Comments on: How do you feel about scientists holding an emergency summit on climate change?

By: Rio

Rio — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:16:59 +0000

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 :

By: starpenta

starpenta — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:05:59 +0000

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 :

By: antarcticice

antarcticice — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:52:59 +0000

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 :

By: curious

curious — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:13:59 +0000

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 :

By: gwens18a

gwens18a — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:00:59 +0000

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 :

By: peter.jungmann

peter.jungmann — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:25:59 +0000

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 :

By: Aaron W

Aaron W — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:13:59 +0000

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…

By: d/dx+d/dy+d/dz

d/dx+d/dy+d/dz — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:56:59 +0000

I agree with gcnp.
References :

By: Kilroy Roboto

Kilroy Roboto — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:26:59 +0000

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 :

By: thg

thg — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:51:59 +0000

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 :