Bishop Hill That dinner
Oct 3, 2014 Climate: Sceptics The dinner at Nic Lewis's house the other day, at which sceptics and mainstream scientists got together to chew the fat, has already been reported by Anthony Watts. (I was invited, but unable to attend). There's now a fuller report at the Responding to Climate Change site here:
It was one of science’s strangest social events to date.
Some of the best known names in the climate debate – including Mail on Sunday journalist David Rose, blogger Anthony Watts, and Met Office scientist Richard Betts – shared salmon and civilities at a dinner party last month.
Hosted by the sceptical scientist Nicholas Lewis at his house in Bath in September, the group discussed their similarities, differences, and how they might calm the debate that rages across the pathologically provocative medium of Twitter.
“Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly. Both don’t like those who shout about it and call people names and take a polarised point of view,” says David Whitehouse from the sceptic think-tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation.
I gather that Tamsin's account will appear shortly.
Bishop Hill
The article is crossposted at the Guardian, where the comments thread is typically bilious. Tamsin Edwards is taking part, valiantly defending Nic.
Reader Comments (138)
They seem a tad more angry and over-emotional than normal on that Guardian Blog. Someone should offer them emotional support and remind them what it's about. It's about taking the venom out of the discussion and bringing about a closer understanding. What I'm reading from the alarmist view is that we mere mortals are not worthy to question scientists and there rests the alarmists case, shut up, these guys are scientists you are just dirt, not even worthy of sitting at the same dinner table.
I think we've stumbled upon the true definition of irony - the tone of the comments at the Guardian, when referring to a meeting intended to eliminate the spitefulness of the AGW debate!
TBH I think publicising this event, held under the nonsense "Chatham House Rule", has been a mistake. Let the debate be open and honest and attributable. Otherwise this should simply have been left as a private social event taking place courtesy of Nic's hospitality outside of the public arena.
Met Office makes The Daily Mash:
THE Met Office has admitted it does not keep weather records because it seemed like a really boring thing to do.
Staff confessed when a graph of September temperatures since 1974 was found to exactly match Nutella sales figures for the same period.
A Met Office spokesman said: “When we say ‘since records began’, note that we don’t specify when.
“Those records are, and always have been, a single sheet of A4 by the phone in the break room where we try to write down if it was raining last week or whatever. Though mostly we forget.
“If you’re really that interested, there’s nothing to stop you writing the temperature down yourself.”
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/there-are-no-records-of-temperatures-met-office-admits-2014100391301
Lets face it back in the day the vast majority of Countries wanted energy independence/security. Global warming was the convenient oportunity that started the gravy train and corralled all Countries even the energy exporters who were probably a little naive as to the determination of western governments and how far the waggons would roll.
No matter how many dinners these guys have, no matter what the science is,was or will be the windmills will still be erected, the solar panels will still be slapped on our roof and the bloke in the street will still be paying. All for his energy independence.
Sweet dessert anyone or straight to the cognac?
Shepherd:
"...catastrophic warming threshold..."
It trips so lightly off the tongue.
I would have thought that this possibility would not have found much agreement. I've read about methane trapped by ice cover, etc. but does anyone reading here really expect this tipping? The tipping would seem to require the loss in effectiveness of existing negative temperature feedback mechanisms, perhaps the revealing of heretofore ineffective positive feedback mechanisms.
Additionally, it would also depend on not losing existing positive feedback mechanisms and not revealing new negative feedback systems.
A bit wordy, eh?
But if we are to take seriously this tipping point concept, I would think we would want to see that all four feedback transitions have been thought of. I bet they haven't.
There is no "tipping point" anywhere close to happening irt CO2 and a so-called runaway greenhouse or climate reaction to the increases in anthropogenic CO2 we have experienced or are going to see.
If the consensus from he dinner was the opposite, then that dinner was dominated by fools or drugs or both.
The Blue Salmon leaps tall dams and roams home on the range.
=============
OK, There was at least 2 alarmists at that meeting so how come the communique said that they were all "fed up with the alarmists" ? Did they throw them out ?
