Video and PPTs of “The Science of Climate Change” with Dr. Christopher Field and Dr. Michael MacCracken

The event was a big success, I thought, mainly because we had two top climate scientists, Christopher Field and Michael MacCracken, who had a lot of experience with the IPCC.

Some people complained that you couldn’t see the PPTs.  So we have posted them here, which you can open in a separate window while you watch this:


8 Responses to Video and PPTs of “The Science of Climate Change” with Dr. Christopher Field and Dr. Michael MacCracken

  1. Jonah says:

    Thanks for posting the PPTs! That really improves watching this for me.

  2. Chris Dudley says:

    Yes, Thanks. The idea that heat generated in the decomposition of permafrost could make further decomposition unstoppable is an interesting one.

  3. paulm says:

    Great feature.

  4. paulm says:

    This sort of interview should be on TV all the time – constantly.
    How can we get the MSM TV to start featuring these regularly?

  5. J.A. Turner says:

    The question of how to bridge the gap between the scientific/environmentalist community and the conservative religious community that distrusts science is a burning issue. It is going to be monumentally difficult to get the necessary public support for action if we can’t communicate with so large a portion of the public. The climate contrarians have been much more successful in getting their message across than the environmental community. We need first to innoculate the public with the notion that real climate scientists who do real research should be given more credence than spin-doctors, right-wing ideologues and spokesmen for the oil and coal companies. Then we need to present the environmental crisis in terms that connect with conservative religious values rather than in terms that offend them. Justice, fairness and compassion are core values that we can address and reach people with, as long as the message doesn’t hit any hot buttons that make the audience tune out (i.e., evolution and paleoclimatology).

  6. Leland Palmer says:

    Chris Field on Democracy Now, February 26, 2009:

    He says pretty much the same thing, but says it a little more forcefully.

    Interestingly enough, ExxonMobil contributes something like 10 million or more per year to the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University, and Chris Field is a member of this project.

    I’m scared of the spam filter, so I won’t post the links to Stanford that show this. But just Google “GCEP ExxonMobil Chris Field” and they will pop right up.

    I think ExxonMobil has given something like 200 million dollars (maybe more) to Stanford’s GCEP.

    It’s interesting that both Pachauri and Chris Field have some sort of connection to ExxonMobil. Pachauri was nominated to head the IPCC after Robert Watson was kicked out as head of the IPCC, allegedly at the behest of the Bush Administration, after the Bush administration received a memo from a lobbyist with connections to ExxonMobil.

    Google “ExxonMobil Slate Pachauri”, and this will pop up.

    And Chris Field’s university program is supported by ExxonMobil, among other major corporations.

    Which might explain how they got on the IPCC in the first place.

    I hope this does not say anything about the too conservative nature of the last IPCC report.

    Whatever their past and the reasons they got on the IPCC in the first place, they are speaking out forcefully on global warming now, and deserve credit for it.

    They are scientists, after all.

    [JR: Be not afeard. Two links per post. Just post more than once!]

  7. Leland Palmer says:

    I’n not scaaarrreeeddd…

    Here’s the link to Chris Field’s GCEP Stanford bio:

    And here’s a link that mentions ExxonMobil’s funding of GCEP:

    Investment in ‘Clean’ Energy Solutions

    EXXON: In 2002, we announced an investment of $100 million over 10 years in Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). ExxonMobil’s investment is the largest ever investment in independent climate and energy research.

    Our Response: GCEP’s research is focused on making fossil fuels burn cleaner and dealing with carbon after it has been released, which are useful endeavors but do little to advance renewable energy technologies and significantly cut global warming pollution before it is released. In addition, the technology developed may not be available for commercial application for at least a decade. GCEP also has no quantifiable goals in terms of reducing global warming pollution and includes no guarantee that ExxonMobil or any of the sponsoring companies will apply the technologies developed.

    The company is quick to note the size of its contribution to Stanford. To put ExxonMobil’s financial contribution in perspective:
    • The company’s $100 million pledge represents just two days of its 2004 profits and is dwarfed by ExxonMobil’s annual expenditures for oil and gas exploration, totaling more than $1 billion in 2004 alone. (11)
    • ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond made almost four times as much in salary and exercised stock options in 2004 as the company gave to GCEP that year ($38 million). (12)
    • Shell has spent about $1.5 billion since 1999 building a business in renewable energy, mostly solar and wind power. (13) BP has spent about $500 million on solar since 2000 and about $30 million on wind over the past three years. (14)

    Chris Field is obviously a nice guy, obviously sincere, obviously concerned about Global Warming, and has been speaking out publicly and pretty forcefully.

    He deserves credit for it.

    But we need to understand that ExxonMobil has been quietly moving pieces around on the Global Warming chessboard for decades. They continue to move pieces around, pursuing goals that benefit ExxonMobil in the short term, but might destabilize the climate for everyone.

    And the latest IPCC report, while well written, exhaustive, and definitive is simply too weak, and too conservative about subjects of vital interest, including the dynamic destabilization of the Greenland and Antartic ice sheets.

  8. Pat Anderson says:

    JR…As I pass this on to others, what’s our lastest definition for – “two top climate scientists”?

    With all the misinformation out there, they need more on their bio than “associated with the IPCC”..this really doesn’t hold water any more.

    [JR: Uhh, well, the link to their bios was easy to find but I added them to the post. The point of the panel was that they are very knowledgeable about both climate science and the IPCC, for those who are interested in learning more about both.]