The path forward: adaptation, not alarmism

From Oregon State University

Researchers advocate for climate adaptation science

CORVALLIS, Ore. – An international team of researchers says in a new paper that climate science needs to advance to a new realm – more practical applications for dealing with the myriad impacts of climate variability.

The scientific capability already exists as does much of the organizational structure, they say, to begin responding to emerging climate-related issues ranging from declining snowpack, to severe storms, to sea level rise. What is missing is better engagement between the scientific community and the stakeholders they are seeking to inform.

Their paper is being published on Friday in the Policy Forum section of the journal Science.

“Adaptation is required in virtually all sectors of the economy and regions of the globe,” they wrote. “However, without the appropriate science delivered in a decision-relevant context, it will become increasingly difficult – if not impossible – to prepare adequately.”

Philip Mote, an Oregon State University climate scientist and co-author on the paper, said climate adaptation science involves trans-disciplinary research to understand the challenges and opportunities of climate change – and how best to respond to them.

“What we need is more visibility to gain more inclusiveness – to bring into play the private sector, resource managers, universities and a host of decision-makers and other stakeholders,” said Mote, who directs the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State. “The stakeholders need to know our scientific capabilities, and we need to better understand their priorities and decision-making processes.”

Oregon State is among the national leaders in climate adaptation science. In addition to the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, the university has two regional climate centers – one established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work with municipalities, utilities, emergency management organizations and state and federal agencies; the other by the Department of the Interior to work primarily with federal and state agencies, and non-governmental organizations.

Mote, who is involved with all three centers, said work with stakeholders is gaining traction, but the gap that exists between scientists and decision-makers is still too large.

“The centers here and elsewhere around the country are driven by stakeholder demands, but that needs to reach deeper into the research enterprise,” Mote said. “We’re working with some water districts, forest managers and community leaders on a variety of issues, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Richard Moss, a senior scientist with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, said the Science article grew out of a NASA-funded workshop held in 2012 at the Aspen Global Change Institute in Colorado, which focused on how to improve support for decision-making in the face of a changing climate.

“Traditionally, we think that what society needs is better predictions,” said Moss, who was lead author on the Science article. “But at this workshop, all of us – climate and social scientists alike – recognized the need to consider how decisions get implemented and that climate is only one of many factors that will determine how people will adapt.”

OSU’s Mote said examples abound of issues that need the marriage of stakeholders and climate scientists. Changing snowmelt runoff is creating concerns for late-season urban water supplies, irrigation for agriculture, and migration of fish. An increasing number of plant and animal species are becoming stressed by climate change, including the white bark pine and the sage grouse. Rising sea levels and more intense storms threaten the infrastructure of coastal communities, which need to examine water and sewer systems, as well as placement of hospitals, schools and nursing homes.

Mote, Moss and their colleagues outline a comprehensive approach to research in the social, physical, environmental, engineering and other sciences. Among their recommendations for improvement:

  • Understand decision processes and knowledge requirements;
  • Identify vulnerabilities to climate change;
  • Improve foresight about exposure to climate hazards and other stressors;
  • Broaden the range of adaptation options and promote learning;
  • Provide examples of adaptation science in application;
  • Develop measures to establish adaptation science.

One such measure could be the development of a national institution of climate preparedness in the United States comprised of centers for adaptation science aimed at priority sectors.

“More broadly,” the authors wrote in Science, “support for sustained, use-inspired, fundamental research on adaptation needs to be increased at research agencies. A particular challenge is to develop effective approaches to learn from adaptation practice as well as published research. Universities could provide support for sustained, trans-disciplinary interactions. Progress will require making a virtue of demonstrating tangible benefits for society by connecting research and applications.”