Co2 increase is .0001PERCENT/year. That is .000001 of air/yr How can anyone believe thats control knob against sun/oceans/stochastic events
Joe Bastardi.
One of those 2 or 3 like to tell me what and when the tipping point might be. AND while they are thinking about it, how much CO² is coming from the 1000s of volcanos they now accept are under the sea.
snip, snip, snip. Mustn't criticise.
A quick scan of the Guardian comments indicate that many come from a few characters - who seem to be particularly exercised by the idea that not everybody agrees with them. Their comments are so unpleasant, I find it hard to believe that anyone could enjoy having dinner with them.
Bernie1815,
Are any of the comments from attendees?
This is how a real scientist talks about his work, a very fundamental issue one would imagine was SETTLED.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/09/22/physics-titan-edward-witten-still-thinks-string-theory-on-the-right-track/
There is by now quite a lot of evidence for cosmic inflation. But there also isn't a completely consistent, logically sound mathematical framework for the theory of cosmic inflation. If inflation is correct, then I think there is a good hope this problem might eventually be solved and that might lead to a better understanding of the early universe.
Many fascinating comments at the Grauniad, but I thought this one was particularly worth preserving for posterity:
Quite the charmer, I'm sure you'll agree.
The main value in Guardian comments is to see what dirty tricks they are accusing their enemies of, as you can be sure it's what they themselves are doing, always has been.
It's also revealing how many of them hate those who disagree with them, and want their views suppressed.
Jonathan Jones:
How we needed someone to extract the really uplifting bits. Funny how
from our friend on Komment Macht Frei resonates with not banned yet on Bishop Hill:
Ah, there's only one thing worse than being talked about and that's not being talked about, as Oscar Wilde sagely pointed out before Chatham House was a twinkle in Lionel Curtis' eye. The original dinner was, I always thought, a wonderful idea. Comments from the uninvited twelve days later have at least now attained amusement value.
But surely Salmon is just upside-down Beef?... And anyway the argument is bizzare, and doesn't matter, and the 'community' has moved on to the dessert...
jferguson:
Tamsin, Rose and I believe one more.
http://gpwayne.wordpress.com/
Many fascinating comments at the Grauniad, but I thought this one was particularly worth preserving for posterity:
gpwayne 04 October 2014 9:57am
My name is Graham Wayne. I live in Devon, England and I spend as much of my time as I can writing, principally about the science and sociology of climate change. To make ends meet, I repair computers and teach people how to get the best out of them.
My background is a blend of work in the arts, engineering (audio, IT) and management. This broad spread of experiences lead to my becoming a full time business consultant, accredited by the (then) Department of Trade and Industry. Eventually, after spells in Germany and Canada in management roles, I accepted the position of CIO on the board of The Mastertronic Group of companies, my last full-time role, which I left in 2006.
During most of my life, I’ve been a compulsive writer: I subscribe to Hemingway’s view that a writer doesn’t want to write; he has to write. After getting a bursary to attend a course at the Arvon Foundation (a writing school with four centres in the UK), I’ve enjoyed several spells as a full-time journalist. Writing has also frequently complemented and even broadened my business interests. (There’s a quote from Andrew Miller on the Arvon site: “An Arvon course can change your life. It’s as simple as that”. He’s absolutely correct, it changed my life and I remain profoundly grateful to Arvon, and to my instructors John Brunner and Liza Tuttle).
These days I write mainly for US outlets, this blog, occasional pieces for the Guardian, and for the excellent Skepticalscience web site.
It's a little too early to tell if the dinner was a success.
However, if the great salmon vs beef war is still being fought fiercely between two highly polarized camps a decade from now it may hint at a glitch!
Richard Drake:
"... Funny how
This meeting became a mistake the second it was made public.
from our friend on Komment Macht Frei resonates with not banned yet on Bishop Hill:
I think publicising this event … has been a mistake."
I miss your point?
