tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post3599133310711634572..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Interviews with and analysis of climate scientists' attitudeseduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-44973798735620227402011-01-16T10:27:16.788+01:002011-01-16T10:27:16.788+01:00Corinna
thanks for pointing out that the Hansen pa...Corinna<br />thanks for pointing out that the Hansen paper was not recent, I had looked at the journal's website which actually showed a 'most read' list.<br />Would such a panel be possible today? I am not sure. Perhaps not, because since 2007 (esp. since climategate) uncertainties are more emphasized, but this could also mean that potential risks are communicated more forcefully.<br />Hans and Dennis: do you have data about Hansen's claim, i.e. that scientists in private worry much more about dramatic sea level rise than they state in the literature?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71426357110056924832011-01-16T09:05:22.529+01:002011-01-16T09:05:22.529+01:00namenlos/49 - it seems that your comment was consi...namenlos/49 - it seems that your comment was considered possibly junk and sent automatically into the spam-folder, and Eduardo and I had not looked into that recently. It is now released. Unfortunately, we as editor have not way of changing the criteria of the spam-filter.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85663060552262557942011-01-15T22:59:30.427+01:002011-01-15T22:59:30.427+01:00@ comment #45 (and # 46)
2007 was the year in whi...@ comment #45 (and # 46)<br /><br />2007 was the year in which the arctic summer sea ice took a lesser extent/volume than the (IPCC) computer models had predicted... <br /><br />Hansen says (cf. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/01/interviews-with-and-analysis-of-climate.html?showComment=1294954749087#c2864968922701976898" rel="nofollow">here</a>):<br /><br /> "Im Falle des arktischen Meereises haben wir den Wendepunkt erreicht."<br /><br /> (My translation: *In the case of the arctic seaice we have reached the tipping point*)<br /><br />Is it justified to say that we have reached a tipping point?<br /><br />"scientific reticence": Could it be that other scientists do not believe/are_not_convinced (because of the facts they already know)?<br /><br />Don't you think the media would have brought more of the (eg Hansen-/May-... (Hoffmann)) model-stories - as well as they brought 2007-summer-sea-ice-extent-story - if there were some more severe, pressing evidences? <br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-90766662814086509642011-01-15T20:43:32.857+01:002011-01-15T20:43:32.857+01:00%&$§!
At least I wonder where my comment (# 4...%&$§!<br /><br />At least I wonder where my comment (# 41) "Chapter I" (January 13, 2011 10:25 PM) is. Why hasn't it appeared yet?<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3879540230631902142011-01-15T10:52:11.192+01:002011-01-15T10:52:11.192+01:00Sorry, Eduardo, but risk-benefit analysis is most ...Sorry, Eduardo, but risk-benefit analysis is most definately a part of science. It's even an integral part of medicine.<br /><br />I also would not underestimate Jim Hansen's understanding of these matters, in particular in comparison to politicians. the "risk-benefit" analysis in politics is very much affected by the "risk" and "benefit" in the political arena, rather than society as a whole.<br /><br />Regarding abortion and moral issues, I'd like to point out that it IS discussed. Heck, they have WHOLE conferences discussing such issues! Here is one example:<br />http://www.science.ngfn.de/dateien/3rd_International_Conference.pdf<br />I chose this particular example as it is from Germany and notably arranged by the German Academy of Science.<br /><br />But you could argue that this is a specific conference that focuses on this issue. Well, here's the 2011 programme for the biannual World Conference on Human Reproduction:<br />http://www.humanreproduction2011.com/scientific-programme/<br /><br />Note reference to discussing the ethical aspects...<br /><br />Finally, ethical committees are integral parts of academic science in the medical, biological, and pharmaceutical areas.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14192262288523199582011-01-15T03:41:39.786+01:002011-01-15T03:41:39.786+01:00The paper is from 2007, may be such a panel is alr...The paper is from 2007, may be such a panel is already in place?