Comments for Live from Bali: The UN Climate Change Conference http://estbali.wordpress.com Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:06:22 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Bali’s Carbon Footprint by Sergey Cards http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/balis-carbon-footprint/#comment-72 Sergey Cards Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:06:22 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/balis-carbon-footprint/#comment-72 Thanks for article about Bali Thanks for article about Bali

]]> Comment on About this Blog by Andri http://estbali.wordpress.com/about/#comment-65 Andri Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:41:34 +0000 #comment-65 We have to support the climate change so the climate become heathy We have to support the climate change so the climate become heathy

]]> Comment on A Skeptic on the Side in Bali by Mrsexy http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-60 Mrsexy Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:50:38 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-60 Great point John. Global Warming believers, which day is hotter? Day 1: High 46 degrees, Low 27 degrees. Day 2: High 47 degrees, Low 22 degrees. Great point John.

Global Warming believers, which day is hotter?

Day 1: High 46 degrees, Low 27 degrees.

Day 2: High 47 degrees, Low 22 degrees.

]]> Comment on Papers that are non-papers by mcj http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/papers-that-are-non-papers/#comment-12 mcj Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:01:48 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/papers-that-are-non-papers/#comment-12 An article in the LA Times today suggests that this meeting is out of touch with the challenges we will face to mitigate global warming. The efforts of the US (if this is more than a rumor) to strip emissions reduction targets from the Roadmap supports this view. We know that it is important to reduce our emissions but unless there is a concrete number the problem will remain abstract. An article in the LA Times today suggests that this meeting is out of touch with the challenges we will face to mitigate global warming. The efforts of the US (if this is more than a rumor) to strip emissions reduction targets from the Roadmap supports this view. We know that it is important to reduce our emissions but unless there is a concrete number the problem will remain abstract.

]]> Comment on A Skeptic on the Side in Bali by John http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-10 John Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:01:47 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-10 Rose in Comment #1, Do you realize that right after you complained about people who "...are rich, famous, and have no background in climate science, yet can successfully sell themselves as legitimate experts to the public." you mentioned Al Gore and his movie? Rose in Comment #1,

Do you realize that right after you complained about people who “…are rich, famous, and have no background in climate science, yet can successfully sell themselves as legitimate experts to the public.” you mentioned Al Gore and his movie?

]]> Comment on A Skeptic on the Side in Bali by Shah Nawaz http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-9 Shah Nawaz Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:04:34 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-9 Criticism from the Environmental Scientist is welcome but from a non environmentalist like Lord Monckton,leads us to sheer confusion. Actually the riches not only want to sell their factories products but also they try to encash the green future of their comming generations just to increase their cash balances. Betts rightly said that the conference should ignore it and go ahead. If the people like Mr.Monckton dont really believe environmental change towards worse, he is invited by to the north of Pakistan where the changes in environment occured,never witnessed by the elders to a memorable past. Did he not witness Catrina and Sonamy. Can he assure Bangladeshi not to move out of their southern part by the year2025? The IPCC must continue effectively to save the planet. Regards. Criticism from the Environmental Scientist is welcome but from a non environmentalist like Lord Monckton,leads us to sheer confusion. Actually the riches not only want to sell their factories products but also they try to encash the green future of their comming generations just to increase their cash balances. Betts rightly said that the conference should ignore it and go ahead. If the people like Mr.Monckton dont really believe environmental change towards worse, he is invited by to the north of Pakistan where the changes in environment occured,never witnessed by the elders to a memorable past. Did he not witness Catrina and Sonamy. Can he assure Bangladeshi not to move out of their southern part by the year2025? The IPCC must continue effectively to save the planet. Regards.

]]> Comment on Scientists Call for Climate Action by Jay http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/scientists-call-for-climate-action/#comment-8 Jay Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:58:32 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/scientists-call-for-climate-action/#comment-8 What's interesting to me as a scientist who works directly with policymakers, is that it is fair game for all kinds of people who do not have policy expertise to comment on policy as long as they are not scientists. Business leaders, economists, religious groups, and random citizens on the street are fair game. They are legitimate commentators on climate change policy because they are world citizens. It is intersting that scientists forego this right as citizens in order to protect the apparent objectivity of their science. It's an ironic sacrifice, given that among all those in society who might comment, environmental scientists tend to be much better educated on the issue than average, even though few know much about policy. What does society lose from the disproportionate silence of this knowledgeable group? I am glad to see these prominent scientsts exercising their rights as both competent professionals and concerned citizens to have their say. What’s interesting to me as a scientist who works directly with policymakers, is that it is fair game for all kinds of people who do not have policy expertise to comment on policy as long as they are not scientists. Business leaders, economists, religious groups, and random citizens on the street are fair game. They are legitimate commentators on climate change policy because they are world citizens. It is intersting that scientists forego this right as citizens in order to protect the apparent objectivity of their science. It’s an ironic sacrifice, given that among all those in society who might comment, environmental scientists tend to be much better educated on the issue than average, even though few know much about policy. What does society lose from the disproportionate silence of this knowledgeable group? I am glad to see these prominent scientsts exercising their rights as both competent professionals and concerned citizens to have their say.

