Thursday
Apr152010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Live debate
Apr 15, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: HSI The link for the live debate is here. Unfortunately my login information hasn't arrived yet. I hope this gets sorted in the near future!
Update on Apr 15, 2010 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Wow, that was pretty intense. Do you know, the time I put in in my first job learning to touch-type came in really handy there.
I think that was OK.
Reader Comments (41)
Live? I wonder. Laura K, on News24, yeterday said it starts at 8pm yet it is not on ITV until 8.30pm - time for a little 'editing'?
No it's just gone out.
The Times team must have been moderating what 'public' submissions were accepted, I made a few comments but a few got through.
Nial.
very good, well done.
Wow, you were excellent. Focussed, arguing substantive points, and ignoring the annoying troll who somehow managed to get admittance. That Bob guy was not interested in doing any of the above, but rather with smearing you!
Very very well done!
Nick
And when you read Bob Ward in that sort of debate, all my years of 'experience' just reinforce that the whole AGW movement just does not add up.
Bob Ward was employing poitical tactics in what he perceived to be a poltical arena. Science is secondary.
And BH got the last word, which is always good.
Well done.
Very good, the Bishops last reply to Keiran said it all I think.
Bob Ward regularily couldn't help going down the familiar path of "PR technique", using a bit of innuendo here and there - sceptics beeing "birthers" and his attempts to imply errors in the Bishops book, all backfired in my opinion.
From Bob Ward
"I think the 'sceptics' will try to convince the public that all of these inquiries are 'whitewashes' becuase they won't confirm their conspiracy theories. It's up to good journalists like Ben I think to subject the 'sceptics' arguments to a little more scrutiny.
To me Andrew's claims seem like a lot of innuendo and very little foundation. "
Much like Bobs' answers.
I made a few comments but none got through.
Bizarrely though, Bob seems to respond to one at 15.27 (I pointed that he had it the wrong way round about sceptics being abusive to scientists, referring to Jones's "cheering news" email and Santer's "I'll be tempted to beat the **** out of him").
I thought it was funny the way he kept trying to change the subject and talk about your book!
Yer Grace
Not bad at all, much better than Mr Ward who seemed to avoid some questions.
Are you able to describe the process and what you see on the screen?
[I think it's the same as for the public, but they have a flag to say that my comments should be auto-published]
Andrew:
Nicely done. Bob Ward is not a great representative of the pro-AGW side because he appears reluctant to acknowledge that which is obvious, Oxburgh should not have led the panel and Ward knows it. It is embarrassing.
I was one of those who asked what was the point of Bob Ward's questions trying to deflect the discussion to your book. That was an obvious - and primitive - debating tactic: try to undermine the credibility of your opponent, and try to put him on the defensive. He wasn't really debating the issues at all - it was damage control.
Andrew was very good.
From the little I just took a skim thru, The Bishop did very well. Congratulations.
Poor old professional AGW-advocate Bob Ward. The freshly exposed shrinking violet, whose feelings were so hurt by us rotters and out and out scoundrels hasn't forgotten any of his old tricks I see.
The format of the debate wasn't great though from a reader's POV. Next round Your Holiness, may I suggest a TV debate? I hear that there's going to be a great black hole in the schedules this evening for some other debate currently scheduled between 3 fellow socialists who it would appear hardly disagree about anything.
I am still waiting to find out what an "aggressive" request for data is.
It was amusing to see the flim flam of Bob Ward's attacks - he must have had a check list of words to use....."deniers"..."conspiracy theory"......"birthers" and not forgetting my favourite: "Robust".
Who is he anyway?
Very nicely done, Yer Grace. Bob Ward was something of a disappointment, actually. He comes across as both a tad light and a tad vicious.
Well done sir!
Also it was very good of that nice Mr Ward to keep plugging the book for you.
CONS: Bob Wards predictable ad-hominem attacks on you because he couldn't marshall any scientific ones.
PROS:
(1) He kept mentioning your book. Free PR!
(2) You did not rise or respond to his abuse. Good for you. I would have swung at him.
Bob cited an example of the horrendous abuse coming from sceptics as "referring to climate scientists as The Hockey Team".
Terribly defamatory, I know, but wasn't the phrase actually coined originally by Mann et al?
This whole issue is about politics and debates such as this help win. Good job.
And now its time to get on live TV debates, which should come. You have now shown your credentials to the press and so should be in line for an invitation.
Can I please remind commenters of what I said during the debate. Personal remarks about our opponents are not helpful. Let's keep the tone cool and clinical.
Well played Sir!
15:19 Ben Webster:
The report said the attacks on the unit’s work had been “selective and uncharitable” and it deplored “the tone of much of the criticism”. Why do many climate sceptics make personal attacks on the integrity of senior scientists and does the abusive language of some of those sceptics justify a refusal to answer their questions?
[...]
15:27 Bob Ward:
Yes, the only difference being that e-mails showing 'sceptics' being rude about researchers haven't been hacked and posted on the internet!
[...]
