Climate is a complex system, global politics even more, and economics also has its thing. You put them all together and you have the UNFCCC. The students will write on specific topics of their choosing. Before taking off to Copenhagen, I gave them a set of readings so they could build a solid background on the issue. The readings include news and articles from CNN, BBC, The Economist, Science, Nature and ES&T magazines, as well as website, specialized reports and peer-reviewed article contents. I myself learnt a big deal reading through those pieces, and thought I post “my digestion” here.
In the section “Basics” I have tried to give answers to some of the questions most of us have. I don’t always quote my source, but I can provide it on an individual basis if anyone is interested or you can try to find it at the section “Learn More”, where I give you the links to the original sources and other more elaborate analyses. You can also find links to most of the COP15 logistics-related websites. My sections are always under construction and you can contribute to expand them. I encourage you to submit your questions, since I or some of the students might be able to answer them. I also encourage you to suggest sources of information if you think they can help. Since we are trying to be productive, please do not send anything on the science of climate change. COP15 is about policy and assumes climate change is happening and caused in part by anthropogenic GHG emissions, which we should reduce. The debate goes on both at the scientific and at the layman spheres (although at different levels). The first has a forum at the IPCC, a body that comprises numerous scientists including many members of the National Academies of Science, NOAA, NASA, etc. I leave it to them to decide and they have decided it is happening based on many different sets of data and analyses (not only the controversial ones from the University of East Anglia). The layman debate inevitably lags behind in terms of information and is mostly based on immobile personal ideological biases, which is not what I want to discuss here. There is plenty on the Internet where to find answers to common skeptical questions. I can recommend this for a start: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm.
If you really want to learn about what precedes and goes on at the amazing effort of COP15 you should be able to find useful information here.
I hope that is the case.
Rosa
Experiences from COP15
Rice takes on Copenhagen
Dear David. A few points:
1) You should not be at loss. The decision to act is based on proven facts. Only, I reckon you understand politicians do not interpret climate themselves but ask experts. Hence, in your jury analogy, if you wanted to prove a guy is sick you wouldn’t diagnose him yourself. Instead you would ask a bunch of doctors to do it. In this analogy you=politicians, and doctors=IPCC.
2) When I said the debate goes at the scientific level I didn’t mean there is no consensus. There is consensus among experts but science is not dogma, and knowledge is continuously refined. After all you wouldn’t expert climatologists to stop doing research. This debate, however, is very different from the layman debate, since the former is based on a peer-review of measurements and the latter is hugely misinformed. I was hoping that by saying the debate goes at different levels this point would be clear.
3) There are some skeptic scientists. In my experience, they are less in number and expertise. So in another analogy, if you had cancer you would go to MD Anderson and not to a fertilization clinic, nor you would believe the argument of 1 against 1000.
4) I said this blog would not hold a debate on climate change science. I understand you are confused and you have my sympathies, but it is not my job to convince anyone. If you want to learn about climate science I suggest don’t do it in blogs but rather look for information in the websites of NASA, NOAA, NAS, USGCRP and climate centers in different universities. I will not reply to any comment of this kind anymore.
5) This blog is strictly about what goes on COP15 and this is the type of information you will find.
6) I am not trying to discourage participation, I am just asking for some focus. Thank you.
I am at a loss to understand how COP15 can be soley about policy without regard to the validity of the underlying facts (operative facts are instead assumed). This would be like me giving a closing argument to a jury based upon something other than the evidence. Making policy without regard to the underlying facts is dangerous indeed.