by Judith Curry
I have been traveling this week, so I haven’t been keeping up with everything that has been going on, but here are a few topics for discussion. I hope that you will bring up others.
The 6th Heartland International Climate Conference was held last week. It is billed on their web page as
Dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists will gather in an effort to “restore the scientific method” to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change.
The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The scientists speaking at this conference, and the hundreds more who are expected to attend, are committed to restoring the scientific method. This means abandoning the failed hypothesis of man-made climate change, and using real science and sound economics to improve our understanding of the planet’s ever-changing climate.
The program is much smaller than the 2009 Conference, I guess the funding has decreased? There was live streaming available of the conference, but apparently no videos that you can replay. I was hoping that the ppt presentations would be available, but I haven’t seen them. I would appreciate being pointed to interesting presentations. There is some discussion on WUWT, where the commenters thought that Bob Carter’s talk was good.
Joe Romm disses the conference here.
Some interest FOI issues this past week.
The AAAS has prepared a statement entitled “Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists” . The statement is concerned by both death threats and FOI requests against scientist, which could have a chilling effect on the scientists willingness to conduct research.
The AAAS didn’t see too concerned about the Greenpeace FOI requests that uncovered substantial oil company funding for skeptic Willie Soon.
Andy Revkin makes these remarks:
However challenging and time consuming it may be to respond to such requests, scientists and their institutions, when working under federal or state grants, shouldn’t get special consideration because the workload might discourage them from doing work on contentious questions.
That doesn’t mean scientists and their associations shouldn’t loudly complain about it. The public should know just how much taxpayer money has to go into responding to document fishing expeditions.
Fred Pearce has an article entitled “Oxford academic wins right to read UEA climate data.”
Jonathan Jones, physics professor at Oxford University and self-confessed “climate changeagnostic”, used freedom of information law to demand the data that is the life’s work of the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Phil Jones. UEA resisted the requests to disclose the data, but this week it was compelled to do so.