<br /><br />If not, do you believe it is possible these days to set up such a panel and follow its advice? The situation has much changed in the past 4 years!corinnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04276992257045005331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83783994154528426722011-01-14T10:17:53.428+01:002011-01-14T10:17:53.428+01:00Hansen has a new paper on sea level rise and what...Hansen has a new paper on sea level rise and what he calls 'scientific reticence' (<a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002" rel="nofollow">here</a>). It is worth a read because it spells out several of the issues we discuss here at the Klimazwiebel (not only, but specifically in this post). He believes that most scientists are convinced that sea level rise will be dramatic (much higher than projected by IPCC and other studies) but do not speak out. The reason is that they are trained in scientific method and practice objective skepticism.<br />It is Hansen's belief that because of the non-linear interactions in ice-sheets a tipping point in Antarctic melting will occur much earlier than official research predicts.<br />He therefore calls for the setting up of a panel to write a special report to address this problem. He thinks of the National Academy of Sciences to carry out such a study.<br /><br />But how on Earth would scientists under this umbrella give up their reticence (assuming that Hansen is right making this central assumption)?<br /><br />It is surprising that Hansen approvingly quotes work by Eipper which does not go well with his own suggestion. Hansen writes:<br /><br />"Almost four decades ago Eipper (1970), in a section of his<br />paper titled ‘The Scientist’s Role’, provided cogent advice and<br />wisdom about the responsibility of scientists to warn the public<br />about the potential consequences of human activities. Eipper<br />recognized sources of scientific reticence, but he concluded<br />that scientists should not shrink from exercising their rights as<br />citizens and responsibilities as scientists"<br /><br />This is what many on this blog have upheld: make a distinction between your rights as citizens and responsibilities as scientists. Hansen is perfectly entitled to act as an advocate. And he admits as much, saying 'reticence is fine for the IPCC'. But if he tries to elicit an outcome of a panel study that concurs with his own views on sea level rise, this is worrying.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-28649689227019768982011-01-13T22:39:09.087+01:002011-01-13T22:39:09.087+01:00Chapter IV: The Climate Wars "Fight for the F...Chapter IV: <i>The Climate Wars</i> "Fight for the Future" (<i>BBC: Der Klimakrieg: Folge 3: Die Folgen der Erwärmung</i>)<br /><br />I only watched the BBC-Germany version of the third part but we have also a transcript for this part for the english version <a href="http://dotsub.com/view/01f9a868-7a02-410e-957a-cff96ad325fc/viewTranscript/eng" rel="nofollow">here</a> and so we can watch in the german version James Hansen who sais (the german translation is spoken while he speaks, so we cannot hear everything Hansen sais):<br /><br /> "Im Falle des arktischen Meereises haben wir den Wendepunkt erreicht."<br /><br /> (Translation: *In the case of the arctic seaice we have reached the tipping point*)<br /><br />What on earth Hansen wants us to believe? Pure specualtion as fact to act?<br /><br />That Hansen part is not in the english version. Is Hansen an expert for the highly speculative tipping points, like Schellnhuber? Is it justified to say that we have reached a tipping point?<br /><br />And the BBC-Germany version mocks us with Michael Mann:<br /><br /> "Wenn wir so weitermachen wie bisher <b><a href="http://www.google.de/search?q=%22wenn+wir+so+weitermachen+wie+bisher%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a" rel="nofollow">[...]</a></b>, werden wir bald große und gefährliche, sogar katastrophale Auswirkungen des Klimawandels erleben. [...] Wenn der grönländische und der antarktische Schild ganz oder nur teilweise abschmelzen, steigt der Meeresspiegel um mindestens sechs Meter."<br /><br /> (Translation:*We are facing 20 feet sea level rise*)<br /><br />That timeless part of Mann is not in the english version - for a good reason.<br /><br />Don't believe the hype!<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15057858631342961802011-01-13T22:33:48.117+01:002011-01-13T22:33:48.117+01:00Chapter III: The Climate Wars "Fightback"...Chapter III: <i>The Climate Wars</i> "Fightback" (<i>BBC: Der Klimakrieg: Folge 2: Kampf um die Wahrheit</i>)<br /><br />Stewart in part two of that programme (cf. <a href="http://dotsub.com/view/84a7af89-fc3a-4deb-865d-42179c8a5864/viewTranscript/eng" rel="nofollow">transcript</a>):<br /><br /> "[I]t's become harder and harder to claim that there's any real scientific disagreement on the core issues." <i>[It follows directly an completely unmediated camera shot on Lord May.]</i><br /><br />Robert May, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government and former president of the Royal Society states:<br /><br /> "The science that said: The world is warming and the world is warming as a result of human activities is beyond any reasonable doubt."<br /><br /> (Translation by BBC-Germany: "Die Forschungsergebnisse, die belegen, dass der Mensch für die Klimaerwärmung verantwortlich ist, sind längst nicht mehr anzuzweifeln.")