“Scientists are to hold an emergency summit to warn the world’s politicians they are being too timid in their response to global warming.
Climate experts from across the world will gather in Copenhagen next month to agree a stark message to policy makers, which they hope will break the political deadlock on efforts to curb rising temperatures. The meeting follows “disturbing” studies that suggest global warming could strike harder and faster than expected.
Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist at the University of Copenhagen, who is organising next month’s event, said: “This is not a regular scientific conference. This is a deliberate attempt to influence policy.”
Now for all you conspiracy theorists out there, scientists have nothing to gain monetarily from such a summit. They already have no trouble getting research grants to study climate change, and influencing political policy at this point does not benefit them in any way.
What are your thoughts on this emergency summit?
Emergency summit? With all that has been going on what took them so long? Oh right, the shrub. Well, better late than never I guess. Let’s just hope it isn’t too late.
So somebody can’t figure out why a marine biologist is involved in this. I thought that would be obvious. I guess Dana the link you put up the other day about oceanic dead zones went unnoticed.
Lets’ hope they find a voice
Info via: newscientist.com
23 responses to How do you feel about scientists holding an emergency summit on climate change?
What’s interesting is that in the Copenhagen treaty, in the first few pages there is a paragraph where the signer must agree with the conclusions of the UN IPCC. Once that paragraph is agreed to, there will be no need for any further debate about the truth of AGW, nor will there be any further need for scietific investigation into climate change. This paragraph is a quieting of debate and a silencing of science. Climate science will no longer be needed, in other words the funding will dry up. Climate science will return to obscurity once again. This is the end of cliamte science as we have come to know it over the past several years. So yes these scientists who are going there to influence policy have lots to lose and I’ll bet it has something to do with that paragraph in the Treaty.
I think scientists should stick to science and not engage in lobbying.
And I think that the longer we go with 1998 as the "warmest year" since the end of the Little Ice Age, the more foolish AGW proponents look.
Bottom line, what they’re afraid of is that if CO2 emissions keep going up but the temperature keeps not going up, people will realize that the two are only loosely related and support for their agenda will wane.
References :
Wow, there is hope for you still! You are starting to state "Climate Change" and not "Global Warming!"
The scientists who are going there have EVERYTHING to gain about changing policies! With the economy like it is, scientific grants is the first to be cut. Not only this but the more people jump up and down about the "Global Warming" the easier that it will be for the government to impose taxes on it’s citizens with the "Carbon Credits"..or what ever tax that they are trying to push, globally. The SCIENTIST point blank said that it was intended to "Influence policy."
Unless, you are calling the SCIENTIST a conspiracy theorist also?
References :
Scientist who pretend there is an emergency when there isn’t one are engaging in politics, not science.
I find it interesting that someone that seems to think geology has nothing to do with climate quotes Katherine Richardson, a marine biologist.
http://www.igbp.kva.se/booklaunch/Biog_Richardson.pdf
An impressive resume but nothing in it to make me confident she knows much about climate.
References :
I think it is great
References :
I have this strange feeling that nothing to help stop global warming will get done because of the summit (though I’d like to be wrong on that).
Though it will be interesting to see what is proposed to deal with global warming, that might give us a clue as to how big the problem is considered to be by the participants (i.e. are they going to suggest actually solving the problem, or merely looking like solving the problem but instead getting in the way and giving the brownlash movement public support (if sacrifices are asked then global warming denialism becomes very attractive)).
References :
You make it sound like they’re all going to be hard at work. They’re like a bunch of teenagers throwing a party when their parents are away for the weekend. This global warming/climate change stuff is all so political/social, who can tell it it’s real or not. It’s like the Y2K bug all over again, except without the expiration date.
References :
If the professional skeptics are serious about wanting to challenge the science and the policy implications, they will also attend so their voices can be heard in the debate. I doubt they will though.
References :
600 scientists(world renowned) have already proven that GW does not exist, in fact we are in a cooling cycle, but they will continue to beat the GW warming drum, in the name of the evil U.S. causing all the non-existent problems. After this run’s out it will be the sky is falling, and we need al gore to hold it up. Takes lots of money u no.
References :
stupidGWidiots.com
I agree with Fedup Vet……
The Alarmists are in panic mode as the tough economy threatens their funding.
It’s disgusting to witness such pitiful behavior.
References :
It sounds like a gathering of alarmists, attempting to influence policy. If they truly believe what they’re saying (and many do), they have a moral obligation to warn the rest of the world while there’s a chance to do something about it. What they have to gain from climate policy is a chance to avoid the painful effects of climate change.
References :
I feel they are ignoring what God says and we should just relax God says we have nothing to fear and we do not have to do anything.
References :
Unless they are walking to the summit they are adding to global warming by flying there.
References :
They’ve stopped being scientists. They’ve taken up advocacy, which is a completely different thing. Science is a search for valid predictions concerning natural phenomena, whereas advocacy is an effort convince others of the correctness of one’s position.
