Whenever a new batch of Climategate files comes along I always seem to be in the middle of something. Climategate 2 happened while I was at Holyrood talking to MSPs about climate change. Yesterday I had an engagement at the University of St Andrews, where I had been booked to appear on a panel for the "Grill an Environmentalist" session. Herewith a brief report.
The panel consisted of paleoclimatologist Rob Wilson, myself, the university's environmental policy officer, and and economist called Felix Fitzroy and we were overseen by one of the student organisers. Fitzroy was of particular interest because he had written a very (ahem) critical letter about me to the town magazine a couple of years ago. It therefore seemed likely that he was going to provide the floorshow. In the event this expectation proved to be correct.
We were asked to briefly introduce ourselves and explain where we stood on global warming, and we all dutifully did so, except for Fitzroy who, speaking last, launched into an extended diatribe on what a bad person I was, apparently being guilty of promoting "hate" on this blog. As an example of my wickedness we learned that I had said that if the lights went out the finger of blame should be pointed at Nicholas Stern.
It's strange, but in my world there is a difference between blaming someone for something and promoting hate. Criticism serves an important function and people in important positions do need to be held responsible for their actions and to carry the blame when things go wrong. I think this way of thinking is unfortunate, particularly in the light of things like the Stafford Hospital scandal, where a refusal to hold anyone to account has been the source of considerable outrage.
The first half of the debate was marred by Fitzroy's inability to make concise answers and one could see a certain amount of eyerolling and general amusement among the audience as he droned on. As far as I could see he had prepared what he was going to say beforehand: it didn't matter what the question was, he was going to deliver the points he wanted. Fortunately, by halfway through he seemed to have said all he wanted to and kept a bit quieter.
There were a couple of nice moments on the subject of paleoclimate. Fitzroy had raised both the Marcott and Mann hockey sticks during his initial diatribe. I was not given an opportunity to respond to this, but it turned out that I did not have to. One of the questions from the audience was "Was the Hockey Stick an Illusion?". After I had said my piece, Rob Wilson chipped in and agreed that the Hockey Stick was "less than ideal", that it was broken, and that we should all just move on. Later on he discussed the Marcott hockey stick, suggesting that from his brief look at the paper it looked to have problems. From my perspective Fitzroy was left looking like a bit of a windbag.
The audience was made up largely of sustainable development students, so I think it is fair to say that I was unlikely to change many minds, something that was borne out by the votes at the start and end of the debate. Nevertheless, it was a fun trip, and may even have started some new lines of thinking among the students.