<br /><br />May is as well a colleague of the known Jerome Ravetz (cf. f.ex. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/02/reposting-ravetz-in-climategate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Ravetz has also something to say about "industrialised science" (see <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/10/jerry-ravetz-reply-to-various-comments.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>):<br /><br /> "Paleo-normal scientists are the assembly-line workers for the military-industrial-scientific complex, just as mainstream economists have been its ideologues."<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-74743495709385333372011-01-13T22:28:07.210+01:002011-01-13T22:28:07.210+01:00Chapter II: BBC: The Climate Wars "The Battle...Chapter II: BBC: <i>The Climate Wars</i> "The Battle Begins" (<i>BBC: Der Klimakrieg: Folge 1: Eine neue Bedrohung</i>)<br /><br />Part I of <i>The Climate Wars</i> also shows the doom-monger Paul Ehrlich 40 years ago, author of e.g. <i>The Population Bomb</i>. Paul and Anne Ehrlich had also written in 1977 a book together with John Holdren, <i>Ecoscience</i>, in which they seem to advocate disturbing measures and solutions, including forced abortions and introducing chemicals into the water supply that would cause sterilization to prevent overpopulation. Today Holdren is a advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.<br /><br />John Schellnhuber, Director of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Chief Government Advisor on Climate and Related Issues during Germany's EU Council Presidency and G8 Presidency, said: " Holdren is a good friend of mine" ("Holdren ist ein guter Freund von mir (Schellnhuber in <i>Die lange Nacht des Klimas</i>).") Schellnhuber is a Himalayan parrot who featured a few times the incompetent IPCC-exemplary nonsense (cf. f.ex. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/hans-von-storch-beantwortet-fragen-in.html?showComment=1292698909012#c6169280664996639455" rel="nofollow">here</a> or Himalaya/AR4/WG3) and Schellnhuber believes that "we" have only five years left to act, otherwise *the game is lost* („dann ist das Spiel verloren“, *sonst ist das Spiel gegen die Natur nicht mehr zu gewinnen*, meint Schellnhuber (cf. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIGt2MC_FCE&feature=related" rel="nofollow">here</a>)).<br /><br />Later in part I in that BBC production a "secret shadowy organisation, 'Jason'", is mentioned. For another *secret society*, the Illuminaten, also cf. e.g. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/silke-beck-are-climate-skeptics-gaining.html?showComment=1292074148773#c1443104409623976560" rel="nofollow">here</a>; for another "shadowy 'organisation'", the Europaparlament, see Schmidt, Helmut Schmidt <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/klimaforscher-sollten-sich-in-demut.html?showComment=1293671858885#c6967011786479447131" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61509198573260822312011-01-13T22:25:39.655+01:002011-01-13T22:25:39.655+01:00Chapter I: BBC: The Climate Wars "The Battle ...Chapter I: BBC: <i>The Climate Wars</i> "The Battle Begin" (<i>BBC: Der Klimakrieg: Folge 1: Eine neue Bedrohung</i>)<br /><br />Phoenix, a publicly-funded television station in Germany which is jointly held by the public broadcasting organizations ARD and ZDF announced a documentation about the climate which would be *examined precisely by experts* ("...von Experten präzise aufgearbeitet...").<br /><br />Phoenix bought and just broadcasted a three-part documentary by the BBC: <i>BBC Earth: The Climate Wars</i> (The BBC-Germany version is basically the same, called: <i>Der Klimakrieg</i>, but seems to have some changes which are interesting) which is to me a clearly pseudo-balanced piece of "experts".<br /><br />The broadcasting company promoted it for days: "'Der Klimakrieg' ist die ultimative Dokumentation über den Klimawandel." (See <a href="http://www.bbcgermany.de/EXKLUSIV/programm/sendung_785.php" rel="nofollow">here</a> (Also note the web links provided by the BBC there)). (One adviser of that programme was Naomi Oreskes, known e.g. for a study which is similar controversial as a certain study on another issue by Aijing Shang Et Al. in <i>The Lancet</i>.)<br /><br />In the english version of that documentation Ian Stewart, a geologist, tells us - sometimes with a voice like speaking before a kindergarten – something in the manner of: The "hockey stick(s)" is/are settled science. And the last critical voices on any issues with regard to AGW have been scientifically refuted.