Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Lord Deben is worried | Main | Still still »
Wednesday
Feb272013

Steps videos

A week or so back, prominent sci-policy wonks spoke at a symposium run by the University of Sussex's STEPS centre. Videos have now been posted here. They including Pielke Jr on the science-policy interface. Mike Hulme on the IPCC and Climategate, and Bob Watson on designing an assessment process.

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (10)

Blimey, what kind of masochist is going to sit through this lot?

Feb 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterAgouts

Agouts, unfortunately the world is full of people to whom this is the utmost of cutting research. These are the 100,000+ people in the world we would call "troughers" - people that exist only to worship and sustain the global warming myth. It's no wonder they fight tooth and nail to keep the teat ?

Feb 27, 2013 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

Blimey, is that the cast of Big Brother?

Feb 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

The Mike Hulme one is in fact really interesting. He argues that the consensus approach of the IPCC is pernicious and counterproductive, and speaks in favour of 'dissensus'. He points out the dubious logic of Houghton in IPCC 1990 (who said we can't accommodate all views but we are authoritative).
He asks whether people might have more confidence in climate science if there was a minority view that was officially recognised by the IPCC.
He says that the true tragedy of climategate was that the CRU emails showed a scientific culture closed to criticism, resistant to open sharing of data, and that the outcome was the exact opposite of what his colleagues at CRU thought they were doing - they handed scientifically credentialled critics of climate science an easy target.

At the end he briefly puts up a slide showing Donna Laframboise's blog, No Frakking Consensus, though it is a pity that with his frequent references to Dissensus he did not mention our Dissentient.

Feb 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Well, there's a big sustainable saving on a plate for the Chancellor.

For a laugh, go this page and click 'How is the STEPS Centre funded?

http://steps-centre.org/about/faqs/

Feb 27, 2013 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar

Bob Watson, after saying that scientists don’t decide, but only advise politicians, and that we should listen to all relevant stakeholders, including local farmers etc., says:

IPCC - if we didn’t have it we would absolutely have to invent it. Again, very influential on the national and international stage albeit limited value in the Congress basically, but you do have to be intelligent enough to read them.
So who is intelligent enough to decide who is intelligent enough to count as a relevant stakeholder? Why, Bob Watson presumably. And he’s decided to listen to African peasants rather than US Congressmen. Which is maybe why they’re unwilling to listen to him.

Feb 27, 2013 at 5:03 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

Dr Pielke talk is excellent. It reminds me of the situation at school where a group does something bad but no one will own up. The Headteacher gets the school together and tells everyone how they should behave, without pointing fingers at the very people he's pretty sure should be on the naughty step.

Feb 27, 2013 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterStacey

Thanks for posting these Bish. I agree with Stacey that Dr Pielke's talk is well worth watching and I'd like to recommend Anne Glover's lecture too. Quite fascinating and with a worthwhile Q and A session at the end. Not short (1h10m), but well worth watching if you want an insight into the EU Chief Scientific Advisor's thinking.

Feb 28, 2013 at 12:22 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Hulme has become really interesting of late.

His argument here is that promoting "consensus" actually weakens the authority of those in the consensus -- allowing dissenting voices to be heard and recognised would increase authority.

Climategate, which uncovered the "fanaticism" and "closed to criticism" mindset of the consensus scientists, fatally weakened them in the debate thereafter.

Recommended viewing.

Feb 28, 2013 at 4:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Dipak Gyawali's talk is also well worth watching.

Gyawali (a former Nepalese minister) on how almost everyone - especially the aid community - was wrong about how water and forestry should be managed in Nepal - and how bureaucracies prefer to 'manage scarcity' rather than do something about a problem. And how 'scientific' can be used just as a label, like 'modern' or 'democratic'.

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:56 PM | Registered CommenterRuth Dixon

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>