]]> Comment on A Skeptic on the Side in Bali by Jay http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-7 Jay Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:29:08 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-7 I have reviewed Monckton's "critique" of the IPCC report. He isn't simply rehashing old arguments and half truths. He is also creating a new standard of incompetence in straightforward mathmatical analyses that are far worse than other contrarians have done. Simple math mistakes and utter ignorance of the most basic concepts of climatology are added to the more clever tactics of half truths and spinning cherry-picked data. To review his work is to understand immediately why he eschews the peer-review route. I have reviewed Monckton’s “critique” of the IPCC report. He isn’t simply rehashing old arguments and half truths. He is also creating a new standard of incompetence in straightforward mathmatical analyses that are far worse than other contrarians have done. Simple math mistakes and utter ignorance of the most basic concepts of climatology are added to the more clever tactics of half truths and spinning cherry-picked data. To review his work is to understand immediately why he eschews the peer-review route.

]]> Comment on Scientists Call for Climate Action by eengelh http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/scientists-call-for-climate-action/#comment-6 eengelh Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:39:20 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/scientists-call-for-climate-action/#comment-6 To expand on Tom Yulsman's point, Seth Borenstein of AP covered the declaration, but few others in the U.S. press gave it much attention. In retrospect, I don't think I should have used the phrase "two cents" in my own post, because it could come across as minimizing the news. I certainly didn't mean it that way. In fact, at the time I posted this I fully expected the scientists' declaration to be splashed across U.S. pages the next day. I thought it was important news because I talk to scientists about climate change all the time, and rarely are they willing to comment on policy. Often they say that they are not experts on policy, and this is true and often appropriate, but there is something different about this declaration. Scientists spoke out this time, and I know it wasn't easy for many of them. This statement is about scientists leaving their comfort zone to make policy recommendations based on their scientific understanding. They state an endpoint or goal for policy, which science can inform, but not how to get there. The "how" goes beyond science and involves decisions about fairness, development goals, and myriad other issues. The COP meeting is mostly about the "how" at this point, with a fairly small contingent questioning the basic science. I want to highlight the role of science at this meeting, but I find that it is perhaps not the ways science is used at the COP that are as fascinating as seeing how this issue is moving beyond the science. To expand on Tom Yulsman’s point, Seth Borenstein of AP covered the declaration, but few others in the U.S. press gave it much attention.

In retrospect, I don’t think I should have used the phrase “two cents” in my own post, because it could come across as minimizing the news. I certainly didn’t mean it that way. In fact, at the time I posted this I fully expected the scientists’ declaration to be splashed across U.S. pages the next day.

I thought it was important news because I talk to scientists about climate change all the time, and rarely are they willing to comment on policy. Often they say that they are not experts on policy, and this is true and often appropriate, but there is something different about this declaration.

Scientists spoke out this time, and I know it wasn’t easy for many of them. This statement is about scientists leaving their comfort zone to make policy recommendations based on their scientific understanding. They state an endpoint or goal for policy, which science can inform, but not how to get there. The “how” goes beyond science and involves decisions about fairness, development goals, and myriad other issues.

The COP meeting is mostly about the “how” at this point, with a fairly small contingent questioning the basic science. I want to highlight the role of science at this meeting, but I find that it is perhaps not the ways science is used at the COP that are as fascinating as seeing how this issue is moving beyond the science.

]]> Comment on A Skeptic on the Side in Bali by Tom Yulsman http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-5 Tom Yulsman Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:29:27 +0000 http://estbali.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/a-skeptic-on-the-side-in-bali/#comment-5 Lord Monckton of Brenchley has annointed himself as a climate expert who knows better than hundreds of scientists who subject their work to the scrutiny of peer review. Unfortunately, there are those here in the U.S. who will pay attention to his "half truths, old data, and quotes taken out of context," as Betts put it, and conclude that there is nothing to worry about. Your blog is a good venue to cover what he has to say. But I'm glad that we've moved past the phase in regular coverage of this subject when journalists reporting on climate change were forced by their editors to find the likes of Lord Monckton of Brenchley to add "balance" — false balance, of course — to their stories. In the context of this blog, however, the story gives us a flavor of what's happening in Bali. And I appreciate it. (So tell us who's next: A Powerpoint by Rush Limbaugh perhaps? Now that would be REALLY amusing.) Lord Monckton of Brenchley has annointed himself as a climate expert who knows better than hundreds of scientists who subject their work to the scrutiny of peer review. Unfortunately, there are those here in the U.S. who will pay attention to his “half truths, old data, and quotes taken out of context,” as Betts put it, and conclude that there is nothing to worry about.

Your blog is a good venue to cover what he has to say. But I’m glad that we’ve moved past the phase in regular coverage of this subject when journalists reporting on climate change were forced by their editors to find the likes of Lord Monckton of Brenchley to add “balance” — false balance, of course — to their stories. In the context of this blog, however, the story gives us a flavor of what’s happening in Bali. And I appreciate it. (So tell us who’s next: A Powerpoint by Rush Limbaugh perhaps? Now that would be REALLY amusing.)

]]>