Tags

,

What is Behind Climate Change Research?

Global Organization, Management, and Science Policy

April 24-26, 2008

University of California, Berkeley

This was one of the first academic crossover conferences with hard science, and social scientists on Global Climate Change issues. It was chaired by Beverly Crawford of UC Berkeley. There are other similar meetings: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, another at Bangkok. It seems a bit strange there hasn’t been more of this academic approach, because climate catastrophe seems to be so very much in the news. Also, there have been major policy shifts since Montreal, Canada and Kyoto, Japan inter-governmental conferences changed the directions of the entire global economy on several issues of pollution, such as those related to chlorinated fluorocarbons and carbon dioxide. The list of speakers includes: Reiner Grundmann, Aston University, UK; Jost Heintzenberg, Director, Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research Leipzig; Eric Hintsa, National Science Foundation, Directing and Managing Research on Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate; Guido Franco, California Energy Commission; Richard Norgaard, UC Berkeley; Paul Edwards, School of Information, University of Michigan; and many more, but that gives a flavor of the seriousness of this meeting.

This conference dedicated a lot of time to cross-relating policy, and organizations, and that of course is important, but I was hoping for more reports on scientific findings. On that score this meeting only alluded to what these people already apparently knew. I was hoping for more challenging comparison of what different conclusions they had come to in their research, and then comparing and contrasting these findings to reveal deeper truths and deeper questions. In an effort to stimulate that I asked, “that if in the turmoil of different competing theories, and computer simulations there might not be particular points to be tested where the theories differed which would be more revealing as to which ones were more correct.” As general, and open ended question as that was there was only one response, and it was about a single string of monitoring stations set up to do continuous monitoring for the next ten years. But, that didn’t approach my question about resolving theories.

Of course my primary reason for attending this conference was to find out if there was any interest in my Lifehaven project, and if there were other people already pursuing such an idea. I discussed this personally with at least ten different people who appeared to be prominent in the field of Global Climate Change. If something was happening along these lines someone would have heard of it. But, nothing. It was suggested that the military might be interested or that there might already be bomb shelters in some of these remote locations, but I said I didn’t think so because the Google Earth flyovers had revealed nothing. Most of these people were a bit skittish of my doomsday grimness, and several specifically claimed to be optimistic that solutions would be found, but everyone agreed that there was nothing even in the planning stage that would bring about the needed changes. Everyone admitted that major stress was soon to be upon us. These are not the media spinners or the politicians who have to reach the lower 50% of the population. No. These are intelligent, informed and objective observers of personally discovered facts. These are not arbitrary facts, but facts of which they are held personally accountable, and their reports are held up for peer scrutiny as well as public consumption. On the trustworthiness of information scale this is TST~10 minimum, and for these individuals at sometimes may have reached TST~14.

Advertisements