15:31 Andrew Montford:
Jeff. Yes, I take your point. I did actually tell Mr Morano once that I didn't like his style very much. I had in mind the Watts, McIntyres and McKitricks of this world rather than the political sceptics you are referring to. I don't think they help my side of the argument very much.
[...]
15:53 Bob Ward:
Andrew is being silly. While the CRU scientists may have been described as disorganised, the Panel did not find any problems with the quality of their work.
[...]
15:55 Bob Ward:
I think it is obvious that many 'sceptics' have made up their minds and won't change them no matter how rigorous the investigations and robust the evidence. In that respect, they are a bit like the 'birthers' who are convinced that President Obama wasn't born in the United States!
[...]
16:00 Bob Ward:
I think the 'sceptics' will try to convince the public that all of these inquiries are 'whitewashes' becuase they won't confirm their conspiracy theories. It's up to good journalists like Ben I think to subject the 'sceptics' arguments to a little more scrutiny. To me Andrew's claims seem like a lot of innuendo and very little foundation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't see anything come out of the live debate. Only a few questions were taken(none of mine...)
Ben Webster is someone I particularly remember from COP15. The sincerity of Rajendr Pachauri -- knowing full well the Himalayas' were not rapidly melting -- telling Ben that the AR4 was totally correct. I made it a point to check Ben Webster's articles after Himalayagate broke but I do not recall him mentioning that Pachauri looked him straight in the eye and lied to him.
Andrew you were polite. Bob Ward tried to start the whole thing off as if this was all about your book sales. It would have been too easy for you to turn it around and talk about the billions in research grants.
Buffy Minton: "Bob cited an example of the horrendous abuse coming from sceptics as "referring to climate scientists as The Hockey Team".
Terribly defamatory, I know, but wasn't the phrase actually coined originally by Mann et al?"
Correct. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-ii/
"An important thing to note is that the Panel examined scientific papers that had already been subjected to independent peer review by journals before publication, so it is not surprising that the Panel found no evidence of malpractice."
Indeed. Strange that. Strange how the CRU mails showed attempts to gain favorable reviews for Team papers, and exclude any that may be controversial. Classic appeal to authority by Mr Ward to spin away one of the core controversies, but then given this is an enquiry conducted Sir Humphrey style, it should come as no great suprise.
I also liked the question about agressive sceptics 'bombarding' the poor motley CRU with FOI requests. If only they'd handled the first couple politely, the situation may be somewhat different. But then why reveal data so people can find errors in it, or simply attempt to reconstruct it?
That isn't how post-normal science works, especially if you've accidentally lost the data. Much easier to let Trenberth take sceptics down a dark alley for some 'robust' re-education. If that doesn't work, there's always Hansen's call for charges of crimes against humanity, which carries the death penalty. Or may be the nice Mr Ward would prefer to leave sceptic's re-education to Greenpeace? After all, they already know where we live. Still, his paymasters will no doubt be proud.
At least he didn't mention the children this time, and well played yer Grace!
Whilst there were many good points, the one you made below is to the essence of the issue:-
"Andrew Montford:
Keiran makes a good point. It has failed. If it looked at the questions we sceptics are all banging on about, if it asked us to present evidence, if the panels were unbiased and unconflicted, if everything happened in public, then you might get us to shut up.
Thursday April 15, 2010 15:59"
Needs shouting louder and as often as possible. The sceptics and the public in general will only accept closure when all sides of the debate are heard. Please keep up the good work. I am now at Chapter 14, learning all the way.
Brilliant, Bish. Brilliant.
Good on you.
I may be missing something obvious, but what does Mr Ward mean by 'birthers'.
@Cumbrian Lad
"Birthers" refers to the people who think Obama wasn't born in the US and therefore not eligible to be POTUS, Now you ask I must admit that is a bit of an obscure reference for this country, usually the progression is "Creationists" and if that fails "Troofers", I guess "birthers" i's going to be all the rage now ;)
@Buffy Minton:
Yeah, it was originally someone on the 'Team' that referred to themselves as such, as far as I've gathered from CA.
Article on your blog now on wikipedia, i don`t think it`ll last long though so take a look now lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Hill_(Blog)
April 15, 2010 | Cumbrian Lad
Steve2 is quite correct in his definition of "birthers". It is also worth noting that the issue would probably go away if they'd just release the original document (I say "probably" because some would proclaim it a forgery and evidence of the extent of the corruption...). The fact they will not release it suggests that there is something to hide. My guess is that some idiot filled out a death certificate rather than a birth certificate and they haven't figured out yet how to get it out of the system.
It starts at 8:30, but you can expect half an hour of punditry beforehand at least. The media are so excited about it I get the impression a few of them will find themselves admitted to Papworth before the night is done.
You were good. Bob Ward made a fool of himself with that playground crack about "birthers". He came across as hysterical while you were steady under fire. Well done!
This was a key moment for me:
I thought that was exceptionally well handled Andrew and gave you maximum credibility with any possible waverers.
