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:
Joe Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.″ Read more.
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
About Think Progress | Contact Us | Donate
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Thanks for posting the PPTs! That really improves watching this for me.
Yes, Thanks. The idea that heat generated in the decomposition of permafrost could make further decomposition unstoppable is an interesting one.
Great feature.
This sort of interview should be on TV all the time – constantly.
How can we get the MSM TV to start featuring these regularly?
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).
Chris Field on Democracy Now, February 26, 2009:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/26/member_of_un_environment_panel_warns
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!]
I’n not scaaarrreeeddd…
Here’s the link to Chris Field’s GCEP Stanford bio:
http://gcep.stanford.edu/events/special_5yearpanelbios.html
And here’s a link that mentions ExxonMobil’s funding of GCEP:
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/exxpose-exxon-exxonmobil-response-to-exxpose-exxon.html
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.
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.]