Early reports from the Lisbon conference

Emerge from shadows,
Sing serendipitous songs.
Do re me fado.
===========

The only “reconciliation” I want to see is when the warmists have to “reconcile” themselves to seeing all their funding cut off and knowing that their movement has become a laughingstock for the next several generations.
there is no such thing as “honest disagreement” with those who are not honest.

Power without accountability is only one of the problems, but a big one that will not be solved in a short time.

Chatham House Rule?
“The Chatham House Rule is a principle that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states:[1]
“ 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. ”
Well, that, combined with the preponderance of social scientists and journalists, makes me think that choosing your son’s Scout event over attending this anonymous talkfest was a good call, Anthony.

whereas the majority are social scientists (with a few journalist
==============================================
good Lord

Judy’s take on the meeting, so far, is encouraging.

these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability.

And that is the general problem with bureaucratic organizations: lack of accountability. When an organization’s members don’t have consequences to their actions they will become corrupt. Even if they are “accountable”. When the IPCC makes pronouncements that are proven false what happens? They continue on to make new ones. Fortune tellers have more accountability than our officials do.

I am surprised at the focus on “violence.” In watching the development of the climate debate for nearly 25 years now, I recall the violent rhetoric and action stemmed pretty much exclusively from promoters/believers of AGW, culminating in the 10-10 video ads. I never heard Sen. Inhofe speak of violence, but we got a lot of it from Gore. Never heard violent speech from McIntyre or McKitrick, but did from Hansen and Holdren.
Perhaps the social scientists that are the majority at this conference could have spread their feelings more widely with the AGW camp before now.

Chatham house rules. Politicians use this a lot in meetings.
That means we will know what was said but not who said what. It means participants will speak freely.

Saving the planet is serious business (whether it needs saving or not). In fact, there can be no higher calling (or delusion). With such delusional stakes involved, there is little wonder fanaticism and violence will manifest. GK

I have not heard anything about Bjørn Lomborg. Before you can have reconciliation you have to apologize to him for the rotten treatment he has had. He was hauled in front of Danish committee on scientific dishonesty, a Web site was established to attack his ideas, and a book was written to prove that his two books were all wrong. The man is not even a denier and believes that global warming exists. As long as his ideas are denied and attacked by the warmist establishment there is no hope for that reconciliation that they are paying lip service to.

“dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas”
I have an idea – lets simplfy the metrics. Let us all agree that if we can not find heat acculumulating in the oceans AGW is not occuring. Let us agree that to hide below 700 meters we need to observe it passing through the upper 700 meters of the ocean. Secondly if we are acculmulating heat then we should see it with sea level rise acceleration as the steric (thermal component) increases. Forget the ice caps or atmospheric data. We have the tools (ARGO) to make a monthly report to the public that shows how many joules acculmulated the previous month vs what is predicted by the IPCC.
Meanwhile UAH ch 5 should put January’s anomaly at about -.1 degrees C. below the thirty year trend.