<br /><br />In the introduction Stewart says (same in the german version) (my emphasis and brackets) (cf. <a href="http://dotsub.com/view/b846dcff-ce80-49ca-9651-5af53d3710ba/viewTranscript/eng" rel="nofollow">transcript</a>):<br /><br /> "In this series, I'm going to explore some simple, big questions:" <i>[You hear dramatic computerised warlike background noises like missile strikes, lightnings and thunders, volcanic eruptions, lashing sea breaking etc.]</i><br /><br /> "How do we know the climate is warming up?" <i>[You see in a row a reddish dyed world map ("Abstract evidence retreats before the poetry of forms and colors" (cf. Camus <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/11/luxurious-life-of-ipcc-lead-author.html?showComment=1290953306241#c5210594964898161314" rel="nofollow">here</a>).), a forest fire and a whirlwind (disasters); you hear a voice: 'Oh my god'.]</i><br /><br /> "<b>How do we know humans are causing it?</b>" <i>[You see an overturned campervan and high sea surf.]</i><br /><br /> "And how do we know what's going to happen next?" <i>[You hear someone screaming unintelligible; kettledrums and trumpets resoundingly.]</i><br /><br />OK, media... but Phoenix said it would be the scientific/expert point of view. In my opinion we have evidence that the consortium of public-law broadcasting institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany is – since years still – mainly biased. "They" are wasting "their" – well funded – opportunities for journalism; and "they" are blowing (tax) money – and his/our prime time (cf. f.ex. <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/hans-von-storch-beantwortet-fragen-in.html?showComment=1292698471533#c3589775951310090846" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/hans-von-storch-beantwortet-fragen-in.html?showComment=1292747412911#c3375198633705103122" rel="nofollow">here</a>, or <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/12/klimaforscher-sollten-sich-in-demut.html?showComment=1293671858885#c6967011786479447131" rel="nofollow">here</a>). "They" seem to favor – in some cases - a new world order – at least may be for "journalists" or taxing.<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73491601530110743812011-01-13T16:07:02.865+01:002011-01-13T16:07:02.865+01:00@36,
Marco wrote,
'according to the policy ma...@36,<br />Marco wrote,<br /><br />'according to the policy makers (and you), indicates there is a problem, what will the policy do to the perceived problem? Of course, I have been to a few medicine-'<br /><br />One of the reasons is that I am not - and I would say Hansen either - qualified to inform about policy implications. My knowledge of economics, geography, sociology, finance, energy, etc, etc, is almost zero. Taken to the extreme, to state as a climate scientist that we have to reduce carbon emissions is controversial, since parts of the population may win from climate change. Who am I to contrast the interests of a farmer in Spain who would face water shortage with the benefits of a village in Siberia that may benefit from warmer temperatures ? That belongs to the political discussion, where risks and costs should be weighed, and discourse and not to climate science.<br /><br />There are many other examples were scientists are not allowed to comment on political issues, and thus their rights may be perceived to be curtailed - for instance many officials of national and international financial institutions (FMI, central banks, etc) for very good reasons. <br /><br />Would it be appropriate to discuss in a medical convention the moral issues of abortion ? Clearly not.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17046680996666232452011-01-13T15:50:54.955+01:002011-01-13T15:50:54.955+01:00@34
Bookmark,
I think your argument is not relev...@34 <br />Bookmark,<br /><br />I think your argument is not relevant here,and it sounds like an attempt to wriggle out of the fact that the talk is on the Pages web site - not simply linked but physically archived there, and it was on the program of the meeting. Can you please explain that fact, if in your opinion the talk was totally unconnected to that meeting? <br /><br />It was open ? yes, many scientific meetings are totally open and any interested can get in. It was in another building ? well, that building at that moment was used by Pages. It could have taken place on the beach for that matter.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-69350163716539897372011-01-13T02:49:50.802+01:002011-01-13T02:49:50.802+01:00ghost - For clarification: when I placed the misus...ghost - For clarification: when I placed the <i>misused</i>-term in parentheses "misused" it was meant as a repetition of an often heard formulation, not as a assertion that the <i>misuse</i> would be merely claimed without merit.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-78099639092337813872011-01-12T23:16:45.286+01:002011-01-12T23:16:45.286+01:00@Werner
