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)
Thank you Paul
(Feb 17, 2013 at 12:31 AM | Paul)
Really? Removed the post? Now I'll never forget.
I asked his Grace to take down the post because I had agreed - wisely or unwisely - to attend the dinner on the basis that it would be under the Chatham House rule. When he contacted me to ask me about it, I spoke fairly freely to him, without revealing who had said what. I thought this was conforming to the rule, but when the post went up, some of those present told me they felt I had acted dishonourably. I regretted this, and apart from anything else, I didn't want a diversion about this issue to colour the reception of my future work, so I asked the Bish to take the post down. One thing I have learnt since I started writing about climate is that one's opponents will seize on anything in order to mount an attack, fairly or unfairly. I don't imagine I will be invited to future events of this kind. Maybe that is for the best. I will say I have never in my life heard apparently intelligent people (not all of them, and I wouldn't like to give away clues as to who were the worst) spouting such ill-informed, irrational rubbish. At times it was quite scary, given that some of them do have quite an influence in running the country. If any of them thought they were going to soften me up, they were mistaken. La luta continua.
I find it highly disturbing that someone like you who has exposed so much of the intrigues will now help to keep things secret. Have you been assimilated?
'A gentlemans word is as good as his bond'. Refreshing to still see that chivalry today, especially in the journalist profession. The duel can commence after the courtesies are observed.
Taking it down is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Feb 18, 2013 at 8:50 PM | David Rose
" I will say I have never in my life heard apparently intelligent people (not all of them, and I wouldn't like to give away clues as to who were the worst) spouting such ill-informed, irrational rubbish."
It does come as a bit of a shock to discover how suddenly one's expectations and perceptions of other peoples capabilities, judging by their positions of influence and status can be shattered to dust.
From the sound of it you've possibly become a radioactive persona non grata in certain circles.
Thank you for your version - I wonder if any of the whingers would care to anonymously explain themselves ? ... thought not.
David Rose -
Were the complaints of "acting dishonourably" because you revealed a number of clueless comments? Or because you revealed the affiliations of some attendees?
Quite shocking.
David, I suggest that you set aside your archaic Victorian old boy principles and belief in honoring the so called Chatham house rule.
Instead I suggest that you remind the government officials at this meeting that they owe a debt of transparency to their employer the public and that their Chatham house rules will not keep them warm when they are serving time in prison as they so assuredly deserve.
Bishop, your censorship has cost you considerable trust with your readers.
Sean
When you are a good blogger/journalist there are going to be situations where you'll be faced with the question of going public with a revelation(s). I've had a couple of situations where I had to make a choice - nothing major for my blogging payscale, to be sure, but all the same nevertheless.
I've spoken up for anonymity and privacy several times, and everyone has the right, the powerful and the stupid included. It is perhaps not too difficult to guess who some of the participants might have been, given the details that were made available and given the story of 28gate, it must have left some of these participants spooked.
What about the vast majority of science journalists who must attend meetings or be privy to the deluded climatic blatherings of the powerful but yet willingly hold their tongue for the sake of the 'cause'? Those are the real bad apples, not Rose.
@Feb 19, 2013 at 2:09 AM | Sean
Journalists have to eat too and what with Leveson and further restrictions on freedom of reporting about in climate being a future creeping possibility (when you hear apparently sane people talking about climate “disinformation” being a crime against humanity) then I think David Rose’s tactical withdrawal here is understandable - this isn't a breach of *our * trust.
Sean
"Bishop, your censorship has cost you considerable trust with your readers."
Not this reader, chum.
Nor this reader. Our host did exactly the right thing and David Rose's comment last night is one of the best I've read on the blog. The attribution problem (in this case) is perhaps that with so many spouting rubbish it becomes too easy to guess who did. Poor wee bairns, as someone once put it.
The dishonour lays firmly with the usual suspects. The moral high ground is meaningless to the self-opinionated bloodsuckers they have no integrity and abide by no rule. Congratulations David you caused a ripple now take the oportunity and go for the tsunami.
when someone contacts you personally with a request like the Bish had I don't see that he has much choice but to agree (i would, friends are friends after all).
the main thrust of the post & now on request, the retraction with reasons from David above just add intrigue to the identity of the mystery men/women.
ps. a certain bloke called Gavin springs to mind for some reason after reading that last sentence.
dougieh: Ha. There seem to be international men of mystery at every level of this caper.
Sorry Bishop, I overreacted. After reading all the comments and the response of David Rose I think you did the right thing. CAGW just makes my blood boil sometimes, leading to unsubtle commenting.