I've not been reading the blogs for a while - very busy programming - so I also just had a listen to the world service piece. As you said yourself, better on the "would anything satisfy you?" question. And these two questions - Jeff's and Lustig's - are of course really one and the same. Are we really open to reason or just political advocates with closed minds? Lindzen gave a wonderful example of the right answer in that recent TV debate. Of course we're open. And now, Robin, back to the specific reasons I'm not convinced ...
In both interactions you broke free of the bigot mold that's foist on all sceptics and I think that's more than half the battle for the casual listener. "This Montford's clearly a reasonable person and he says there are problems that have not been addressed. And it's been cold this winter hasn't it? I'm inclined to take the guy's word for it."
Not perfect logic but good enough for many. Very well done.
A few comments….
Ward frequently resorted to cheap debating techniques: trying to smear the messenger, diverting to other issues, mischaracterizing a criticism, etc. For someone paying attention, this is a strong indication that Ward does not believe he can defend his case on its merits.
The debate left several threads hanging. It would have benefited from stronger moderation, to resolve a point (or conclude it cannot be resolved) before moving on to the next.
The most galling line was arguably this from Ward: “Many journals now have rules about the need for data to be provided with papers.”
The strongest line was arguably this from His Eminence (at the close): “The allegations are clear and documented. Fraud and fabrication. That's not innuendo.”
I much hope that you get lots more media invitations!
Well done Andrew.
When people have to argue the way Bob Ward did, you know they have lost the argument. They simply cannot engage with the argument but must desperately sidetrack the discussion onto areas of no substance, non-sequiturs, ad hominems. Or answering questions that weren't put to get across their own agenda. We see it all the time with the current crop of politicians, carefully coached in PR techniques how to avoid answering the real questions.
The same goes for these inquiries. Because they cannot deal straightforwardly and honestly, putting aside conflicts of interest, and will not engage with the real questions, then it becomes obvious that they can't, or rather they dare not engage with them.
Thanks Steve2/Robert, all is now clear.
Well done, Bish!
That must have been just a bit nerve-racking.
Did you all notice how Bob Ward kept on trying to patronise the Bish, with such kind expressions 'now you're being silly' when there was no silliness present?
Excellently done, not falling into the propaganda traps of that professional PR man Ward.
Btw, he is not, afaik, a scientist.
better look out: bishop Hill website might be on a greenpeace 'list' (transcript-caution advised)
Yesterday - Ben Stewart - Head of Media Greenpaece UK
- We have to launch a campaign so these people are scared of us.- (sceptical journalists)
- We need a new, compelling narrative, and pull together a community of activists determined to hold journalists to account.
- We have to make “brand sceptic” toxic.
A climate change and the media discussion - yesterday:
( A pro agw person that attended transcript only:)more quotes:
- I think that we need to run a Climate Change communications campaign around the world – putting pressure on journalists – a rolling campaign – we need to get serious.
- [Climate Change sceptics] have formed these opinions because of exposure to the Media. That’s where the problem lies.
- This process is central to the Climate Change myths – they jump straight from the Internet to the Press. Bill McKibben says that the UK Media has caused as much damage as Fox News. [Showing some key Climate Change Denial websites.]
- When the Climate Denial noise machine gets into gear, it’s impossible for the mainstream Media to ignore – the [denier-sceptics] accuse the Media of being biased and the UK print Media picks it up fast. This gives the story the “primature” [cachet, official-looking authority] of being credible. If the Times of London is going with it – it goes global.
this meeting:
http://www.campaigncc.org/scepticsmeeting
These speakers:
David Adam (Environmental Correspondent from the Guardian),
Ben Stewart (Greenpeace),
George Marshall (founder of COIN - Climate Outreach and Information Network) and
Phil Thornhill (National co-ordinator, Campaign against Cilmate Change).
As Bishop Hill is now a 'sceptical' website and media personality.
Better look out for some very negative publicity, someone no doubt will try an expose on an evil sceptic, that just wants to sell a few books, and let the planet fry..
transcript:
http://www.joabbess.com/2010/04/15/ben-stewart-greenpeace-stalking/
Andrew did an excellent job. Very impressive under generally hostile conditions.
What particular disturbed me was how obdurate the AGW advocates were regarding accepting the simple fact that the sceptics' main points of inquiry were ignored.
The Panel dodged the scientific questions that underpin the entire challenge by the sceptics.
They must be really scared of the truth.
I apologise if my remarks are inappropriate.
It irritates me that pro-AGW acolytes can make ad-hominem attacks to make up for their poor intelligence / knowledge / capability.
My ire, of course, should be focussed on the chairman, who should stop ad-hominem attacks at source.
My suggestion: the chair should have a 'card' system- 1 AH attack earns a yellow, two and you're out the debate.
When the TV debate starts, negotiate the above as a ground-rule.
Well done - not sure what Bob was doing there, not sure he knew either - but your points were, as usual, concisely and clearly put.
As has been said by others the whole effect of such a transparent whitewash (if that metaphor works) is to make one all the more skeptical.