Fred Pearce on Lisbon

It seems like everyone who attended the Lisbon reconciliation conference wants to have a say on what happened. Fred Pearce's take is here.

Comments

[Martin Brumby]

"Of course, mainstreamers would claim it is hypocrisy for "sceptics" to lash out at mainstream climate science and then invoke the resulting public confusion to demand a seat at the table."

The absolutely crucial point, of course, is that it isn't the sceptics who are demanding we transfer the energy basis of the economy to "low carbon" technology that by and large simply doeasn't work (even if it was affordable).

Meanwhile we learn:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/02/existential-threat.html
that "Europe nations must bridge a €2.2trillion (£1.9trn) "carbon capital chasm" if they are to meet 2020 carbon emissions reduction targets".

I don't want a seat at any table, I just want an honest, independent tribunal of inquiry into the whole cAGW hypothesis and the actions proposed to deal with the "problem".

And if the self righteous "mainstream scientists" (or the sceptics, if it can be shown that we are indeed just cranky shills for BigOil) find themselves in clink at the end of it, so be it.

[BBD]

Wow.Good summary article from FP there. I especially liked the tone of this bit (emphasis added):

Climate science, they [attendees] said, is much less certain than the IPCC mainstreamers say, and peace can be found only if all accept what they dubbed "the uncertainty monster".

[...] Few at the meeting doubted that climate change was a real issue that the world had to address, but they said the science had been corrupted. They agreed with von Storch, who told a public meeting after the workshop that "too much climate science is done not out of curiosity but to support a preconceived agenda".

The biggest, most totemic, issue remains the IPCC's adoption of the "hockey stick" narrative, which holds that 20th-century warming is unique over the past millennium. Most in Lisbon saw this as a scandalous example of IPCC editors taking sides in an unresolved debate, and of how "scientific findings were judged according to their political utility".

Equally contentious is the charge - the pet subject of several in Lisbon - that the IPCC is "in denial" about whether ocean oscillations, which can absorb and release heat from the atmosphere but are not well represented in climate models, could explain the global warming of the past 40 years.

Third, most agreed that there was no scientific basis for the world adopting a target to prevent global warming going above 2 °C. It was "arbitrary", they said, and cooked up by climate scientists with a political agenda.

All good common sense then. Nice to see that HvS is sticking the boot in to the consensus again. A proper scientist, is prof. vS.

[stan]

Actually, I've been trying to find more takes on what happened in Lisbon. Other than Judy Curry and Tallbloke, who else has talked about what happened? Any links?

As for the content of this one -- "Few at the meeting doubted that climate change was a real issue that the world had to address" sounds to me like a conflict showing through. They all agree that no one quite knows enough, but the world needs to do SOMETHING. After all, a lot of them make their living studying the problem and the most important thing is that the research money must keep flowing.

[LevelGaze]

JoNova offers her own opinion of Pearce. And they accuse me of being too unforgiving!

http://joannenova.com.au/

[lapogus]

Stan - Chatham House Rule so not much has come out - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/26/early-reports-from-the-lisbon-conference/

Steve Goddard (who I think went on behalf of Anthony) also posted a very brief summary when he got back - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/lisbon-quick-notes/