Reminder: The Science of Climate Change webcast

Must-see panel with 2 top scientists who helped author IPCC reports.  It will be webcast here Wednesday, from 12:00pm – 1:30pm ET.  Details here.

I probably won’t get my usual number of blog posts up today.

Please post your comments on the panel when it’s done here.

11 Responses to Reminder: The Science of Climate Change webcast

  1. Tom Kimmerer says:

    The stream is showing the presenters, but none of the graphics of which they are speaking. I’m familiar enough with the data to follow the discussion, but it is not very useful. I’d love to refer other people (non-scientists) to this stream, but it is useless in its present form. Joe, I hope someone can put together a streaming presentation that includes the graphics. This would a very significant contribution.

  2. Jerry Levitt says:

    What is happening with Pachauri at the IPPCC? Has he also fallen into the dark side?

  3. Chris Dudley says:

    Hope the slides can be posted together with the video.

  4. IANVS says:

    Bravo Zulu, Joe! Now to raise the capital (and O&M) and take this show on the road. Americans everywhere are starving for the scientific facts & how it affects their safety & livelihood. The well-funded & incessant campaigns of denial are only too successful at fomenting confusion & doubt, but people want to know for themselves, their children, & their grandchildren. We can’t let up, now that you & others have the ball rolling.

    When people are starving, they’ll grab onto anything.

  5. Peter Bellin says:

    The stream is not working (perhaps the time is EST?).

    Will it be possible to see this later?

  6. Jeff Huggins says:

    I missed it and would love to see it later — ideally with the visuals/charts/etc., but either way is better than nothing.

    It sounds like it was (or will be) great, with all elements together.



  7. ZS says:

    I was fortunate enough to be able to attend in person. And though I was disappointed that there wasn’t enough time to take questions from the public, I was glad that the question I was going to ask (what should the scientist’s role be in relation to policymakers, media, and the public?) was addressed by the questions asked by Mr. Romm and one of the journalists who attended.

    Although I enjoyed the presentations of Dr. Field and Dr. MacCracken, I was a bit disappointed by their answers during the Q&A period. Dr. Field was, I think, a bit compromised by his position as a workgroup leader for IPCC, and was subtly evasive in most of his responses to criticisms to the way the group works. Understandably, I suppose. Dr. MacCracken fared better in general, but I completely disagreed with his contention that the IPCC should think twice about getting a communications team because they might appear “biased”. NO! The IPCC, a non-partisan group of scientists, releases the most comprehensive and authoritative reports on climate change – they can and should be the authoritative source for information about climate science, whether that’s through the release of an Assessment or providing comments on the latest climate “scandal”. If their views appear politically “biased”, than that merely reflects the bias against scientific realism on the right. We should never shy away from the truth just because one major political party can’t seem to handle it.

    Overall, though, I’m very glad I was able to make it, and I’m looking forward to attending more CAP/CP events in the future!

  8. question says:

    Please more questions from the audience next time!!!

  9. Prokaryote says:

    Please a link to the video!

  10. Leif says:

    One of the Commentators mentioned that the “public does not believe in science.” I believe that is a miss statement in that the public does in fact believe in science. They trustingly use science every day in transportation, food systems and health care, computers, etc. The fact is that advertising convinces the public to “see” “climate science” in a manor that is beneficial to the parasite. (Fossil fuel industry) This affect also played out in the tobacco industry where folks to this day wage a loosing battle with smoking odds.

    Another point. 2100 has been used as a focal point so much that folks fail to recognize that global climatic disruption and sea level rise of 4 to 6 feet does not stop there but once “there” we will have another 10 or more feet build into the system for the next 100 years, guaranteed. This fact will condemn the 22 century to replay this centuries’ efforts and then some to remain running in place. Where as if we tackle the problem with appropriate vigor during our time, just perhaps we can prevent both efforts and leave earth hospitable as well.