Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A tale of two textbooks | Main | Nurse accuses Lawson of cherrypicking »

Closing the curtain

David Rose called to say that some of the people involved in the Bloomberg meeting that I posted about the other day were unhappy with it being publicised. David has asked that I take it down again and on due reflection I have decided to accede to his request.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (117)

Do they have something to hide?

Feb 16, 2013 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Jones

What didn't they want us to know? You know? There's too much of this "behind closed doors" stuff. If they have to keep it secret, there's something wrong with it.

Feb 16, 2013 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterA.D. Everard

How can they change their minds in private and then pop up saying that they knew Global Warming was a scam all along if people keep publicising the meetings where their threadbare defences of a collapsed hypothesis are mercilessly exposed?

Feb 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

Whilst I think it is perfectly proper that you should take down the post at the request of those asking via David would have been nice if those people had thought fit to tell David Rose, and , in turn, us, just WHY they were "unhappy" with their meeting being "publicised".

Feb 16, 2013 at 7:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterJack Savage

Climate hypersensitivity.

Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Obviously they were all top climate scientists preparing a policy paper for the BBC......

Feb 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

All that remains from a google scrape:

Behind the curtain
Fri, 02/15/2013 - 09:13
Now and again you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Here’s one such occasion.

On February 13th at a private dining room in a restaurant in London, the great and good met to discuss climate and energy issues. The meeting was organised by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), an investment firm involved in renewable energy, and was held to promote their latest idea of emissions reductions measures being designed around minimising emissions intensity (i.e. emissions per unit GDP). However, much of the evening seems to have been spent on climate science.




Feb 16, 2013 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterSean

Isn't it all verging on the farcical? Even a few scant comments published under the Chatham House rule have to be taken down because some of the attendees don't want the meeting publicised.

This surely goes beyond allowing people to talk openly without fear of repercussion. We're now into strange Orwellian territory.

Feb 16, 2013 at 8:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans


"Taking down" is very akin to destroying evidence - Gleick et al do that

Have you changed sides now ?

Feb 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

David Rose's confidence is David Rose's call.

Feb 16, 2013 at 8:46 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

And the main Bloomberg thread is still up anyway

Feb 16, 2013 at 8:53 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Will the BBC's attendees be their for the indoctrination, or, "for purposes of journalism"?

Unless it's for the latter, then surely they'll be subject to another FOI enquiry?

Feb 16, 2013 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

At least we have it from a reliable source that Bloomberg engages in secret meetings with representatives of academia, government, industry and media on energy policy which they are anxious to keep off the public record.

Let us draw appropriate conclusions from that.

Feb 16, 2013 at 9:14 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

So the maggots and cockroaches that make up consensus climate science and their political-corporate enablers take umbrage at having their rocks and rotten timbers kicked over, and not-so-respectfully request that they be replaced.

Feb 16, 2013 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Would that be an iron curtain comrade?

Feb 16, 2013 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

Carbon curtain?

Feb 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

"Closing the curtain"

Chatham House Rule:-

We skipped the light fandango
turned cartwheels 'cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick
but the crowd called out for more

The Bish and Rose have "encore" wringing in their ears!

Feb 16, 2013 at 10:08 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Oh, yes. Here we go again; the models are about to be “tweaked” again. Soon these models will have been tweaked so much that they will soon tell us that there is actually is no need for alarm… never has been… global warming is quite natural… CO2 has little to do with it… just as predicted… the models prove it... blah, blah, blah…

Is your rescinding of the post to allow them to save a certain amount of face, or is it so that they might crow about you buckling to the pressure of “the truth”?

Feb 16, 2013 at 10:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

Can we at least have a cartoon from Josh to mark the occasion?

Titled: The Chatham Tree House Rule?

Feb 16, 2013 at 10:45 PM | Registered Commentershub


It shows "they're at it" and and they're sensitive to the linkages simply made by looking at the attendees...

Which means that they know that what they're up to isn't quite kosher - and they know that most outsiders will quickly decide that it's not acceptable and ask for more detail...

Feb 16, 2013 at 10:55 PM | Registered Commentertomo

I got a copy from Google Reader which had it cached.

It's here if anyone wants it.

Feb 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterB Williams

I am sure that the economists resent having their lack of understanding of scientific understanding widely revealed. Having obtained their degrees from the august institution willing to sell dictators higher degrees for ghost written work, a million or two, and some nice parties for the vice chancellor, you can understand their general feelings of inadequacy. Anyway - if they understand the economy so well - why don't they make some money with their investments and stop bothering everyone else?

I'm also sure the BBC attendees wandered off thinking some version of 'we're going to need 24 hour polar bear footage, Brian Cox on an endless loop ramble, and an all out Attenborough blitz, to convince everyone that it is really warm'.

Feb 16, 2013 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

Sean - All that remains from a google scrape...WAS THERE MORE?

The entire post is still available in Google's cache. I found it just by searching for the bit you quoted.

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterScrutineer

So, a meeting of people is written about in the social pages of any news-rag and nobody could care less, but a meeting of people of dubious intent is illuminated in this blog and is subsequently pulled. Pray why ?

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterStreetcred

It was a private meeting why should any of it be public?

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterArthur Dent

There were government policy people at the meeting. It is disgraceful that it should be secret. Chatham House rules, yes, but secret? Not acceptable. If Chatham House rules did not give enough obscurity that is simply because there was no balance at the meeting.

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoubting Rich

They are more troubled about receptions than they are about emissions. Maybe that's a sign of the tide turning?