Jim Hansen is boring? Maybe you should wat...@Werner<br />Jim Hansen is boring? Maybe you should watch Richard Alley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq22bVmxfuk Have fun. <br /><br />BTW: Richard Alley is just great... I like his explanations very much Unfortunately, "skeptics" call him a fraud! Well... <br /><br />@Marco<br />well said. Thank you.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10897333657273994762011-01-12T16:56:21.753+01:002011-01-12T16:56:21.753+01:00@Eduardo
Forgot the question
"Although I may...@Eduardo<br />Forgot the question<br /><br />"Although I may not agree with Lindzen either, would you like to bet that Lindzen will never be invited to give a similar talk to PAGES ?"<br /><br />Possible (for many reasons, his claims were a bit too bold and too often rejected for curious errors), but I dont see any problem for you giving a seminar on your view of politics and sciences.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-66763622840283942342011-01-12T16:46:44.879+01:002011-01-12T16:46:44.879+01:00Eduardo,
Bookmark nicely pointed out what I tried...Eduardo,<br /><br />Bookmark nicely pointed out what I tried to get you to understand: it was a completely open and public lecture. As such that means it is not part of the scientific meeting.<br /><br />And like Georg I would not have any problem with Lindzen giving a similar lecture. In fact, I know he has given such lectures many times, at scientific venues (not a PAGES conference, but why should we make a distinction of someone giving a lecture at a scientific conference versus any other scientific venue?<br /><br />Take for example this:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60<br />(you have to endulge Andrew Dessler first, but do check the discussion; that will make clear why Lindzen will never be asked to give a similar lecture at PAGES: you first have to get the science right, and not claim just about all your colleagues are wrong, stupid, and/or frauds ("massaging the data" is one of his favorite claims)).<br /><br />Finally, I can't see why discussing policy implications should NOT be part of the scientific discussion. It is enormously important in many aspects: if your science, according to the policy makers (and you), indicates there is a problem, what will the policy do to the perceived problem? Of course, I have been to a few medicine-related conferences, where people from the regulatory agencies talk loads about policy and how that affects the science (and vice versa), so maybe I'm 'biased' towards accepting such things easier than you.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84773749022574469572011-01-12T16:28:12.618+01:002011-01-12T16:28:12.618+01:00@Eduardo
Everything's said, I guess.
If the...@Eduardo<br /><br />Everything's said, I guess. <br /><br />If the interests are big enough you can behave as you want you will ALLWAYS have an agenda (in the eyes of some).<br />So better explain your thoughts and "a prioris" anyway, even your political ones.<br /><br />Evolutionary theorists never did any politics but there is a near a majority in the US who does not believe a single word they are saying. <br /><br />It is to me completely obscure why so many people think that when the interaction between politics and science goes wrong (as now in the climate debate) then science should behave differently. Usually dirty, muddy, conspirative, machiavelistic politics should, but not science.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-45338006439883752762011-01-12T15:42:50.140+01:002011-01-12T15:42:50.140+01:00@ Georg,
Although I may not agree with Lindzen ei...@ Georg,<br /><br />Although I may not agree with Lindzen either, would you like to bet that Lindzen will never be invited to give a similar talk to PAGES ?<br /><br />One reason to keep science and politics separated is, in my view, that very soon you are not seen as a scientist, but as a politician - as Hansen is. And not only Hansen, but unfortunately the whole climate community. Hansen will probably delight his followers, but he will never convince anyone that is not previously convinced. Although there may be other - I would say also ethical reasons for this separation- there is this very pragmatic one: Hansen is actually damaging to his own cause, the same as Lindzen.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-67141399718301757132011-01-12T15:39:50.745+01:002011-01-12T15:39:50.745+01:00I attended the Hansen lecture in Corvallis, and it...I attended the Hansen lecture in Corvallis, and it was indeed a completely public lecture (advertised locally and with many audience members from the local community). It was a separate event from all of the science events - in a different hall and in the evening.<br /><br />While Hansen may not be the most riveting of public speakers, that is not the reason people want to hear him speak.Bookmarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-73086109217246271862011-01-12T15:01:24.110+01:002011-01-12T15:01:24.110+01:00Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intellegor ulli!
