Science vs. Politics: Tipping Points in Climate Change Communication

[Andre]

...3)If not, are we humans just "along for the ride" in a natural cycle?
...
It is for certain that the anti-AGW have not made a rational scientific argument for #3, which is interesting...
.

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

 

[Evo]

According to the NYT, the event that Gore canceled was a tickets-only speech for the public promoting his upcoming book. That hardly qualifies as a betrayal of the AGW crowd, and he is making other appearances during the conference. I wouldn't read too much into it.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/gore-cancels-copenhagen-book-event/

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

 

[Sorry!]

Why? Throughout the years here I have pointed to several relevant studies. Maybe I should make a compilation in the Earth forum.

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

 

[turbo]

Yes, I see the NY Times says he will now only be talking to a group of attendees at the Bella Center, but has canceled the one open to the public.

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

 

[Evo]

There is a tremendous amount of opinion floating around here, much of it seemingly based on ideology and not science, and that is disheartening on a science forum, because the only real tools that we have for detecting and measuring and mapping changes in climate are scientific.

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

It's OK to be skeptical, and try to evaluate the research products as well as we can, with the information available to us. It's not OK to accuse groups of people of collusion, fraud, etc, just because you disagree with their findings.

I'm glad to hear you say that. Maybe now people will stop calling people derogatory names and accusing them of conspiracies just because they are not in complete agreement with the AGW camp? That would be a definite step in the right direction.

 

[DanP]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

In all seriousness I'd be interested if you had the time to post some of those reports in the Earth sciences forum.

If you found something to be "comical" you should better know why. Andre was pretty much articulate in everything he said.

 

[DanP]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

I guess we will all have to wait for Copenhagen, to see the impact. Its due in several days.

 

[skypunter]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

 

[Evo]

AND he is making other appearances open to the public. Read down a bit farther. That canceled appearance was scheduled for the day when ministerial-level proceedings were to open at the conference. Perhaps he thought it was a bit more important to be available to speak to the ministers of other governments than to the general public... No, that would only make sense. Can't be that!

Yes, he's there to promote his new book.

 

[skypunter]

Al Gore will not appear in a venue which would allow public question or comment.
Can anyone recall the last time he has?
My recollection is that it was the last time he ran for President, but I could be wrong.
If he were my spokesman he would be fired for not doing his homework.

 

[DanP]

Is politics more about politicians, or the will of the people?
IMHO it's the latter.
In which case, the public comments appearing beneath most articles (regardless of which way they spin) appear to indicate that the vast majority of the public is not convinced that action to stop climate change is adviseable. That's putting it mildly.

It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option. GW is just one of the many facts to be factored in a electoral decision. There are much more mundane and temporally closer factors which may influence your vote. The substance of an elusive and temporally distant threat is way less than the factors which affects your day to day live here and now.

 

[turbo]

This is politics, if you want to discuss science, go to the Earth forum. Did you see my warnings about not dragging the thread off topic?

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

 

[skypunter]

Scientists have made the mistake of jumping into bed with politicitians.
Now they are beginning to feel a burning sensation.

 

[DanP]

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

Please dont. Move it to "Earth" sciences forum, and express you scientific concerns. Ill be happy to stand educated. It would be very ill advised to mix politics with science, for the two of them have very few common grounds.

 

[skypunter]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

 

[skypunter]

You can't be trying to say that climate change doesn't exist at all can you?!
Right after skypunter just came out claiming everyone knows the climate changes! hahaha I just found that really comical I don't know why.

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

 

[DanP]

"It's not that easy. "Your" will is ultimately only expressed as an electoral option."

You are sorely mistaken if you think politicians aren't hearing the voice of the public each and every day.

Have you read the comments beneath these articles?

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

 

[Sorry!]

Where did he say that climate does not change?

Perhaps you are confusing the term climate change with man-caused climate change.

They are two different things.

Please clarify...

Yes after re-reading turbos original post I notice now he said anti-AGW not anti-GW. That's my mistake.
-------------------------------
Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

This is more of a senseless 'bash-AGW/CRU/CLIMATE RESEARCH' thread than anything. As soon as evidence is supplied to substantiate the climate scientists it is dismissed. WHY?
Because it's politics? That's a load of crap. All this non-sense being posted with no legitimate sources other than your personal feelings on the situation, which is fine, but why are you trying to argue as if it's facts?

At what skypunter had said, I've already mentioned it, this comes down to PUBLIC opinion on the matter and that will determine the policies all across the board.

 

[Andre]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

 

[DanP]

Anyways if you guys think you're discussing in this thread then I might just lose all hope for humanity.

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

 

[skypunter]

Im sure they do. But in the end, the ultimate validation is your vote. They will factor the risks ignoring some of the so called "will of the people" and play a card. It will boil down to whatever else you have been offered in compensation vs. the unpopular decisions. Things are far away from being black and white. Nobody will put out a government on the issue of GW as of today. There are much more temporally closer things to solve. Crisis, middle east, health policy...

Obama rearranged his schedule too.
You can bet they are both watching this very closely, buying time and looking for ways to back out if more information surfaces before departure.
If the CRU file release is only a teaser and more files surface, this summit will be a CO2 free event.
If they both get the flu or something, we will all know what has happened.

 

[Sorry!]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Thanks Andre.

I agree with you completely. Just don't say it too loudly, the others might hear.