###
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mike Bromley the Kurd

What a painful read.
“What we need is more visibility to gain more inclusiveness – to bring into play the private sector, resource managers, universities and a host of decision-makers and other stakeholders,” said Mote, who directs the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State. “The stakeholders need to know our scientific capabilities, and we need to better understand their priorities and decision-making processes.”
How the hell is any of that going to help? It’s going to be like Bureaucratic Whack-a-Mole. Model predictions continually changing, while cranially-challenged lawyers wallow in a cesspool of weepy alarmist scientific bamboozlement.
Just wait until some thing is apparently happening, like catastrophic sea level rise, and move uphill, sillies.

Tim Collins

What a load of jargonised rubbish.
By all means maintain and improve the observation of climate and learn – and stop trying to build a mega bureaucracy where none is justified. This just more of the same “jobs for the boys” IPCC styled carp

charles nelson

To paraphrase Monty Python…these guys have a PhD in ‘The Bleedin’ Obvious.’
I think academia should purge people who make $hit up or just use high falutin’ jargon to expound upon the bleedin’ obvious.

Alan Wilkinson

Huh. Made a typo in my email and WordPress threw away my comment. This silly paper doesn’t warrant retyping it all.

Steve in Seattle

Oregon State certainly is in ‘ Corn Valley ‘ and this waste of paper / electrons deserves only the bit bucket. Save it for April 1st !

papiertigre

So they advocate more of the same green graft government corruption in service of the lie, even as the world comes to understand it to be a lie.
The very definition of moron.

Jquip

1. “Understand decision processes and knowledge requirements;”
A. A working thermometer.
2. “Identify vulnerabilities to climate change;”
A. People not smart enough to get out of the rain.
3. “Improve foresight about exposure to climate hazards and other stressors;”
A. More thermometers.
4. “Broaden the range of adaptation options and promote learning;”
A. Umbrellas might work to stay out of the rain.
5. “Provide examples of adaptation science in application;”
A. Roofs keep people out of the rain.
6. “Develop measures to establish adaptation science.”
A. We’ve never read any books by Charles Darwin.

Bloke down the pub

Many of the problems they worry about are much easier to overcome when they don’t exist in the first place. #justsendmoney.

Unbelievable arrogance. And there is likely to be more of this. Know-nothings sensing that the game might be up, so are sliding sideways, without having the slightest notion that others have been working on resilience to climate hazards for decades. Hazards that arise from climate sameness, not climate change. Stuff that has happened before and will happen again.
These people ARE the “other stressors”. They make the real work more difficult to do.

Did they just say we should be ready for a big time cooling when they said climate chage?
Is this the start of the admission that everything they said in the past was garbage?
Thanks
JK

H.R.

Ahhh… but we also have to eliminate “carbon” and without “carbon,” there is no adaptation. Oh wait… windmills will save us.
This is the golden age of information. So how in the heck did our dumba$$ ancestors in untold past generations manage to survive an ever-changing climate such that we are here today? The truth of the matter is that we have been so successful in adapting to climate – central heating, central air, only hours to travel to a place with climate to our liking – that few people have the basic knowledge of weather and climate that most farmers have had going back untold generations. Our forefathers would have killed for our doppler radar and satellite images. Now we have the technology to “see it coming” but no one seems to have the sense that god gave a goat to get out of the way./rant

peter

This process would no doubt result in much more fuel reduction on the forest floor and the removal of windmills that are destroying untold thousands of birds, to name but two benefits. Who the said stakeholders and how do i become one?

I wonder how much this conference cost us? If NASA is short of funding, I know one area they can save money. When did we mutate from homo sapiens to homo incapaces? My guess is that we still retain the ability to adapt to almost anything, particularly slow moving events like a changing climate. It’s probably in our genes.
I’m also getting tired of the “path forward” cliche, sorta reminds me of the old Lenin posters.

sean2829

Not a single climate model can make a reliable regional forecast beyonda few days and these guys want to give infrastructure advice?