They seem a tad more angry and over-emotional than normal on that Guardian Blog. Someone should offer them emotional support and remind them what it's about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, grief counselling, paid for by taxpayers would no doubt be the Graundian's preferred option.
Jonathan Jones, thanks for reproducing that comment. What a hoot! You kind of want to go: "Hello, Earth calling" - but nah, it's too much fun to want to stop it.
In my experience of dinner parties, the ones I used to host decades ago were very entertaining indeed, because it was before the era of "responsible drinking." Probably the highlight was the ASIO (spook) agent who crawled under the table and barked like a dog. Good times.
This one sounds like it was pretty boring in comparison.
Get round the skeptic versus warmist negotiating table.
Trade no damaging investigative climate data probing examination for no tabloid climate sensationalism.
Wont work there's always the bloggershere and hungry media looking for the latest "end of the world stories".
NOPE ,simply repeal the Climate Change Act remove all green taxes and no less.
nby: I think you've grasped the point, which is the strange agreement between yourself and Graham Wayne, zealous contributor to the 'excellent Skepticalscience web site', that it would have been better if nobody had heard of the dinner, including perhaps the participants!
Nic Lewis
Thanks, Nic, for pointing out that "the current rate of emissions will still tip the world over the catastrophic warming threshold sooner or later." was NOT an agreed conclusion reached at the dinner. I am very grateful to have been corrected on that point. It was bothering me for several reasons.
GP Wayne is Graham Wayne, a computer repair man from Devon who owns a Mercedes. He appears to have attended a high quality school (see vocabulary) but has no post school education and admits to knowing nothing about science. He makes various claims about himself, none of which can be substantiated. Garnered from his blog.
Like many of his colleagues, he thinks he is left wing, but is actually a hysterical ultra conservative who wants to end modern civilisation.
He does show how easy it is to paint the opposition as right wing nuts. I wonder why Professor Jones, you weren't asked to debate with Paul Nurse rather than self created cartoon comedian James Delingpole. The establishment creates its own opposition.
E. Smiff:
Any other irony meters struggling with that one? I recommend the new app Self-Awareness 2.0.
So Grahym Wayne is a science journalist who knows nothing about science. Here is a quote.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/29/environmentalism-dark-mountain-project?showallcomments=true&commentpage=2
I think Kingsnorth has it right, as does this movement. If you consider consumerism/capitalism as a mechanism, it is flaky, temperamental, capricious, iniquitous and unreliable. Further attempts to make it work, especially in light of the burgeoning population, climate change and peak oil, are actually POINTLESS. It isn't that environmentalism hasn't succeeded; the empire of consumerism is falling, as all empires must.
All Guardian articles should be covered by the Chatham House Rule, I am really not interested in what the gullible left wing chatterartie have to say on global warming.
Richard Drake - Don't put words in my mouth.
I said I miss your point and I still do. I have no idea why you should think it strange that a point of view with two (or three if you include "no opinion") possible states ("mistake" or "not a mistake"), should result in those states having multiple subscribers when the sample population is greater than two (or three).
nby: The meta-discussion doesn't interest me. Where did I put words in your mouth?
Richard Drake
I told an amusing little story deliberately including a lot of detail. Are you trying to imply I don't come from Paisley ? Would you say that to my face ? I really don't think so. Tee hee hee.
E. Smiff: As I'm sure you've grok'd there's a difference between accusing someone of lying and what you said of Graham Wayne: "He makes various claims about himself, none of which can be substantiated." Didn't you see the irony there? You're not, I'm going to assume, the same person as Graham Wayne. If that assumption holds, what you can't substantiate of what he says may be very similar to what I can't about you. Except you've seen fit to reveal Graham's real name, which, if correct, would aid in any substantiation effort. The icing on the cake. Thanks for another amusing moment.
Richard Drake
I found out a lot about Mr Wayne from his computer repair site a number of years ago. He has rewritten this page, but it previously made claims to have been a successful musician with various bands and to have been a computer games developer. There is no trace of any of that.
http://www.okehamptoncomputers.co.uk/about.html
I haven't failed as well or as often as him and am a failed musician at a much lower fantasy level than he is.
