Saturday
Feb162013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Closing the curtain
Feb 16, 2013 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.
Reader Comments (117)
Well, as a great admirer of David Rose's pioneering work in the mass media on climate, I would also have given his the request the benefit of the doubt, and removed the posting.
I agree with your stance Bish.
A private meeting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFpSkHD4u9w
"No good will come of it."
I think we should respond to His Grace's discreet nod & wink - by spreading work of this "top secret" meeting as widely as possible.
Among the highlights of the meeting that were mentioned before the post was taken down was the case of the climate scientist who claimed that the reason why temperatures have not increased for quite some years was that "the heat was disappearing into the deep ocean."
He was forced to admit that there was little evidence to support this case. However we all know that the science of global warming is settled, don't we?
How much less would climate scientists know if the science was not settled? Wouldn't unsettling the science be the best method of making progress in understanding our climate?
Yeah interesting. Having really known nothing much about the Chatham house rule before a few months ago I think I now have become an expert on it ;)
The case for knowing who was at the BBC lobbyist meeting was clear-cut since that was an occasion were the public funded BBC was being lobbied by private special interests and the Chatham house rule was a cover for that.
The Bish’s reporting on this other Chatham house meeting seemed fine under the rule. I didn’t see any infraction. However with this turn up I think readers could feel at a disadvantage, with the chain of information about this meeting looking more murky. It would be a problem if in fact the complaint was actually that Rose’s characterisations was actually inaccurate in anyway. But I will trust the reason for complaint was indeed the fact that some there who:
Given that, then this Chatham house rule is seeming less then its apparent noble design.
I was of the idea the Chatham house rule was to allow free flow of thought, possibly outside PC realms, exposure to opposing views, without fear of compromising their office. But now having seen the BBC lobbyist example and glimpsing what Rose had to say on this one, then the CHR is seeming ever more like a nice way for the great and the good to get together off the books to firm up their mutual biases - with a token sceptic or too allowed in to flatter themselves they are testing their biases, but more happily under the cosy knowledge sceptics would be hamstrung by the alleged "rule" in reporting.
It's looking more like a scummy little rule to me. I bet it used like this all over the place for assholes to have effective secret meetings whilst patting themselves on the back they are obeying a rule in a noble way. ;)
@foxgoose
I have made WUWT's readers aware already.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/15/open-thread-weekend-15/#comment-1226555
My brief experience of working for a military organisation confirmed my view that the best way to get something widely publicised is to leave it on a desk and write 'Top Secret on it.
And surely the fine example of the BBC's 28gate scandal shows that in the internet world nothing ever stays under wraps for long.
So where was this 'PRIVATE' meeting?
Wannsee!!
I would rather it wasn't taken down, but I fully support the Bish's decision to do so. We are supposed to be people with honest and integrity. If David Rose asks to have it taken down we should respect that - while deploring the secrecy it applies of the meeting itself.
I'm more than happy to trust our host's judgment. Some of the comments have been a bit over the top.
Was David Rose threatened with excommunication and exclusion from similar policy making jamborees in the future if he didn't make nice and kowtow to the tender sensibilities of the dross and the bloodsuckers? That would be a pity as he has a fine record of exposing the Great Big Climate Fraud in the MSM in recent times. So there is the dilemma.
I can understand the concerns expressed above but I support the Bishop's decision, and agree with his 8:02am post.
Martin Reed: exactly right. I first became aware of Chatham House in 1976 (nearly sixty years after it was formed, so not that early) and have thought about the phenomenon on and off since then. I have no problem with private discussions but the way the Rule has been applied in practice has been to discipline and exclude those who question any aspect of what goes on. Exclude not just from future meetings but in some cases from well-established livelihoods. Gordon Tether at the Financial Times in the 1980s is a classic example of where that seemed to happen.
But what about that remarkable middle-page spread in the Sunday Mirror in 1977, when Keith Joseph gave a less than complimentary report in the middle of the Bilderberg meeting that year? New Tory leader Margaret Thatcher had let it be known that she had turned down an invitation. Did her close friend and ally replace her without signing on the dotted line? I've always assumed so. Interesting stuff.
Just look at what Tim Yeo (Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee ) has hoovered up.
Do you think he is getting this for his massive intellect? Expertise in energy generation?, or could it be just because he IS Chair of this committee?
I'm seriously thinking of making a complaint to the Police regarding "Misconduct in a Public Office"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/#a010
Abuse of the public's trust
Public officers carry out their duties for the benefit of the public as a whole. If they neglect or misconduct themselves in the course of those duties this may lead to a breach or abuse of the public's trust.
Seriousness of the neglect or misconduct
The behaviour must be serious enough to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder. In R v Dytham, Lord Widgery said that the element of culpability:
must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and punishment.
Anyone want to help me with some pro bono legal advice?
ITI Energy Limited; suppliers of gasification equipment.