Bill Illis

Can anyone name a place where the climate has changed enough in the last 30 years to require any “adaptation”.
There are areas which have always had problems (built on a delta, coastline subsiding or eroding, periodic hurricanes, alternating drought and rainfall cycles, desert), but these conditions have not changed from what they were 100 or 200 years ago.
The only change we can really point to is that vegetation is growing better due to the increased CO2.

ROM

Somewhat off topic but pure alarmism all over again
I was just looking at the english version of the german mag, “Spiegel on line”.
The lead article tonight [ eastern Australian time zone ] was “A Brighter, Dimmer Future: Germany’s Saviors of the Night” which deals with the problem of light pollution from a German astronomers point of view .
Then the Spiegel article goes on to quote “scientists”
[quote;]”
The assembled ecologists, entomologists, physicians, lighting designers, astronomers and lawyers agreed that since inventors like Thomas Edison unleashed the power of the lightbulb more than 130 years ago, life on the planet has been plunged into a large-scale experiment that becomes more volatile every day. Its outcome is uncertain. For millions of years, darkness was part of life. And now, suddenly, darkness is absent.
&
The adverse effects of all of this nighttime lighting are all too apparent. Myriads of insects die each year on street lamps or in the webs of the unnaturally large numbers of spiders that now live on street lamps. This reduces the number of insects available to eat for animals much higher on the food chain. Birds, for their part, become confused in the light cloud and collide with brightly lit high-rise buildings. Some bats avoid the light and flee to darker realms, while many moths are no longer reproducing sufficiently in brightly lit areas. “Biodiversity is declining in many illuminated regions,” says Hölker.
[ end]
More of the same sickening wailing , weeping and gnashing of teeth as the “woe, woe, we are rooned all over again” follows in the Spiegel article.
During my 75 years I have supported science and because of my interest in science, have served as a layman on a number of committees and groupings where science was the reason for their existence.
But maybe looking back and looking at the path that modern science is now taking I may have just wasted half a lifetime on promoting and facilitating science.
.
I am utterly fed up to the back teeth with constant wailing and predictions of new horrors about to descend on mankind unless we mend our ways and follow the dictates of “those who know and are EXPERTS and SCIENTISTS’
Frankly after the last few months of blatant alarmism ad nauseum without any evidence at all being presented on any number of supposed scientifically [ sarc ] predicted horror events about to overtake mankind sometime in the immediate future, I am totally fed up to the back teeth with scientists and their sheer idiocy in the way they seem so desperate to destroy the image of science as an endeavor that is totally unique and has been of immense benefit to mankind, lifting our species up from a near animal existence to a globally wide civilisation.
The rapidly progressing destruction by scientists themselves of science as a vision proceeds apace and the vision that science will be guide and a beacon that will lead mankind onto an even better future is fast vanishing in a morass of sickening self pity and hand wringing by the scientific fraternity
Instead we see a selfish, self important, self promoting, whingeing, whining cabal of hand wringers who go by the name of scientists and who it seems can no longer provide any sort of uplifting vision,for mankind.
The only vision we, the public see today from science is one that promotes multitudinous visions of numerous deadly Hades in mankind’s future and the promises of the shades of the Hells to come.
Science and scientists are becoming the Charons of modern times, salivating while waiting to ferry the souls of the dead across the Styx to the Hells on the other side and collecting their coins of payment for the deed.
End of rant/

After reading the article, I wanted to comment, but I’ve got nothing to add; you’ve all managed to say everything that needs saying. If only the fools in Oregon could acknowledge they’re similarly late to the party.

wayne Job

I read the book 1984 as part of my education in to becoming an engineer. It was a compulsory read and an analysis, for the English literature part of becoming an engineer. That was fifty years ago.
These people have taken a novel and made it a mantra, a new way,a progressive way, a way of using newspeak where war is peace, warming is cooling,children of today have only their parents to educate them in truth. In america the democrates call themselves liberals and progressives both terms are the reverse of truth, such as thank big brother for the increase in the chocolate ration.
This article is just newspeak and total BS, adaption is a natural trait of all animals including us, I do hope this was freebie thing and no body actually paid these people for this cr#p.