Wanna hear my music ? I have CD right here in the rack. It won't take long. :-)
Any substantiation of claims by you or Mr Wayne will have to wait for another day, as it's way off-topic. I was only trying to reduce the nonsense quotient but i accept it can never be eliminated.
Meanwhile I've been thinking about the hostility expressed on the Grauniad in general and by Graham Wayne towards David Rose in particular. Forgive me if it's already been said but isn't this a function of two things?
1. David Whitehouse's “Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly. Both don’t like those who shout about it and call people names and take a polarised point of view” - a statement of a common view which has not as far I know been disputed
2. The fact the sceptical team Nic Lewis selected included up to three journalists or writers about science (depending on how you count): David Rose, David Whitehouse and Marcel Crok. The climate scientist team don't seemed to have complained about this or said they wanted one or more of 'their' journalists present.
Where does this leave the poor participants in Comment is Free and even the regular journos on the Guardian? No wonder there's a tiny bit of angst on show, especially towards the most mass-market hackster present. A very bad (aka good) precedent has been set.
The raging incoherence of so many comments at the Guardian brings to mind another instance of irony, which actually serves as an excellent metaphorical take on the predicament of alarm oriented folks as the engines of CAGW alarmism sputter out.
In the movie "ConAir" the escaped convicts are dancing feverishly in the aisle of the airplane, to Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama," when Steve Buscemi's character issues this immortal line:
Will the furious alarmists enjoy any gentle landing or a fiery plane crash?
Richard Drake: "Where did I put words in your mouth?"
I said "I miss your point?" Oct 4, 2014 at 4:28 PM
You replied: "nby: I think you've grasped the point, which is the strange agreement between yourself and Graham Wayne, ..." Oct 4, 2014 at 5:15 PM
Hard to reconcile my statement with your representation of it.
James Annan, while unfriendly to Nic Lewis and Judith Curry, also has critical words for "climate science insiders, and IPCC authors in particular"....
[emphasis added]
James Annan on "climate science insiders"
Should the republication of Sophie Yeo's very fair article at RTCC on the Guardian's Environment page be viewed as an olive branch or a fig leaf? Whichever, it's a step forward. Until recently, simply linking to Anthony Watts's website got you put into moderation at the Graun.
Green SandI've posted a comment at the RTCC, but their moderators don't work Saturdays and Sundays (and possibly not Fridays, given the site's financers are middle eastern hotel chains). Here'”s what I said:
Your description of the Guardian as the “Luddite Times” is unfair to Luddites. Byron wrote a poem defending them. The Guardian wasn't around at the time, but if it had been, Mistress Toynbee would have been lecturing them on the need to move with the times, and possibly join the Napoleonic Union, while at the same time lecturing the Duke of Wellington to make their hangings more humane and less public.
nby: Sorry to be thick but I still don't know where I put words in your mouth.
Richard, I think you do see where I put words in your mouth.
Jonathan Jones
GP Wayne is a longtime commenter at Guardian CIF. He obtained the coveted “Contributor” avatar on the back of an obsequious interview with John Cook about his religious beliefs which was published at Guardian Environment - his first and last venture into journalism, as far as I know. According to the Tree Hut Files he was one of the first to offer John Cook his services as a SkepticalScience serf.
He and I struck up a friendly acquaintanceship at CIF after he accused me of having destroyed his theory that sceptics have no sense of humour. The friendship came to a sorry end after he accused me of having a small penis (what is it with warmists and their obsession with measurement?) and asked if I was able to satisfy my wife. I asked the moderators not to to censor our exchange, and it was still up the last time I looked (the exchange I mean).
He followed up with a comment saying he'd like to roger me over a table, a request that I politely declined, since we haven't been introduced.
He was quite ill around 2007/8, according to his posts, but he's obviously feeling better now.
