This debate that took place December 10, 2009 at MIT on the ClimateGate issue is mostly about politics, policies and perception of science. I found it interesting with good questions. Most of the speakers where rational and objective, except one that from my point of view was a bit of an alarmist, but I can relate to some of his concerns. Here's the talk.
My conclusions after watching this are the following:
- We should have access to raw data all the time
- Some raw data was destroyed, so we cannot check the conclusions. Source
- Deleted for space reasons... 100$ for a one TeraByte disk, there is no space shortage in this world.
- We should base policies on hard science.
- Many of the suggested policies coming out from Copenhagen are based on non-peer reviewed statements made by advocacy groups like Greenpeace and the WWF. Source
- Precautionary principal must apply
- This principal goes both ways and can be a bigger killer than global warming. Source
- We all know that we will be forced to stop burning fossil fuel in a couple of generations at best, because this resources is scares
- We all know that burning it creates pollution problems, more real then CO2 concentration.
- How can we feed 10 billion people
- How will we provide fresh and clean water for 10 billion people for drinking and agriculture.
- How can we give 2000 watts of energy per person to live a descent life for those 10 billion people
- How can we transform our societies technologies based on energy that is 90% fossil fuel based.
- How can we stop the increasing debt spiral of our societies stopping us from our full potentiality to solve those issues.