Wednesday
May182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Another climate conference
May 18, 2011 Climate: HSI Climate: Sceptics At the end of last month another conference bringing together the two sides of the climate debate took place quietly in Germany. The participants were a team from the Potsdam Institute - Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf et al - and a group from EIKE, the main sceptic body in Germany.
EIKE have just issued a report documenting the discussions from their point of view. This can be seen below. The Hockey Stick Illusion is mentioned.
Reader Comments (13)
The conclusion sums it up well: "It is obvious that the participants were for the most part in agreement with the perception of the facts - the absence of increased weather extremes being unchallenged by PIK speaks volumes. The methods for assessing these facts however appear to differ. While the participants from EIKE put unconditional priority on physical measurements, climate impact research has to rely on models calculations for future orientation."
This is science versus speculation via models, which in former times would be called "augeries".
I think you'll find it's "auguries" but I take your point.
My reading of this was that though the discussion was useful, the "establishment" side is still sitting with its hands over its ears. This is remarkably depressing since here we had two groups of scientists who acknowledged each other to be scientists and yet the actual climate researchers when challenged seemed unable to understand that their adversaries (for want of a better word) were putting forward arguments which, whether they turned out to be correct or not, were valid and worthy of consideration.
And to start off by refusing to countenance any media involvement and to be surprised at the other side planning to issue a press release beggars belief.
Very interesting.
But it tends to confirms my opinion that it is more to do with money and power than about science.
Update
(from P Gosselin's excellent http://notrickszone.com/):-
Some additional notes: Michael Limburg has informed me that PIK scientists have turned down EIKE’s invitation to continue the exchanges. And it it is rather peculiar that the PIK objected and refused the presence of the media, and expressed reservations that EIKE held a press conference afterwards.
From the report one gets the impression that PIK puts a lot faith in climate models and is suspicious observations that do not conform to their models. In real science one ought to be suspicious of models that do not conform to real-life observations. Michael Limburg also added in his e-mail:
The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “
That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?
They have a theory and they have their models but they mistrust the readings on their data collecting instruments. They attempt to make the data fit the models and when they cannot do that they call upon uncertainty to express doubts over adverse data.
Be it the HOT SPOT, oceanic heat, surface temperature, paleo-climate, sea ice, etc, we do have a climate change fingerprint and it is all due to ideology and advocacy - the models are right, the observational data are wrong.
That is the mess created by climate scientists.
Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of australia's rightwing Coalition - who is now Opposition communications spokesman - on ABC TV last nite, praising Cameron and Co.
Turnbull (known as the Minister for Goldman Sachs) lost his leadership role due to his push for an ETS, to which the majority of australians are opposed, just as they are opposed to a carbon tax. here's Turnbull undermining his own party and speaking on issues outside his portfolio, ennables by the alarmist ABC:
18 May: ABC Australia: (Malcolm) Turnbull discusses broadband and climate policy
(ABC's) TONY JONES: Are you then envious of your conservative colleagues in the British government who yesterday signed up to a carbon emissions reduction target of 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2027? 50 per cent - 10 times what you and the Government have signed up to.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it is - the British Conservative Party has got a very different approach to climate change to the Liberal Party of Australia, which of course is its counterpart.
TONY JONES: But how do you account for that basic philosophical difference with two conservative parties?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, it's an interesting one, but David Cameron took the view, as did his - you know, obviously his colleagues, that the Conservative Party had to be seen to take climate change seriously, that they had to be pro-active, that they had to be environmentally responsible.
And indeed, one of David Cameron's campaign slogans was "Vote blue, go green", or "Go green, vote blue". And he in fact was, if anything, greener than the Labor Party in the UK political context.
And the conservatives and David Cameron in particular take the view that there is an enormous opportunity to get onto the front foot and get into a leadership role in terms of clean technology, low-emission technology, that this is a coming technological revolution, it's going to be - just like the information revolution or the industrial revolution, the green tech or clean tech revolution will be as significant as that as we hopefully move to de-carbonise the world's economy.
Now, that is a very important technological shift. Britain has a prime minister with vision who wants to be part of that change.
TONY JONES: The obvious takeaway, political takeaway in Australia, is that you don't believe your leader, Tony Abbott, your party, your conservative party, has vision.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Oh, no, I think there is a lot of vision. It's just a question of whether you agree with it, or whether you find it appealing. And that's something that, you know, obviously people will decide at the next election...
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3220679.htm
I do hope Andrew is taking notes of all this, I see in the future a very big tome called The rise and fall of global warming (a psychological thriller).
Oh, and thanks for all your effort and this blog, tis an invaluable source and always a good read.
@Greg Cavanagh
I second that for both the posts and the comments.
Or "Global Warming - My part in its downfall"
h/t Spike Milligan
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Can the Bishop sum up how this conference seems to have compared with Cambridge?
Is there anybody out there who could forward summaries of the two conferences to Sir Paul Nurse and Sir John Beddington?
The enclosing letter might put the thought that the good knight receiving it might like to suggest to government that unpopular actions that respond to the green agenda have really not so far been shown to be necessary and the government may safely avoid the political odium of enacting them, al least for the time being. Following the insight provided by the exchange posted above by Pat, however, the letter should also point out that, notwithstanding the absence of the said actions, government can continue to trumpet green intentions to the rooftops.
Maybe cc to Simon Singh, the Chairman of the BBS trust, the GWPF and the members of the government’s Climate Change Committee.
I doubt the letter should come from the Bishop because of the HSI and his advocacy of the skeptical side of the global warming argument would label him as partisan but there may be someone out there who has maintained a more neutral appearance. Maybe a group of worthies.
Re the exchange between Turnbull and Tony Jones, neither notice that the UK's 50% reduction target is conditional on it being matched by the EU, of which there is little prospect, because of the catastrophic consequences.
EIKEs observational 11 Vs PIKs model 17
EIKE claim a 10 goal victory, PIK disagree as their model failed to produce a single goal.
Replay abandoned PIK took the ball home.
No highlights available on MOTD PIK would not play under the media spotlight.
The response to the invite to a second discuss speaks volumes to me, Climate scientist just assume that if they ignore the questions they will just go away.
I'm becoming more and more aware that all this corruption is simplky money as if these gentleman where not getting paid large sums of money then they would be more open to a sensible discuss of the science.