2011-07-03 06:19:56Juliet Davenport and presenting climate science
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Juliet Davenport set up Good Energy. I'm not a great fan of them (prefer Ecotricity):

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/bigwideworld/2011/06/we-need-to-talk-about-climate-change.html

2011-07-03 08:18:17
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.27.202

Yeah, but the time for yammering about climate change was 20 years ago, we now need action.

2011-07-03 08:41:22Rob Painiting
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

If that's the case, we might as well mothball SkS.

2011-07-03 11:15:14
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.117.121

So are you saying we don't need action?, that we can continue to talk about it, and that physics will pause while we do so? Communicating is necessary, but look at the title of that piece! It's just perpetuating the "skeptic" framing of the issue - let's piss-arse around talking about things, instead of doing something.

Actually, I expect many a scientist will be slack-jawed in disbelief at the changes we're going to see in the next decade. Some eco-systems will collapse within two decades I expect.  It's my observation that many a 'warmist' is in as much denial as the 'skeptics'. The list of species we are dooming to extinction, and the rate at which we are doing so is hugely alarming. War and hunger lies up ahead if we don't act fast.   

2011-07-03 11:21:37
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15
We talk about action a lot on SkS. Hence the increased focus on climate solutions.
2011-07-03 12:26:30
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

We've got our own climate version of "Shock and Awe" due for delivery in the next decade.

This July is Mega Melt month in the Arctic.  Records will fall by the end of August.

2011-07-03 13:30:41Rob, dana, & Daniel
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

My response to Rob Painting was tongue-in-cheek.

Having said that, there are a myriad of organizations throughou t the world working on defining the problem (i.e., the science of climate change) and defining actions to amelieroate and mitigate. SkS was created by John Cook to focus on the science, Personally, I believe SkS  should keep this focus because, given its unique structure (no money, no staff, all volunteers), it simply cannot be all things to all people.

SkS is not, and should not attempt to be, the PEW Center on Climate Change.

2011-07-03 14:23:19
citizenschallenge
Peter Miesler
citizenschallenge7@gmail...
32.176.80.154

 

The man's got a very good point:

Badgersouth:  . . .  there are a myriad of organizations throughout the world working on defining the problem (i.e., the science of climate change) and defining actions to amelieroate and mitigate.

SkS was created by John Cook to focus on the science,

Personally, I believe SkS  should keep this focus because, given its unique structure (no money, no staff, all volunteers), it simply cannot be all things to all people.

 

2011-07-03 16:11:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15
While I agree we obviously can't be all things to all people, I disagree that we need to focus solely on climate science, if that's the suggestion. At this point the science is well settled, and the focus is shifting more towards climate solutions and communication. Put it this way - if people aren't convinced by the science yet, throwing more science at them isn't going to do any good on its own. We also need to focus on how to improve our communication to get through to the unconvinced, and on solutions so that people know it's not a lost cause and there are viable solutions out there. In fact if we can show the solutions are a beneficial way to go, we might even get some "skeptics" on board with solving the problem.
2011-07-03 16:48:27
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

SkS is about education.

That is a form of action, probably more important in the long term.

2011-07-04 00:26:25Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Another option, which I favor, is to create a SkS-sister site to deal with the solutions.

SkS now has a unique niche in the universe of entitites addressing climate science. To dilute that niche would, in my opinion, be a strategic blunder.

I suspect that you and other like-minded authors are suffering from burn-out in dealing with the science. I can and do appreciate that becsue I suffered from burn-out in dealting with the solutions side within the Sierra Club for a number of years.

 

 

2011-07-04 01:00:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15
Not burned out, I still enjoy writing science posts. usually moreso than solutions posts, depending on the topic. I'm enjoying the lessons from past climate predictions series a lot, because it's interesting to see how these past predictions have stacked up against reality and why (plus it lets us go on the offensive against the 'skeptics'). I just think doing solutions posts is very important as well. And we're generally talking about the science of the solutions, so it fits in here.
2011-07-04 02:14:39Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I presume that your perspective is ahared by John Cook so it doesn't pay for me to keep hammering on this particular nail.

I do, however, believe that we can all agree that the SkS rebuttals are the "bread and butter" of the site.

In this context, I am dismayed that Team SkS has yet to develop and implement an ction plan to maintain the Rebuttals and fill in the gaps in the matrix of Rebuttal levels. From where I sit, this should be Job #1 for Team SkS. 

2011-07-04 03:58:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.15

Yes, the rebuttals are the backbone of SkS.

I don't think it's necessary that we have all 3 levels of rebuttals for every myth.  In some cases the intermediate rebuttal by itself suffices quite well - simplifying it into a basic version might not add very much value, and you need an expert on the subject to make an advanced rebuttal.  In most cases it also suffices to update the rebuttals when we do a relevant blog post.  I always try to do that.

2011-07-04 05:30:05
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.36.170

B.: Given that we don't have an agreed framework, we also don't have agreed priorities.

and we can only have 1 #1 Job.

2011-07-04 05:52:34nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

I have the right to assert what I believe the #1 priority should be. That is exactly how I framed it.

2011-07-04 07:18:29
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.36.170

B.: But didn't you earlier assert that our #1 priority was to establish a management structure?

2011-07-04 07:44:11nealjking
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

You mean we haven't done that?

2011-07-04 10:01:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.36.170

I don't think so.

2011-07-04 17:14:01
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

There are plenty of environmental groups of all types that act on the information.
I don't think SkS needs or should become another environmental group, indeed that would be a terrible error.
If I want to take action, I can join an existing group or just do what I want myself. I differentiate what I do everyday, from what is appropriate for this site. It is possible to accept that SkS is different and does a valuable job in its own niche market.

Another point is that organisations that grow and become more popular, often just become less significant or are seen to be a part of the establishment and start believing their own marketing literature and goals. Actually one of the big drivers of environmental destruction are the corporate structures that are driven by goals that they can't get out of once they started (the oil industry).