Klimaatdiscussie: toenemende divergentie tussen politiek en wetenschappelijk debat

Onder de hoede van de 'American Physical Society' (APS) vond een serieuze discussie tussen protagonisten en antagonisten van de menselijke broeikashypothese plaats. Een overwinning voor de wetenschap!

Mijn trouwe lezers zullen zich herinneren dat ik herhaaldelijk mijn teleurstelling heb uitgesproken over het resultaat van de KNAW–discussie tussen voor– en tegenstanders van de menselijke broeikashypothese (AGW = 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'), die uiteindelijk resulteerde in een eenzijdig KNAW–klimaatrapport, waarin de opvattingen van de klimaatsceptici niet meer waren terug te vinden.

Onlangs vergeleek de Amerikaanse minister van buitenlandse zaken, John Kerry, klimaatverandering weer met massavernietigingswapens en gooide hij met modder naar degenen die deze opvatting niet deelden.

Maar de wetenschap trekt zich daar gelukkig niets van aan en trekt haar eigen plan. De prestigieuze 'American Physical Society' (APS) heeft onlangs een bijeenkomst georganiseerd, waarin prominente AGWers en klimaatsceptici van gedachten hebben gewisseld. Judith Curry, de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse klimatologe, die wederzijdse verkettering verwerpt en zich al jarenlang op bewonderenswaardige wijze inzet voor een dialoog tussen beide kampen, was er ook voor uitgenodigd en heeft haar indrukken op haar blog gezet.

Onder de titel, 'APS reviews its Climate Change Statement', schreef zij onder meer:

The American Physical Society (APS) is in the process of reviewing its 2007 Climate Change Statement. The process itself is remarkable, and I’ve been privileged to participate in the process. ...

The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement.

... the Subcommittee convened a workshop with six climate experts. The Subcommittee used that meeting to delve more deeply into aspects of the IPCC consensus view of the physical basis of climate science. In doing so, it hoped to illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and for the broader public both the certainties and boundaries of current climate science understanding.

The workshop was the first step in a deliberative process. As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by–laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period.

Context

The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found here.

This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists ...   These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty.

The charge to the POPA Subcommittee considering the statement can be found here.

Workshop

I was one of the experts invited to attend the January 8 Workshop.  The other invitees were  Bill Collins, Ben Santer, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy.

Several weeks before the Workshop, we received a framing document that posed a series of questions that had arisen from their reading of the IPCC AR5 WG1 Report.  Not only did they carefully read the AR5 Report (they picked up some things that I hadn’t spotted), but their analysis and questions reflected a good skeptical perspective.  None of the Subcommittee Members have any apparent expertise in climate science; rather they viewed the AR5 report through the eyes of physicists.

Each Workshop participant was invited to select questions to respond to in a 30 minute presentation.  The Workshop format allowed for extensive questioning and discussion.  My presentation can be found here.

The APS produced a complete transcript of the workshop [link], with ppt slides embedded within. This is a remarkable document — more than anything else that I’ve seen, it provides in my opinion what is the most accurate portrayal of  the scientific debates surrounding climate change. There was some fascinating (and new to me) science that was presented. In a future post i will discuss the scientific presentations. But one general reaction is that while the 6 of us agreed on the primary scientific evidence (apart from some tiffs between Santer and Christy on the satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends), we each had a unique perspective on how to reason about the evidence. .

JC reflections

I have been harshly critical of the statements on climate change made by various professional societies, and the process by which those statements were crafted and approved (see my post (Ir)responsible advocacy). 

I give the APS an A+ for the process in preparing their statement. The thoroughness and transparency is unprecedented. And I like the idea of having relatively objective people write the statement, people without a dog in this particular fight.

That said, I have no idea what will actually transpire between now and when a new statement appears, and what the new statement will actually say. In any event, it was a real  pleasure and privilege to participate in that Workshop. And I think the Workshop transcript is a superb resources for assessing the state of the debate on climate science. .

Lees verder hier.

De presentatie van Judith Curry is verplichte kost voor klimatofielen van alle gezindten.

Dit is een hoopvolle ontwikkeling. Maar ik vrees dat het Eco Industriële Complex zich de komende jaren met hand en tand hiertegen zal verzetten.

Nederland was het eerste land in de wereld dat een serieuze en respectvolle dialoog tot stand heeft weten te brengen tussen voor- en tegenstanders van de AGW-hypothese, onder leiding van de KNAW. Daar had iets moois uit kunnen komen. Door kortzichtigheid en machinaties achter de schermen van pro-AGWers heeft de KNAW deze kans op magistrale wijze verprutst. Dat is een smet op haar blazoen. De APS laat nu zien hoe het ook had gekund. 

Voor mijn eerdere DDS– bijdragen zie hier.