Here are a excerpts and links to reports about the debate that Steve McIntyre was originally shut out of.
The Guardian just put up the audio: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/audio/2010/jul/15/guardian-climategate-hacked-emails-debate
Just back from the Climategate debate run by the Guardian tonight. We’re assured that the Guardian website will have a full video of the whole proceeding sometime tomorrow. So just some very sketchy impressions.
Steve obviously read the remarks from last night’s meeting and insisted on speaking from a lectern. This was a good move as it gave him more ‘authority’. And he was (mostly) crisper…making his points more directly. The others spoke while seated.
George Monbiot chaired the meeting and I think he did a fair job of it. He tried hard to be unbiased, and only once or twice strayed into partisan territory. And he managed to keep the speeches and questions mostly to time and to the point
Fred Pearce took a longer perspective than the others. He spoke well and described Climategate as a tragedy rather than a conspiracy…the tragedy being that the CRU guys had adopted siege mentality. Climategate has certainly widened his perspective.
Trevor Davies representing UEA/CRU was appallingly bad. He mouthed platitudes by the shedload, but was unfamiliar with the details of any of the subjects likely to be raised. And was several times embarrassed by doing so. Apart from the fact that he had a sharp suit. I can find nothing positive to say about him. Struck me as a devious smooth cove.
The Guardian ClimateGate “Debate” 14 July 2010 by Piers Corbyn Thursday, July 15th 2010, 5:49 AM EDT Co2sceptic (Site Admin) Continuing cover-up and Dodging of the Science
The Guardian ClimateGate ‘Debate’ held at the RIBA London on 14 July*, organized by the Guardian and chaired by George Monbiot in full biased form was significant not for its predicted gross imbalance in debate but more for evident disquiet over the matter from card-carrying Guardian readers** and the continuing utter scientific bankruptcy of the Global Warmers.
ClimateGate “Debate” (Link now ended)
Monbiot started with his standard pejorative references to Climate Change Deniers (as in Holocaust Deniers) and then presentations proceeded with ‘Warmers’ including Monbiot outnumbering by 4 to 2 the more objective (Realist) speakers who had to endure somewhat negative introductions lest some of the audience pay them too much attention.
There were the expected wishy-washy meanderings and praise of whitewash by George Monbiot, Prof Trevor Davies pro-vice chancellor of the University of East Anglia, Prof Bob Watson former head of IPCC, and Fred Pearce environment apologist, which seemed to amount to insistence that fraud isn’t fraud if you only select rather than change data!
One can only wonder if the Guardian take the same view of tax fraud when a banker or politician only declares 25% of his income stream for tax purposes?! [“With regret we note their somewhat non-transparent procedures”, they would doubtless rage.]
However probably the largest applause was gained by Steve Mcintyre of the well respected site Climate Audit who has worked so relentlessly to expose false science; and by blogger & independent researcher Doug Keenan who steadfastly maintained the position that CRU scientists had engaged in scientific FRAUD – in the face of veiled threats from the chair.
Questions were limited to 20 seconds each – making it very difficult to develop proper debate. Nevertheless some probing such as by Johnathan Leake of Sunday Times revealed more and more the weakness and biased cover-up nature of the so called ‘independent’ inquiries’ into the sorry affair.
In a question I challenged the concept Climate Change Denier and asked that surely the key issue that must be addressed is the total failure of the IPCC predictions and the lack of any evidence that CO2 drives weather or climate while WeatherAction using solar-lunar understandings can explain the rise of temperatures in decades up to 2002, the cooling since and predict extreme events.
Responses avoided anything about extreme events despite the IPCC’s much vaunted claim to exist to defend the world from dangerous climate-change driven extreme weather events!
Instead they made the demonstrably false claim that ‘Oh yes the sun is important but only man’s CO2 can explain recent Climate Change’. Prof Trevor Davies to give him credit did say “Denialists” was not his term.
Guardian: ‘Climategate’ debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
Posted by Damian Carrington
Polemical and partisan characterises the climate debate online – but at last night’s Guardian debate there was courteousness and a distinct warmth in the air.
Something remarkable happened last night in the polarised world of “warmists” versus “sceptics”: a candid but not rancorous public debate. I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but, to my knowledge, never before have all sides of this frequently poisonous debate shared a stage. The outcome was illuminating.
With no little effort, I had persuaded a star panel to convene to discuss the fall out from the “Climategate” affair which followed the exposure of 1,000 private emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and their international colleagues. Three inquiries had emphasised that the science of global warming remained clear and that the scientists had not fiddled their data but also that there had been serious shortcomings in the transparency with which they worked and in how they dealt with freedom of information requests.
So almost 300 people squeezed into Riba in London last night, ready to witness a fight. Instead, they were treated to a heated argument, in the best sense of that word, with my colleague George Monbiot, who chaired magnificently, only having to threaten one heckler with ejection (yes, Piers Corbyn, it was you).
There’s a news story here, but here’s my take on the panellists and the debate:
• Professor Trevor Davies, ex-head of CRU and now pro-vice chancellor for research at UEA: Davies had the toughest brief, given the lurid nature of some of the emails, which he said had initially “shocked” him, as well as the pounding UEA has taken in the media. But he was clear and calm, if a little stiff, backing the researchers’ science while fully acknowledging the need to work more openly and be more helpful in responding to FOI requests. Inevitably, he failed to woo a sceptical chunk of the audience, who jeered when he failed to recall the exact date when the last inquiry panel was set up, but all were glad he was there.
• Steve McIntyre, editor of ClimateAudit: It was hard to reconcile the much-demonised McIntyre with the open and avuncular Canadian on the stage. Despite being the highest-profile critic of CRU, he pointed out none of the three enquires had asked him to give evidence. He ducked a question on how much the Earth was warming – “I don’t know” – he was convincing in saying his motive had always been wanting the temperature data only because he felt it was important and should be available. He noted that if he was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change. Hardly a classic sceptic.