I have no problem with someone giving up science to become an advocate for a position he or she believes in, but it should be made clear that they’re no longer doing science. And any science they do in the future on that subject should be taken with a grain of salt because they’ve clearly abandoned objectivity.
References :
From the number of "doubters" who have answered your question, I’d say the meeting’s first order of business is to find a way to convince EVERYONE there is truly a crisis. These people blow my mind. The writing is on the wall and I honestly cannot understand why they cannot see it. Either they are blind to the truth (for what ever reason) or they simply do not want to be inconvenienced with a lifestyle change.
To answer your question: I feel the summit is long overdue. I hope their meeting is productive. Are you going, Dana?
References :
I agree with gcnp.
References :
Nothing to gain? Have you ever been to a conference? It’s a great way to go out and party with your pals and get someone else to pay for it!
References :
Which reminds me… time to arrange a conference…
I think they’re looking forward to a nice trip to Denmark in the spring, as the speed-control women start removing their tops again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX97GnThCFU
I think they’re afraid that if they don’t enact the things they want to in a hurry they will lose their opportunity.
It’s further, an admission that it’s not science, it’s politics… as they admit by saying it’s a "deliberate attempt to influence policy."
References :
Emergency summit? With all that has been going on what took them so long? Oh right, the shrub. Well, better late than never I guess. Let’s just hope it isn’t too late.
So somebody can’t figure out why a marine biologist is involved in this. I thought that would be obvious. I guess Dana the link you put up the other day about oceanic dead zones went unnoticed.
Lets’ hope they find a voice http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16576-scientists-losing-war-of-words-over-climate-change.html
References :
Kudos to the scientists who show responsibility towards the humanity by holding this emergency summit! Politicians, unfortunately, are often more interested in the short-term political cost of their decisions, than in the long-term welfare of their people.
Deniers accuse climatologists of "becoming politicians", just because they warn the authorities about the danger ahead! Let me remind them this incident:
"Twenty years ago, the illusions of Northwesterners who refused to believe the dire predictions of volcanologists were shattered as the (Mount St Helens) volcano rumbled back to life after a century of dormancy, culminating in the catastrophic eruption of May 18, 1980". http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeSki.php?name=StHelens
So, were the volcanologists the bad guys because they warned people, or rather the local politicians who were reluctant to acknowledge the danger with the result of 57 people dying?
References :
For a start it shows the lack understanding of deniers in what goes on at a science conference it is not a party it is hard work, the idea that scientists should not give advice on the subject they are researching is laughable, who do these deniers suggest should give the advice, the blog owners they seem to think have knowledge on this subject.
Kilroy Roboto
"From the number of "doubters" who have answered your question"
Not really at least 4 are the same person it is pretty easy to tell as there are usually a high number of thumbs up in a short period after the question is asked then later answers thumbs show the real answer trend.
GWB
"600 scientists(world renowned) have already proven that GW does not exist"
Problem is most of the 600 don’t exist, and they have proved nothing but add their names to Senator Inhofe list
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
The ver first name listed
"Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever"
is not anything to do with climate research, he is an engineer who won his Nobel prize for tunneling phenomena in solids relating to superconductors, not even remotely climate related.
or
Geoffrey G. Duffy
Another engineer (at least in chemistry this time) his field of expertise (according to his work web site) wood pulp fiber! (seems appropriate for a denier expert)
http://www.ecm.auckland.ac.nz/staff/ggd/
Dr. G LeBlanc Smith
"a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO" (very grand)
That is till you search and find (yet again) what his field of expertise was (mining)
http://www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2000/VirtualMine.htm
If these are are the cream of Inhofe list I think his cream is well past it’s use by date.
References :
Wow. I haven’t read denier responses in a while…The only GW comments I’ve seen that involve politics are from ‘skeptics’ or deniers who say that’s why they’re doing this. Whatever. I see politicians commenting about it but I don’t see the actual scientists doing anything political for personal gain. Except wanting a habital world to live in. Getting people to recycle or ride their bike is hardly going to do anything for a climate research scientist’s pocketbook. It’s obviously a problem. But, look at these responses…’Lobbyists’? Oh, please. You people are pathetic.
References :
It’s been tried before,(1992) United Nations Conference on Environment. The treaty was promptly signed, ratified and put into force by most world governments.
http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-BCK-ClimateChangePolicy.pdf.pdf
A few reasons it didn’t work:
1. The commitment levels were strictly voluntary.
2. There was no clarification as to what constituted dangerous GH concentrations.
3. Governments saw it as a disruption to economic stability.
Skeptics and proponents alike seem to agree on one thing. Governments may have good intentions, but they are slow and bound by judicial form. If the scientific community can solve those issue’s, then this summit could have merit.
References :
Leave a reply to How do you feel about scientists holding an emergency summit on climate change?