AFC Energy; company developing alkaline fuel cell technology. Address: Unit 71.4 Dunsfold Park, Stovolds Hill, Cranleigh, Surrey, GU6 8TB. Undertake duties as Chair, run board meetings and keep in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,750. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 9 May 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 13 June 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 11 July 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 22 August 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 12 September 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,750, 7 October 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 14 November 2011. Hours: 10 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £5,000, 13 December 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £5,000, 10 January 2012. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Groupe Eurotunnel SA (non-executive) (of which Eurotunnel plc is a wholly owned subsidiary); company managing the Channel Tunnel. Address: Cheriton Parc, Cheriton High Street, Folkestone, Kent, CT19 4QS. My duties as a non-executive director include attendance at meetings of the Board and of the Environment and Safety Committee and advising senior management on a range of issues.
Received payment of £3,622.57, 9 May 2011. Hours: 6 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,569.33, 31 May 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £7,238.97, 28 July 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £6,440.62, 12 September 2011. Hours: 16 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,245.20, 14 October 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £3,526.97, 21 November 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £6,885.38, 31 January 2012. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 9 February 2012)
Eco City Vehicles plc, Hemming House, Hemming Street, London, E1 5BL; distributes and services London taxis. Duties include chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £3,333.33. Hours: 10hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 23 May 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 June 2011. Hours: 9 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 August 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 22 September 2011. Hours: 8 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £3,333.33, 24 October 2011. Hours: 6 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Chairman of TMO Renewables Limited, 40 Alan Turing Road, Surrey Research Park, Guilford, Surrey GU2 7YF. The company is developing and supplying technology for second generation biofuels. My duties involve chairing board meetings and keeping in touch with senior management.
Received payment of £4,987.75. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 20 March 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 21 February 2011. Hours: 12 hrs. (Registered 29 March 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 May 2011. Hours: 4 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 27 May 2011. Hours: 11 hrs. (Registered 14 June 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 24 June 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 27 June 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 July 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.53, 25 July 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 3 September 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 August 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 August 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 September 2011. Hours: 14 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 23 September 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 12 October 2011)
Received payment of £4,166, 23 October 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 October 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 17 November 2011)
Received payment of £4,166, 24 November 2011. Hours: 13 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 25 November 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 13 December 2011)
Received payment of £1,666.73, 12 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
Received payment of £4,166.66, 22 December 2011. Hours: 5 hrs. (Registered 2 February 2012)
I think this discussion thread covering "Closing the Curtain" is extremely important because is shows in more and more coherent terms the entanglements within and of what I call the Climate Industrial Complex.
The climate discussions have very little to do with science but with deal making, robbing societies of their self-created wealth. A very sorry state of affairs.
The hypocrisy from commentators on this site is truly breath-taking. Lets have full transparency and demand that society be allowed to know precisely who is funding The Global Warming Policy Foundation and other denier misinformation tanks. Hopefully, FOI request means we are close to the truth anyway. David Rose should not have removed his blog - it was full of half-truths and heroic claims anyway. Here is the real story:
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial think-tanks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
Richard Drake
Keith Joseph - I always regarded him as one of the very few in public life decent enough genuinely to be worthy of the honour of a knighthood. I have to admit he was a bit of a hero for me, still is in fact. But the currency of honours has been greatly, awfully debased even since then. Knights of this era are a rather different breed as we know.
Perhaps the very presence of David Rose - and another nearly sceptic - was contrived for this very eventuality: Blogospheric leakeage potential. Let's not forget that consensus itself is stage managed. Perhaps the discussion was organised deliberately to include the most gullible clergy and an astute sceptic precisely because of the attention it could draw to a CHR debate involving both public and private actors on the issue of climate change were the details to get out.
Were I to be a climate disciple from the UEA, or the bbc on a mission, the last place I would evangelise would be in a meeting room with David Rose. Perhaps the only thing that would persuade me would be the CHR.
Someone has put these people in a room, with some deliberation, and perhaps they are grinning.
Well. I guess I can dream...
The Chatham House Rule is simply a convention, an agreement between those present at a meeting that they will not subsequently quote any comments made at the meeting in an attributable way. Sometimes that extends to keeping the participants names confidential since in some circumstances comments could automatically be associated with individual participants thus destroying the effectiveness of the rule.
In this case, from memory, since the Bish has removed the original posting some of the attendees names were made public and David Rose thus asked that the post be removed.
In most cases, and all those that I have been associated with, the fact that the meeting has taken place is normally public knowledge and the outcome of the meeting in non-attributable summary form is also usually available.
Yeah, why did they even ask Rose in the first place?
If the temperatures continue along the same track these people will squirm more. If they rise, they will brighten up. What a scam!
To think that they were simply trying not to hurt the feelings of those not invited.
Only one lesson from history here then !?
Martin: totally agreed about Keith Joseph. One of the greats.
