This is the ordered list (oldest item first) of yesterday’s evening live microblogs on my mmorabito67 Twitter account, about the Royal Institution (London) debate on Global Warming and Disasters with Roger Pielke Jr, Bob Ward and Robert Muir-Wood moderated by the Guardian’s James Randerson:
- 12 years in London , 1st time at Royal Institution http://tweetphoto.com/10490288
- Ward first to show up – seats comfortable for shorter people than me
- It’s all set- Pielke Jr looks even more satisfied than on his blog
- Bespectacled aloof guy must be Rhys-Jones – Pielke and Ward have briefly looked friendly
- Starts as soon as Piers Corbyn joins spectators
- BBC Shukman nowhere to be seen -Guardian environment editor introduces topic mentioning also recent IPCC disasters
- Spectators asked about debate’s question – semantics discussion ensues – this is going to be fun
- Is the moderator talking about AGW ? Most people do not answer as question appear ill-posed
- Moderator is James Randerson – bespectacled guy is Muir-Wood talking now
- Muir-Wood “Hype around disasters costs has actually decreased over the past decade”
- Muir-Wood 2003 heatwave saved people in 2004 – paradox easily explained (by considering people cared more about the elderly in 2004 given the experience of 2003)
- Muir-Wood mentions Hohenkammer Report – flood defences helped decrease risk in Japan
- Muir-Wood no trend 1950 2005 but reduction largest losses – trend from 1970s
- Muir-Wood recent trend heavily depends on 2004 2005 hurricanes – conclusion in 2008: “insufficient evidence”
- Ward ‘s turn – says he is no climate researcher – explainer to policymakers – starts with IPCC WG1
- Ward: climate change as trends but extreme events expected to increase – somebody laughs
- Ward repeats IPCC verbatim – importance of frequency but also of people exposure and vulnerability
- Ward shows not-normalised graphs – why? – then normalization studies – 2 with and 2 without trends
- Ward: WG2 and Stern used 2% trend – increasing! That is how Stern computed 1% GDP !!!
- Ward ends nevertheless saying evidence is not conclusive of climate impact on future losses
- Pielke presents as a non skeptic worried about exaggeration says IPCC has done it wrong
- Pielke talks of Hohenkammer workshop – not possible to determine attribution to climate change
- Pielke: over climatic timescales societal changes are extremely important
- Pielke: even Schmidt et al 2009 mentioned by Ward conclude finding no evidence
- Pielke: no evidence of changes to worldwide hurricanes – list of peer reviewed studies all agreeing
- Pielke shows misleading IPCC graph contested by 2 reviewers – reply by IPCC author was completely wrong
- Pielke: IPCC failed comprehensively on this issue
- Cheeky Pielke shows reasonable Ward statement in Guardian Jan 26 2010
- Very unclear what they disagree on?
- Ward says IPCC should be improved not scrapped
- Questions why decarbonize? what is disagreement? (that’s me) glacier dates important?
- Pielke: even if there were large signal disasters, it’d all be better dealt with adaptation- need to decarbonize to provide energy to all
- Muir-Wood without IPCC it would be a normal scientific debate-high profile and contentious – costs are very important
- Ward says IPCC was accurate – Pielke and Muir-Wood agree with each other but not with IPCC – all we need now is a kiss
- I wish people went straight to question
- Corbyn ‘s turn- will panel agree to scrap IPCC and prepare for actual disasters – recommends own site
- Muir-Wood says why he believes there is something going on – mentions IPCC deadlines as an issue (in the times of Wikipedia)
- Pielke says debate on physical questions not appropriate tonight – mentions institutional problems in IPCC
- Ward debates Corbyn
- Q: how to recoup IPCC authority- money wasted on maybe’s, could’s, etc
- Ward: most IPCC work is for free – whole thing matters in comparison to unknown consequences
- Ward makes moot point against complete unbelievers
- Pielke says there is a problem with work done on the cheap
- Ward revelations have not changed basics – but question was how to convince people?
- Ward decisions need to be taken now
- Questions: institutional issues – changes in human agency – scientists as activists
- Pielke: problem of advocacy among scientists – look at politicized intelligence – IPCC policy neutral but leaders are not
- Wards defends Pachauri – resignation will not solve problems – need changes to review process
- Wards: IPCC is to provide advice to policymakers
- Pielke also not interested in resignation – says IPCC needs deep reforms
- Muir-Wood speaks – also general public is audience of IPCC
- Vote again: many more on not side end of debate
(slightly edited for ease of reading)