Billy Liar

But at this workshop, all of us – climate and social scientists alike – recognized the need to consider how decisions get implemented and that climate is only one of many factors that will determine how people will adapt.
Oh dear! An unholy marriage of climate scientists and social scientists. More Lew paper on the way.
In some respects in seems quite natural that social scientists and climate scientists should get together. They need to thrash out whether any of them do ‘science’ at all. Perhaps they should change their respective subjects to ‘social studies’ and ‘climate studies’; the better to interact with ‘media studies’ graduates with whom they have a close relationship.

Bruce Cobb

True, it is an interesting challenge as to how to respond to our boring climate. We might just die of boredom, and that would be bad (I think). But, if we make stuff up, like “the declining snowpack”, and throw in things that have always occurred like severe storms pretending they are somehow more severe or more frequent, and then, for good measure throw in the “sea level rise” bogeyman, as if that, too hasn’t been happening all along, perhaps people will be scared enough not to notice the complete lack of actual science.
Because it would be really bad if these “climate researchers” were to be out of a job.

Txomin

Worry not, Climate Adaptation Science, millions of dollars are being sent your way as we speak. Kudos to you for letting us know how important (and needy) you are.

tadchem

The adage “adapt or die” is one my grandmother taught me a half century ago. The concept probably originated with Alfred Russell Wallace, who has been deceased for 100 years. Astute of the researchers to notice this.
It is a summary of the elegant mechanism behind the Law of Natural Selection and by extension the Theory of Evolution. Anybody who cannot retreat from a sea level rise of 20 cm/century deserves to die, and anybody who believes such as sea level rise is a threat to any life form is already brain dead.

Doug and.or Dinsdale Piranha

Shorter Mr. Mote:
“You ignorant skeptics have exposed our scientific lies, but we can still implement the full Green Agenda by going over your heads to the career plutocrats hidden in the government. So There.”

“begin responding to emerging climate-related issues ranging from declining snowpack, to severe storms, to sea level rise”
Of course, these problems are not happening, which can only mean that they are rebranding “climate change,” aka global warming, as “climate variability.

Jimbo

The scientific capability already exists as does much of the organizational structure, they say, to begin responding to emerging climate-related issues ranging from declining snowpack, to severe storms, to sea level rise. What is missing is better engagement between the scientific community and the stakeholders they are seeking to inform.

We have always had to deal with all of the above since even before 1850. The Medieval Warm period had declining snowpack, severe storms were rampant during the Little Ice Age and sea levels have been rising since the end of the last de-glaciation. What the heck does any of the above have to do with co2?