Don Keiller
In Cameroon land graft and corruption doesn't really exist provided it is practised openly in the full glare of publicity. When that condition is satisfied it becomes clean and wholesome and even commendable in fact. Of course corruption virtuously practised in order to save the planet from impending heat death is entirely praiseworthy anyway, we know that full well. I think you will find this is the reason the Yeo, Gummer and similar assorted low life will continue free to walk the streets and do their thing. Flaunt it baby, you've nothing to lose.
Why can't the discussion of climate science and energy policy be discussed openly and transparently - like pretty well every other aspect of public policy except foreign policy and espionage?
Why do the findings of it's scientists have to be refined and adulterated by committees of activists and political appointees before the public can be exposed to them?
Why can't the economics of renewable energy be openly and fairly compared with conventional power sources - as nuclear has always been?
Why does discussion of the earth's climate and its effects on us have to be negotiated behind locked doors like the politics of 16th century Venice - or the preparation for the D-day landings?
Will we shortly learn that the decomposing corpse of an anonymous climatologist has been washed up on a remote foreign shore with a briefcase chained to his hand - containing the final draft of AR5?
"That'll throw those bloody sceptics off the scent at last".
What happens in vague ass...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XEPUmV7iy0
We all know now.
Sorry O/T
Anyone got the story on this guy.
Ex New Labour cabinet minister Joins BBC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/14/james-purnell-to-rejoin-bbc
From 'The Rabbit' by Anon
Bish
Your site, your choice. But, personally, I am unsure if it was the correct one. I for one, would like to know which and why the anonymous attendees of this meeting were 'unhappy about it being publicised'. Given that no names apart from David Rose are in the public domain, what is their problem?
Guilt.
Hopefully, tinged with shame (but don't count on it).
I'm agreeing with Arthur Dent again, and once more I would refer honourable members to the answer I gave previously which was to point out what the Chatham House Rule (please — there is a Chatham House Rule, not 'Chatham House Rules'!) actually says.
The intention is simply to make it possible for individuals to express opinions which may not reflect those of the organisation which employs them without fear or favour. A highly to be prized asset, I would argue.
On the other hand, the Rule was not devised so that groups could meet totally in secret and the facility was made available mainly so that individuals with expertise or perhaps even just strong views on a range of subjects could meet informally to engage in what is generally called these days "blue skies thinking". Unless I have been grievously misled it was not intended to be a licence for secrecy and to request that the fact of the meeting having taken place at all should not be publicised flies in the face of the spirit, if not the letter.
Mike Jackson is correct a "meeting under the Chatham House rule" does not mean a "meeting in secret" although a "meeting in secret" could operate under the CHR convention.
Any MP who is daft enough to meet in secret with financiers deserves all the public scrutiny his personal situation is going to get.
The big news that will affect all those present is the shale gas estimate from BGS. I wonder if someone mentioned it. Perhaps the release of the details is being saved up to influence the by-election, or to snatch back some attention if it all turns to worms.
JF
Chatham House Rule Plus, 2013 edition. Precedent established!
I don't understand why you've taken it down.
They’ve been moving the pea about under the walnut shells so long they’ve lost it.
Does anybody in authority know the facts from fiction about AGW?
Robinson, see Bish's comment and followup from foxgoose. And of course the latest Josh cartoon. Making it secret givrs it more publicity.
Paul Matthews et al
Isn't this known as the Streisand Effect?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The Bishop's diocese is his to rule and, as a long-time disciple, I cannot think of a single example where he's ruled badly!
David Rose has made invaluable contributions to balancing the public debate regarding CAGW. To disregard his wishes would be exceedingly foolish and the Bishop has chosen correctly, IMO.
For those that disagree with his decision may I remind them of the phrase "Softly, softly;catchee monkey"
Sean said it best, I've not read the rest. Nor will I.
WAS THERE MORE?
THIS WAS CENSORED FOR NO GOOD REASON.
WHY SHOULD I KEEP READING THIS SITE?
Perhaps David Rose would like to come here and explain his reasons.
I don't care about their Rule. I don't care if they are unhappy. That's no reason to back off.
Right now, there are a great many of us unhappy. Do you see any of them backing off? No.
Right now, there are a great many of us angry. Do you see any of them backing off? No.
Right now, there are a great many of us dying. Do you see any of them backing off? No.
You surrender once, where does it stop?
Taking this down doesn't give it wings any more than if you had just pointed out that they wanted it taken down.
I agree with Bish, taking it down is akin to throwing gasoline on the fire.
The Streisand effect is kicking in now.
Co-operating and achieving your own goal is always the best. The article is still available. It has been made more interesting by being deleted. The Bish and David Rose can caim to be the epitome of reasonableness. Win Win.
The Bish and David Rose can claim to be the epitome of reasonableness, just like Edward Acton can.
'Well they would, wouldn't they..?'
(h/t to Mandy Rice-Davies; during the Profumo Affair trial - 1963...)