity and frequency, and the completely meaningless “global temperature”,
Oh come on, “a few errors were discovered”. These errors were deliberately inserted into the report for propaganda purposes, the reviewers comments were ignored. Not an auspicious beginning statement on the purpose of the web site. You might be able to fool Steven Mosher, but you won’t fool me.
@ur momisugly timothy sorenson @ur momisuglyCrispin in Waterloo:
The origination of the term denialist came from Boston Globe editor Ellen Goodman in a 2007 editorial
I think this deserves a fair trail. If the extremes on both sides are unhappy then maybe, just maybe the middle ground of reason will prevail.
But the topic can be revisited in a few months with a new set of experts. And then again next year. After four or five go-rounds, most of the points by both sides would have been covered. Then there could be survey / summary submissions by both sides to boil things down and set the stage for a focus on critical points in the next go-round. It could work out.
This summarization could be done in conjunction with the repeated-treatment-of-topics approach that I envisaged developing–and recommended in a comment upthread. Experts commenting on each new go-round, or iteration, would examine the tree to see what areas needed fleshing out or drilling deeper.
It’s an excellent idea to bring in suggestions and criticisms from what’s been called the peanut gallery, because many of them are so penetrating. But the only way to do this is indirectly, via a filter, to avoid the Wild West aspect of Internet commenting degrading the level of discussion.
Dennis Nikols says:
November 16, 2012 at 7:48 pm
I think this deserves a fair trail. If the extremes on both sides are unhappy then maybe, just maybe the middle ground of reason will prevail.
Dennis: I wish that I could pretend to have invented the term, or even to be the first to make this statement, but the following to be repeated BOLDLY and firmly, every time the “middle ground of reason” is invoked in an argument, discussion, or as a settlement to a problem!
But you are falling for the “Gray Hyposthesis of Truth” …. If two people disagree about two different FACTS, then the truth must lie somewhere in between.
Not so. The FACTS in many scientific and historical and judicial cases are binary: Only one can be true. If one is true, then the other position or statement is false. If one person syas the paint is white, and the other person says the paint is black, the “truth” is NOT in the middle. The Paint is NOT gray, and you CANNOT claim the happy medium and pretent that the paint is gray so “everybody is happy.”
If there is a technical or scientific problem, there can be NO “middle ground” in the “facts” or numbers. We must continue analyzing the problem and studying the issue and in determining where the uncertainty in the values of past temperatures and what the error bars and assumptions are in the present models, the past ice extents, the past glaciers, the past and present aerosols levels, the past radiation input from the sun, the past albedos, the present albedos, etc. You (everybody) needs to focus on the values and assumed “constants” . Instead, the CAGW has found their Holy Grail of “Global warming is absolutely completely and extremely deadly and man-released CO2 is to blame for that global warming and we MUST reduce it and eliminate it because of the Precautionary Principle” of not causing future harm (to the non-human earth) is the most important thing in world.”
Once that conclusion is stated and becomes the “fact”, then the CAGW theists begin “studying” the situation and demanding “solutions” to their religion. That “religion” – that “faith” is where compromise is wrong.
– A technical issue regarding physics, math, statistics, heat flow, evaporation rates, and other measurable quantities is NOT an abstract ivory-tower political religious, or literary or philosophical discussion where “rational people can disagree.” Obviously, the results of experiments and papers and judgement can be argued – in truth they MUST be argued and discussed honestly and even passionately as different theories are presented and defended or rejected. The assumptions about proxy temperature records, the effects of influences on past records, the validity of past experiments and current experiments and current approximations in the modeling process MUST be debated, and where there is debate, there will be disagreements.
The moral, political, economic, results of the scientific projections and assumptions and methods of analysis and can be, and will be and must be!, subject to disagreement and compromise. But the “facts” (the data) cannot be compromised.
I remember it being used earlier. See Poptech’s list upthread, at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/16/announcing-the-launch-of-climatedialogue-org/#comment-1149666
I contributed a test post, and surprisingly, got it into “public comments” rather than “off topic”.
The secret seems to be to make sure your opening lines are on topic. The “expert comments” at the top are reserved for “invited scientists”. Wonder how that is going to pan out.
Don’t think Kenji has much chance of doing a repeat of Union of Concerned Scientists.
“Climate scientist”, “Climate expert” … hmmm …. Do any skeptics ascribe these terms to themselves? Seems to me it is not very common. Possibly because those who really know a lot about the subject, know enough to know that the topic is so wide that it is not possible for any one individual to be an expert? I noticed a large number of howlers and auto-assumptions in the responses, and a few principles asserted that, if they were correct, would mean the place I live in is uninhabitable.
The concept is good. Whether climatedialog is a step forward or backward or a sidestep will depend on a number of things.
The topics presented. If chosen or worded in a biased manner that might be overcome by the invited “debaters” (ie Nothing prevented Judith Curry from bringing up the Antarctic.) but that shouldn’t be necessary if the topic is presented in a “neutral” manner.
Those invited. Will the deck be stacked against anyone or any viewpoint?
Will the Hansens and the Manns and the Gores be invited and agree to debate on a level playing field?
MattS says “if you truly feel strongly about it, you should be commenting over there, not over here“.
WordPress login doesn’t work for me over there. Anyone else having trouble?
Let’s just see what comes out of this, before jumping all over it because it is not exactly what we want.
Dutch culture is mostly pragmatic – OK, that’s a generalisation, but their outlook is very different from Italians, or Greeks, or Americans, for that matter. I speak as someone who was born there and raised in Australia, surrounded by my parents’ Dutch friends and relatives.
At the root of that pragmatism is a genuine curiosity to find out what works. It is not quite pure scientific curiosity, but it means that the ‘unthinkable’ is not necessarily unthinkable at all.
Getting Crok on board is a gesture of good faith. If Crok is any kind of a Dutchman, he will not stand for being snowed or intimidated. His history does not support the view that he is a sock puppet. And, before they throw brickbats, perhaps critics should point to alternative government initiatives that they consider to be superior?
Who are we kidding, but ourselves. This looks like a re-clothed group of the CAGWM crowd to recapture the middle ground and retake it.
Let’s please don’t fall for it. It is a clever scheme that attempts to re validate the AGW Gore conclusions under the guise of an independent group assessment. From the Netherlands? Who are we kidding.
This is Gore and his millions of our/now his climate dollars at work.