ROM

This is adapted from a post placed on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog
I keep on seeing this constant meme that we need to ” find a solution” or “we must do something” to counter or neuter or control the so called climate change.
What exactly are we supposed to solve as a changing climate has been a part of Earth’s most basic characteristics for all of it’s 4.5 billion years of existence.?
And in fact the very Climate Change that all the unthinking, seemingly ignorant promoters of “we must do something” meme want to eliminate has led to the rise of intelligence by constantly challenging life in all it’s forms to adapt to those changes in the global climate.
When a species has failed to adapt to the sometimes immense past changes in the global climate, it perishes.
But in perishing it makes available a new large niche for a more adapted species to occupy.
And that is how our species, a species with a level of intelligence above any that have previously existed in our world’s evolvement down through the aeons of time but which is likely to be far from the end of the line in intelligence levels as far as Nature is concerned [ Is there ever an end to anything that involves Nature? ] has evolved and come to dominate, at least in our self centred view, all life on this Earth.
[ Maybe one should ask the 350 million year old termite species of this earth if humanity is the dominant species,! The answer I would think would be No!, But we will let you keep on believing that it is.]
Our species one outstanding and defining characteristic that single us out over and above all other species that have ever existed is that we are the only species ever on this Earth to have learnt to both control and use energy to our species great benefit and it’s drive towards being the dominant species.
And for that we are “Humanity”
Even here the drive to control and use energy was in the end driven by the need of our species to be able to adapt to and live in what in our natural state, were hostile and ever changing climatic conditions as human kind spread across the planet and into every conceivable location.
In locations where the climate and temperatures and water and food availability are readily conducive to human occupation, the use and development of energy and the development of that use was low and stagnant for the entire couple of millions of years that it took for our species to evolve.
Only in a harsh climatic challenging locations where humanity could barely survive if at all without significant energy use, did the more advanced development of energy and it’s use take place..
And with that development of energy use came civilisation, driven by the constant changes in the local, regional and global climate and the need for humanity to both adapt to and find means of coping with those challenging, changing climatic conditions.
The ever changing global Climate has driven and forced life on this earth to rise from a bacterial level to a level of high intelligence and perhaps futuristically will lead to an ever increasing series of intelligent species which may not be humanity as we know it now.
So now our so called intelligent species, ie; humanity or at least some sections of it which seem to driven more by paranoi than intelligence or rationality want to stop climate change, the very item that through it’s challenges and it’s winnowing of unsuccessful and unable to adapt life forms has led to the rise of intelligent life on this planet.
If they succeed then Earth’s life forms over the future aeons of time just slowly sink into an never changing torpor and for sentient life on this earth that means a slow downward death spiral to extinction until once again only the bacterial species are left in an endless never changing global climate.

Jimbo

Can we adapt to the current rate of sea level rise? We did and we can.
How warm will it get? The IPCC does not know, they just told us.
Can we adapt to the greening biosphere and increased crops? Hmmmmmm.
What about violent tornadoes, hurricanes, storm surges etc? The past tells us to the contrary.
Why are these people allowed to manufacture a false emergency? Is it so they can make money out of this ponzi scheme? There isn’t anything special we need to do. Let’s just adapt the way we have always done since the last de-glaciation. Sheeeeeesh!

Jimbo

Adapting to climate change. How have we done so far without crooked schemes these people propose. Well, man came out of tropical Africa and proceeded to populate every continent, except Antarctica. Funny that, I wonder why? We have people living on the equator, we have people in frigid Arctic Canada, we have people living in deserts, we have people living above water on stilts, we have people living in tree houses in PNG, we have people in the mountains, forests, in Iceland, Finland, Siberia and even death valley. All this before we were told that we need to ‘adapt’!!!! What a bloody joke. It’s a con job, don’t fall for it.
The more you think about humans and how we have managed so far the more ridiculous this paper sounds. We will adapt on a case by case without any international co-ordinating bollocks. Netherlands anyone? Thames flood barrier anyone? Manhattan Island anyone? Sheesh! Where is the BULLSHIT BUTTON?

SanityP

Read this stupidity. I bet MSM will swallow it whole:
‘Wise contrarians’: a keystone species in contemporary climate science, politics and policy
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.35.pdf

Mike M

I. E. – “We becoming a bit concerned about our future relevance and employment.”

Carbon500

‘Philip Mote, an Oregon State University climate scientist and co-author on the paper, said climate adaptation science involves trans-disciplinary research to understand the challenges and opportunities of climate change – and how best to respond to them.’
“What we need is more visibility to gain more inclusiveness – to bring into play the private sector, resource managers, universities and a host of decision-makers and other stakeholders,” said Mote, who directs the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State. “The stakeholders need to know our scientific capabilities, and we need to better understand their priorities and decision-making processes.”’
How could science of any discipline have become subverted and distorted so that rubbish such as this management-speak nonsense is uttered, never mind published in a science journal?
But given that it’s ‘climate science’ I’m not surprised at all.