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul

No worries Bish, I have just navigated to the David Rose directory in my slightly hungover brain and shouted -

rm -r

startling my wife somewhat.

Feb 17, 2013 at 12:31 AM | Registered CommenterGrantB

Re: Arthur Dent

> It was a private meeting why should any of it be public?

Wrong question. The meeting was attended by an MP, representatives of the Treasury, DECC, BBC and other public bodies.

Those involved should have to justify it being kept private. Just claiming Chatham House rules isn't sufficient justification.

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

This is getting a bit disturbing.

Anonymous government officials meet anonymous industry figures, scientists and journalists to discuss matters of extreme public importance - under an arbitrary rule that prevents any of them being identified or reported.

However - that's not secretive enough for them. When the fact that there has been a meeting at all leaks out - some of these unidentified characters want that expunged from the record as well.

Could one hazard a guess that the reason for their discomfort is that the fact that the meeting took place could lead to FOI requests to the public servants involved from the common people - who would like to know whether they stand a chance of being able to pay their heating bills over the next few years?

One thing puzzles me though. If they wanted to keep their meeting so secret - why did they invite a prominent investigative journalist?

I hope the Chatham House enthusiasts here are quite relaxed about their mushroom role ( you know - kept in the dark & fed on sh1t)

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:11 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

Wrong question. The meeting was attended by an MP, representatives of the Treasury, DECC, BBC and other public bodies.

Those involved should have to justify it being kept private. Just claiming Chatham House rules isn't sufficient justification.
Feb 17, 2013 at 1:06 AM TerryS

Spot on!

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:12 AM | Registered CommenterFoxgoose

What were the arguments that convinced you to accede to the request ?

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterStuart

I just read the cached version and don't understand the decision to remove it. No quotes or comments were attributed to any specific individual or organisation as far as I can see.

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:48 AM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

Your Grace:
I suspect, if I remember the quote correctly: 'A fronte praecipituum, a tergo lupi'. I really hope that this is not 'absit omen'.

Feb 17, 2013 at 1:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterTony Windsor

It is very strange, that people on the front of deciding our future, want to be anonymous.. These are people who use the word democracy as often as possible. But still, THEY want to remain anonymous, or as I view it, unaccountable.

Feb 17, 2013 at 2:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterHLx

Quoting from the rules as they are published:

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed."

I confess I've never read the Chatham-House rules before, but as other rules (i.e. The Law of the land) say: "Ignorance is no defence."

I wonder if there are some Chatham-House rules that are not published.

And do they allow women to be members yet?

Feb 17, 2013 at 3:04 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Chatham House Rules ? Is this LAW or just a convention dreamed up ... I don't need the education, I know what it is ... for think-tank seminars ? Faceless people deciding your future ... faceless men installed Australia's worst ever PM in 'Juliar' Gillard and we've paid for it dearly; be careful in acceding any slack to these 'plotters'.

Feb 17, 2013 at 3:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterStreetcred


Feb 17, 2013 at 5:51 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames

Wrong move Bish. Next time they ask will come with threats. You have set the wrong precedent. Chatham house rules is their convention for their convenience just try to use the rule against them.

Feb 17, 2013 at 6:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Whale

It ain't the deed that gets's the cover up.

What did they do that they soooo don't want us to know about?

These are public officials. And 'climate' is not a matter of national security.

We have not heard here from master sleuth Maurizio Omnologos. I hope he is on the case.

Feb 17, 2013 at 7:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder


"On due reflection" I have to say you were wrong.

Give them an inch and they will take the proverbial mile.

Feb 17, 2013 at 7:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterAgouts

There were no arguments advanced for taking it down as such. David Rose asked me to do it. Frankly, now that word of the meeting is out, it's irrelevant whether the story is still up or not. I rather took the view that taking it down again would draw more attention to it.

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:02 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Was the MP:
a) Tim Yeo
b) Ed Davey
c) Dave Milliband
d) 'little eddy' milliband
e) Dave 'the coll' cameron

Where was your MP on February 13th ?

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

Man made global warming's draws are firmly around some unmovable ankles.

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDallas Beaufort

Strange decision, Bish. I read work like yours because I admire your integrity, but more importantly because I trust you not to withhold anything from me. I would hate to have to reconsider my position.

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered Commenter@HG54

How very very strange to invite a prominent sceptical journalist to such a bash and then whinge about it being publicised - even under 'Chatham House' rules..

This does not suggest sound judgement from the organisers to me.

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM | Registered CommenterLatimer Alder

There were no arguments advanced for taking it down as such. David Rose asked me to do it. Frankly, now that word of the meeting is out, it's irrelevant whether the story is still up or not. I rather took the view that taking it down again would draw more attention to it.
Feb 17, 2013 at 8:02 AM | Registered Commenter Bishop Hill

I am with you on this Bish. Now that the climate scientists, carbon traders and activists have asked for all mention of the meeting to be removed, it just makes them look even more shifty. Besides, representatives from our esteemed public broadcaster were in attendance, and given the respect they hold for their Charter, we can't expect them to be totally accountable or transparent either, can we?

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM | Registered Commenterlapogus

Yeah. Walzing in here like he owns the place.

Feb 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Reed

From the Bloomberg New Energy Finance website

'Bloomberg was founded in 1981 with one core belief: that bringing transparency to capital markets through access to information could increase capital flows, produce economic growth and jobs, and significantly reduce the cost of doing business'

Note especially

'Transparency through access to information'

Really? Demonstrated how exactly? Secret meetings with the Klimatestablishment?

Feb 17, 2013 at 9:06 AM | Registered CommenterLatimer Alder

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>