Geoff (in as-yet-unpublished comment on RTCC):
Yes and thrice yes. I sure hope they publish that. I'm willing to bet that Ted Shepherd didn't say anything as stupid as you quote at the dinner itself. (Would Chatham House stomp on anyone present seeking to confirm this? Interesting puzzle.) But, whatever he came out with afterwards, to comfort alarmists that they haven't been wasting their lives, it deserved this crystal clear riposte.
Geoff again:
The sceptical sense of humour is not exhibiting dysfunction either, with that and a number of your other remarks. I had no idea GP Wayne was this well-known to any of this. But I seldom find CiF debates interesting enough to plough through.
Richard Drake
If this is true, then Rose has the scoop of the century. The IPCC, guardian of the settled science, can't estimate climate sensitivity to within three degrees, but those who disagree with the settled science by 0.4°C are to be banned from the airwaves of the BBC by official fiat, sanctioned by the Royal Society.Sophie Yeo's quotes seem to be based on interviews with the diners, who are obviously not held to Chatham House rules when relating their own opinions to a journalist in an interview.
Sophie is to be congratulated on doing what journalists normally do all the time by instinct, but haven't done on the subject of climate change for the past twenty-odd years, which is to report both sides of the question.
The other revelation in her article is that:
Ordinary voters (and even Guardian readers) who can't understand statistics can understand that a difference of 0.4°C is trivial. So is someone exaggerating the differences between sceptics and the consensus? Or is someone exaggerating the agreement?
Oh dear, it looks like we'll have to have a debate. Where's Bob Ward when you need him? Will the big bald bad fairy turn up and put a curse on the proceedings, sending everyone to sleep for a hundred years? Or will we hear about them on Today and Newsnight?
These are the questions that count for me, more than the number of decimal points separating the climate sensitivity estimates of Nic Lewis and Richard Betts.
So the vituperative Mr. Wayne thinks capitalism doesn't work. Another warmist with an agenda, then.
I presume he has models which show that his alternative will work better, because he certainly can't produce any examples.
Geoff: Please take this the right way but preach it. You're beginning to hit a rich seam here. The ridiculousness of this present age needs your anarchic sense of humour and patent inability to kowtow more than just about anything. The puny decimal places between Lewis and Betts just go to show how ridiculous. Someone has to refresh the parts Josh cannot reach and fast.
And PS: You're right of course to commend Sophie Yeo, especially in the light of how the typical Grauniad journo might feel about their exclusion from this event, apparently agreed by 'their own side', as mentioned above. Real journalism for a change. And change it finally will.
"A survey of the table at the end of the meal revealed that the views of scientists and sceptics on the level of “transient climate response” – or how much the world would warm should levels of pre-industrial CO2 be doubled – differed only by around 0.4C"
This is why I call the GWPF a 5th column credibility outfit for the fraud deniers. There is no way to measure climate sensitivity. There was no way to accurately measure global temperature in the 1980s, never mind the 1880s. In any case, the method of measurement is so different in different eras, they can't really be directly compared.
Me at the dinner 'Don't mention hide the decline, I did, but I think I got away with it. Jonathan Jones hasn't been invited, so we're safe there'.
E. Smiff (Oct 4, 2014 at 9:45 PM)
So many of us Bad Fairies were not invited. Still, that's no reason for GPWayne to give free rein to his fantasies and offer to roger me on Guardian CIF. As my great grand uncle CP Scott used to say, “Comment is free, but f***s are sacred”.Comments at Yeo's article at the Guardian are indeed weird. The BH Boys are not paying attention, since excellent contributions like those of MCourtney are not getting recommends. Even an important point by RichardSJTol (04 October 2014 7:01am) only got 4 recommends (one of them mine.) and 3 at 04 October 2014 7:17pm. What's the point of being x thousand fervent fans of BH if only three people can be bothered to support Richard Tol at the Guardian, where he has a potential readership magnitudes greater than here?
Jeesh! The readership of the Graun may only be 2% of the population or whatever, but it includes the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition who is likely to replace him next year. For the first time in seven years the Guardian, arguably the most influential journal in the UK, has deigned to give a space for sceptics to express their views. Where are you?