(...Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intellegor ulli!<br /><br />(Guess who)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71031649027843279982011-01-12T09:29:57.573+01:002011-01-12T09:29:57.573+01:00Prof von Storch said.
"A serious problem is, ...Prof von Storch said.<br />"A serious problem is, however, that many act a slight self-censorship by checking language, and assertions, for avoiding of being “misused” by “skeptics”."<br /><br />I see this also as a problem. It was nicely shown in the CRU emails. It was my personal most important insight from the few emails that I read. <br /><br />However, I can also understand some of the scientist in some extent, because there are no """ in misuse. It is a fact, that there are forces that really distort and misuse everything. Therefore, I think, Prof von Storch is not completely right here. I think, handling these obvious distortions must be a point in science transfer to the public, but not in the actual science papers and reports. IMHO, that would be the right description of this issue.ghostnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76437427393163468952011-01-12T08:13:34.328+01:002011-01-12T08:13:34.328+01:00Hola Edu
se ha perdido otra vez un commentario que...Hola Edu<br />se ha perdido otra vez un commentario que estaba probablemente desmasiado lungo. GeorgGeorg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3555130839688593412011-01-12T08:04:35.181+01:002011-01-12T08:04:35.181+01:00@Eduardo
"But if you dont see it, you would ...@Eduardo<br /><br />"But if you dont see it, you would also find appropriate that in the next PAGES meeting, Lindzen also gives a talk presenting his political positions on global warming, right? Or for that matter the Pope, or any ayatollah, as far as it is kept as public lecture ?"<br /><br />Perfectly fine with me. There should be quality and there should be climate. Lindzen probably can, the Pope and the Ayatollah should take some starting lessons.<br />That's the point in a democracy. You might listen to everyone and then have your own opinion.<br />The framing of the above seminar of Jim Hansen made it perfectly clear what was served afterwards. On some slides Hansen even put an asterisk with the remark "This is obviously only my opinion". I like in particular the word "obviously".<br /><br />In general I dont know what is won by a super clean separation of what is science and what is politics. It takes only very few scratching and you find the societal/ethical bias of any science talk or the scientfic fundaments of some political convictions.<br /><br />Well the seminar was not about impacts, at least not primarily. But yes, I think he is an expert on that too.<br /><br />Kharecha, P.A., C.F. Kutscher, J.E. Hansen, and E. Mazria, 2010: Options for near-term phaseout of CO2 emissions from coal use in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 4050-4062, doi:10.1021/es903884a.<br /><br />Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, F.S. Chapin, III, E. Lambin, T.M. Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C.A. De Wit, T. Hughes, S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P.K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R.W. Corell, V.J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. Foley, 2009: Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc., 14, no. 2, 32.<br /> <br />Kharecha, P.A., and J.E. Hansen, 2008: Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3012, doi:10.1029/2007GB003142.<br /><br />All this said I just like to underline the obvious: I disagree on several points with Jim Hansen, in particular prioritizing the carbon problem above all other problems.<br /><br />Finally here is one EGU public session on politics and climate sciences:<br />http://www.cntv.at/EGU2010/?modid=18&a=show&pid=95<br /><br />and there was one on "climate sceptics" I cant find right now.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24468963174461099532011-01-12T05:16:41.690+01:002011-01-12T05:16:41.690+01:00Maybe that some people have lost their common sens...Maybe that some people have lost their common sense at some point:<br /><br />http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/2008/12/jim-hansen-spricht-auf-der-agu-von-einem-runaway-greenhouse-effect.php<br /><br />And this is the link to the famous "Bjerknes Lecture":<br /><br />http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf<br /><br />"That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet."<br /><br />And we are not about to forget Mr. Hansen's "death trains".<br /><br />We know how important it is to communicate this as widely as possible (and to defend this pulp fiction). There are enough activists out there defending EVERY crazyness to save the planet.<br /><br />People who propagate this must have a very bad opinion of the general public.<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com