JJ

“Adaptation is required in virtually all sectors of the economy and regions of the globe,” they wrote. “However, without the appropriate science delivered in a decision-relevant context, it will become increasingly difficult – if not impossible – to prepare adequately.”
Here’s some good news for ya, chuckles – adaptation is not about preparation. It is about responding. Preparation involves making predictions of scary stories, and demanding bags of money and political action based on those predictions. That isn’t anything new, and it certainly isn’t adaptation. It’s just the same old ‘global warming’ BS being sold under a different name. Same rent seeking behaviour.
Adaptation does not require “appropriate science delivered in a decision relevant context … to prepare”. All adaptation requires is that people get on with their lives and deal with things that actually occur instead of “preparing” for things that won’t.

Jimbo

The Maldives are adapting to ‘dangerous climate change’ just fine. They are building 5 more ‘underwater’ airports and 30 additional new luxury class hotel complexes. Thereby encouraging more flights, more co2 resulting in a decline in sea levels. This is how you tackle ‘climate change’ folks. It’s a con, it’s a con’ it’s a con.
The new hotels
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/03/developers-dismiss-sea-level-rise-claims-plan-to-30-new-luxury-hotels-in-the-maldives-nasheeds-cash-machine/
The new airports
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/maldives-to-build-five-more-underwater-airports/

G. Karst

Adapt to what crisis?!
Does adaptation mean creating untold wealth and privileged for the elite and destitution for the masses? Does it mean complete control over published research and funding as indicated by the climategate conspiracies? Does it mean a steady concentrated stream of propaganda and movies targeting our children from preschool to adulthood? Does adaptation mean the corruption and discarding of the scientific method?
Just asking… GK

Jimbo

Why should you adapt to something in the future? Why not adapt as it happens, like we have always done? The reason I raise this critical point is due to the wasting of valuable resources. Australia adapted by building de-salination plants before the Biblical floods. Dams were dangerously full to overflowing. They were eventually mothballed wasting billions; the precautionary principle FAILED in this instance. What if we had adapted to USA tornadoes? Tornadoes recently went off the legend because of historic lows. Stop this insanity.
Sometimes we Warmists talk about adaptation. This can be dangerous because it means we might have to spend money on something that MIGHT happen in the future. What if it doesn’t happen? No, we should adapt as things arise and not before something has occurred.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3604572.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/mothballs-at-the-ready-for-18bn-desal-plant/story-e6frgczx-1226607172584

Guys, this is better than saying we MUST throw ourselves on our economic swords.

David S

We may have to deal with;
Slightly warmer temperatures
More rain worldwide
Faster plant growth
Longer growing seasons
Higher crop yields
Yes it’s a tough job but someone has to do it.

sherlock1

charles nelson – you’re absolutely right about this being a ‘statement of the bleedin’ obvious’ – however it wasn’t Monty Python – it was Basil Fawlty commenting on something which his dreadful wife Sybil said.. (Apologies if if I’m being picky…)
Anyway – mankind has always adapted to the climate.
Rain..? Make roof for house.
Cold..? Put heating in house.
Hot..? Invent air conditioning.
Etc…
Its not rocket science..!

Pamela Gray

My alma mater. I am so proud. Ingenious. An old home economics and agriculture now post-normal research university trying to figure out a way to create a research department dedicated to the practice of teaching bureaucrats how to herd sheeple.

Mike Smith

Please tell me this is parody produced with the aid of one of those random buzzword generators.
This profoundly pathetic nonsense makes me weep for the future of science.

I’m surprised nothing was said about evil Climate Change Denier & former OSU Professor Nicholas Drapela being unceremoniously purged from their ranks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162477/Climate-change-critic-professor-fired-Oregon-State-University-reason-why.html
Perhaps they can’t, won’t, or are prohibited from so doing considering the multi-million $ wrongful termination lawsuit pending.
The Gotch

dp

Adaption would require government oversight. That would require bureaucrats and a huge budget and lots of data gathering. That would require Google – the “do no evil” model for NSA. Any good bureaucrat knows an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, so things will have to change – the old ways need to go, new regulations written, generating plants to shutter. Windmills will become the new chicken in every pot. It also means turning over to government management that part of the economy not already expertly guided by the geniuses behind Obamacare. Win/win.
Start with OSU. Go, Beavs. Go. Please.

