Science, Innovation, Politics
Heaven forbid we should actually examine Climategate in a public forum at an American university. We've 'moved beyond' that, no?
Here’s my first question regarding “Climate Policy”…Where, in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is Congress authorized to pursue any sort of “Climate Policy”?Please don’t lean on the “general welfare” clause. As I’ve said before, if the founding fathers agreed with the “Progressive” interpretation of the “general welfare” clause, then Article 1, Section 8 would have simply read:“Congress can do any darn thing they please”Or, do so-called “Progressives” openly consider the United States Constitution to be utterly irrelevant?
Hello Roger,since I m interested in 'trust' in climate science I was wondering if any of you (panelists) contemplated about strategies the climate science community envisages to restore trust? (though my quicktime plays .wmv for some reason I cannot watch your link on my mac !?)regards,an interested reader of your blog
Using a Mac and Safari browser, the video is black through the first two minutes. Does the video come on later?My main comment: Since Purdue now as an "institute" to study global warming policy, doesn't that create a built-in incentive to find that global warming is a problem?
Roger,I notice that Dr. Curry has been invited to give testimony before congress next weekhttp://judithcurry.com/2010/11/10/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-%E2%80%9Cbig-table%E2%80%9D/I wish you had been invited also. I think you have one of the most sane perspectives on the subject.On the other hand, this congress has already done all it can and this senate didn't go along. The next house and congress will be decidedly more "skeptical" regarding CAGW. If the warmers have any chance at all in limiting co2 it is by supporting your approach to the problem (research into clean energy cheaper than coal).
Mathis Hampel If climate scientists and others really believe in an impending global catastrophe and wish to prevent it. They should 1) Sell their cars2) Never fly in a plane again3) Live on the local minimum wage, donating the surplus to distressed polar bears.4) Stop drinking wine5) Send their children to state schoolsOtherwise I will believe the overwhelming impression from the climategate emails that they are a bunch of extremely biased rascals caught up in a political battle they don't even understand. I look upon climate change as primarily a cultural rather than a scientific phenomenon. Mike Hulme appears to somewhat agree although I haven't read his book.
Roger,I watched the entire 90 minute video and while I found what you and Andy said and the way you presented it to be what I would expect, I was a bit surprised by Judy Curry's presentation. The two things that struck me was there was a weariness in her disposition and the fact that she read her presentation which would only seem necessary if she was weighing her words very carefully. That really struck me as a person in academic probably gives at least 3 presentations a week and I would expect working with even just cryptic notes would be second nature.
Eric,as I m sure you know every "scientific phenomenon" is also a cultural one I d say that climate change is a scientific, social and imaginative phenomenon. There are different epistemologies and ontologies of climate change; this is what I took from Mike Hulme's book.mh
MathisThe ontologocal argument for the existence of climate change is one I'll be sure to avoid. It did nothing for God.Hulme seems to think that the IPCC is ontologically suspect and even redundant, which might lead one to conclude the state of global warming science was therefore indeterminate. However, as a Christian environmentalist like his former boss Sir John Houghton, he feels this is an opportunity for those of that constituency.I have come to the conclusion that it is likely that most of the academic proponents of global warming have some political, class or religious justification for their stance only loosely connected with science.Hulme's book (from what I can gather from the sections I have read, interviews etc.) reminds me of my favourite Hamlet scene.Hamlet: Do you see that cloud, that's almost in shape like a camel? Polonius: By the mass, and 't is like a camel, indeed. Hamlet: Methinks, it is like a weasel. Polonius: It is backed like a weasel. Hamlet: Or, like a whale? Polonius: Very like a whale.
Mike Hulme"Religion as well actually leads us to see disagreement in our discourse around climate change, because we have different ways of recognizing divine authority and the relationship between different types of revelations and the way in which our morality is constructed. When it comes to risk and our perception of risk, again this is very self evident, applying across a whole variety of risk issues, how we perceive the putative risks of climate change are understood extremely differently both within and between societies. The way in which climate change is communicated, ... the reframing of climate change opens divergence rather than convergence."(Sir)John Houghton As a fervent evangelical Christian, Sir John claimed that global warming might well be one of those disasters sent by God to warn man to mend his ways ("God tries to coax and woo but he also uses disasters"). He went on: "If we are to have a good environmental policy in the future, we will have to have a disaster".