 

[DanP]

Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

Its not about taking science out. Its about not mixing and confusing politics and science. Science it's certainly of factor. But is a far cry from expecting political decisions from the sole basis of science.

 

[skypunter]

Rather than loosing hope, adapt.

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

 

[DanP]

Here's a change in the local climate.
Perhaps we can discuss how Einstein and Oppenheimer dealt with politicians.
In their day, the world really was in the balance.

Do you really believe either of those two *BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS* had anything to say ? Let's spell it: "HIROSHIMA" , "NAGASAKI"

 

[skypunter]

At what skypunter had said, I've already mentioned it, this comes down to PUBLIC opinion on the matter and that will determine the policies all across the board.

That's why I don't buy far right rhetoric about our country becoming socialist.
We will not allow it, and any leader who attempts to take us in that direction will suffer the political consequences.
Call me an optomist.

 

[skypunter]

Do you really believe either of those two *BRILLIANT SCIENTISTS* had anything to say ? Let's spell it: "HIROSHIMA" , "NAGASAKI"

It's probably not a good analogy anyway. The science was known, not simply theoretical. Someone was going to build a bomb, so their choices were between bad or worse.

 

[DanP]

It's probably not a good analogy anyway. The science was known, not simply theoretical. Someone was going to build a bomb, so their choices were between bad or worse.

As it is today the GW vs high unemployment rates, mortgage crisis, money spent to "coerce" rogue sates, political support for troops, a shattered New Orleans ...

Which ones have more substance ?

 

[Evo]

Maybe I should just stay out of your thread from now on. The whole point of the thread is how politics can be used to derail science, and that's going to be pretty hard to discuss if we can't mention the science that is being discredited and why.

There is no need to get into the science itself in order to decide if someone's actions are unethical. CRU and the UN have both started investigations into the ethics now. And please leave the attitude out when posting, from your prior accusations that *I* arbitrarily would not allow you to post data from a blog, that wasn't *my* decision, that was a rule I was given to enforce. I know that it is hard to remain unemotional on certain topics, but the only way we can have useful discussion is for everyone, including myself, to try to keep it about what is in the news and not make it personal.

 

[turbo]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

I share your dismay about this level of manipulation of the thread. Without a discussion of the merits of the science, the politics cannot be properly evaluated.

I know that you and Sylas are on opposite ends of the AGW-belief spectrum. Sorry! and I are in the middle, as far as I can determine, and we still get hammered, and even threatened. Where is the value of science, peer-review, duplication of results, etc, if political beliefs can trump them all?

 

[Evo]

Okay I will make a climate science compilation tomorrow in Earth science, but I'm asthonished about not mixing science with politics.

Politics is about decision making and chosing a grand strategy for the best possible future prospects. Decision making depends on the best available scientific analysis of the situation and the possible results of political action. Take science out the equation and you're heading nowhere.

The reason discussion of the science is not allowed here is that P&WA has an entriely different set of rules and the decision was that science was not to be discussed here as it would be considered circumventing the Earth science rules. I didn't make these rules.

 

[DanP]

I share your dismay about this level of manipulation of the thread. Without a discussion of the merits of the science, the politics cannot be properly evaluated.

no need to evaluate. Just treat it as an experiment, as opposed to theory. See what government does.

I know that you and Sylas are on opposite ends of the AGW-belief spectrum. Sorry! and I are in the middle, as far as I can determine, and we still get hammered, and even threatened.

Welcome into a political world. Is it East Texas oil fields or you who will support my kids in college ?

Where is the value of science, peer-review, duplication of results, etc, if political beliefs can trump them all?

Its burred in money.

 

[Evo]

Locked because members can't discuss without bickering and going off topic.

 

[Sorry!]

1) You miss the point of the entire thread. 2) Just because something is wrong, does not mean it is easy to disprove.

I used the term American because that is what most of the politicians are that are making the most amount of noise. Conclude what you will from that. I'm not saying anything about what their political motivations or their level of intelligence.

If AGW is so wrong and the CRU e-mails that were released show this then why has nothing new come up in the science. This is purely political moves being made, nothing about the actually science. You say that I'm being deceitful?

I think it is deceitful and political, not scientific, to say "well since I believe what was said in the e-mails shows that the scientist were unethical and possibly compromised scientific values means that the science behind all AGW can be dismissed."

First off- What you believe was said and meant in the e-mails shows no correlation to what was actually said in the e-mails.
Secondly- I do agree some of what was said in the e-mails may imply a compromised scientific method; even so, it has hardly any bearing on the actual science since you can go and test it yourself, which has been done by many people, many times. (I used sylas as an good example).

So then by continuing to talk about the CRU leaked e-mails will do nothing for or against the science of AGW. So yes, this method has been well over-used and it's time to get back to the science.

As a side note: I read an interesting article written up about the skeptics and how they continue to pull these views to get continued funding(in their main areas of research... you'll notice that most skeptics are not chiefly studying climate even if you go through the authors of the references Andre made above.) and money... I guess I can conclude all skeptics science can be dismissed? Obviously not, even considering a lot of them are not climate scientists you can not dismiss their science on that basis. You have to dismiss the science with science, that's the way it works.

 

[Evo]

If AGW is so wrong and the CRU e-mails that were released show this then why has nothing new come up in the science.

This makes absolutely no sense. The CRU e-mails revealed unethical practices that have taken place. Why would you be expecting "new" science to appear a few weeks later? From what? Please explain what you are talking about because it makes no sense to us.