Gary Pearse

Ya know, engineers, not scientists are the ones who do this kind of work. It’s “rocket science” (there is no such thing as a rocket scientist) all over again. Why is it that engineers, whose work is all around us don’t figure very prominently in the scheme.
“The scientific capability already exists as does much of the organizational structure, they say, to begin responding to emerging climate-related issues …”
In the blurb, engineers get a small nod after social scientists!!! What on earth can social scientists contribute here? Anyway, if and when any adaptation becomes necessary, you birds will be asked to stay out of the way.

Bruce Cobb

kingdube says:
November 8, 2013 at 6:31 am
Guys, this is better than saying we MUST throw ourselves on our economic swords.
Not by much. This is just a new branch of the same old field of Climastrology. Plenty of room for all, including mitigation.

Rob Potter

Adaptation is of course what we need to do. It is also precisely what we have been doing since the dawn of civilization. The question is – adapt to what conditions precisely? Since no-one even in the alarmist camp can agree what the actual impact on a scale relevant to adaptive responses will be (i.e sub-regional), the only thing we can do is to increase our capacity to adapt to whatever the prevailing conditions will be – when any changes actually occurr.
And what is is we need to increase our capacity for adaptation? The scientific and engineering expertise to apply solutions and the resources (especially energy) to adopt them. And these are the very things which we are losing in the ridiculous scrabble for “alternatives”. Development has been what we have done to get to our current state of civilization (which is not only pretty damn good, but is getting better all the time) and what we should put all of our efforts into more of the same.

Jim Clarke

Like tteclod (November 8, 2013 at 4:21 am) I found that everything I wanted to say was already said by previous commentators. We may not know everything about the climate, but we sure know everything there is to know about these climate carpetbaggers.
I just wanted to add a shout-out to ROM (November 8, 2013 at 4:07 am) and his wonderful rant! Sometimes it is necessary (and refreshing) to take the gloves off and just tell it like it is. Well done! Well done!
I particularly liked: “I am totally fed up to the back teeth with scientists and their sheer idiocy in the way they seem so desperate to destroy the image of science as an endeavor that is totally unique and has been of immense benefit to mankind, lifting our species up from a near animal existence to a globally wide civilization.”
While not as old as ROM, I was still born in the age of optimism, with science the bright beacon that was leading the way. But now the noble sciences have been subjugated by mankind’s least noble creation: government bureaucracy! Science no longer provides knowledge and solutions, but promotes problems and despair; the life-blood of bureaucracy.
.

Gail Combs

Gary Pearse says:
November 8, 2013 at 7:32 am
Ya know, engineers, not scientists are the ones who do this kind of work. It’s “rocket science” (there is no such thing as a rocket scientist) all over again. Why is it that engineers, whose work is all around us don’t figure very prominently in the scheme….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Because unlike the idiots professors in ivory towers they have to be firmly grounded in reality. (They also take a heck of a lot more math)

Maybe it’s because I’m an engineer and I use precise wording as part of my job, but I have absolutely no idea what these guys are saying other than: “Give me some money so we can do some research that is going to help some stakeholder somewhere at some time (in the future).”
By the way, not sure if this is pertinent but Richard Moss is (or was??) a vice-president at WWF: http://web.archive.org/web/20120512151723/http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2007/WWFPresitem1326.html

Jquip

Jim Clarke: “While not as old as ROM, I was still born in the age of optimism, with science the bright beacon that was leading the way.”
Which is the problem. Any discipline that moves from useful products to a brand name filled with trust and status attracts those that should have neither trust nor status.

dp

The greatest fear of the catastrophic climate change adaption is that nobody will take them seriously. They need to make the lack of CCCA scary. Oops – already done. Check mark!