UPDATE: It’s a double feature, Mann will be there too, see below
From the University of Bristol: Dogma vs. consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change
19 September 2014, 6 pm Victoria Rooms, Queens Road, Bristol, BS8 1SA
In this Cabot Institute public lecture, we are pleased to present John Cook, Global Change Institute, University of Queensland and owner of the Skeptical Science blog, in what promises to be a fascinating talk.
In 2013, John Cook lead the Consensus Project, a crowd-sourced effort to complete the most comprehensive analysis of climate research ever made. They found that among relevant climate papers, 97% endorsed the consensus that humans were causing global warming. When this research was published, it was tweeted by President Obama and received media coverage all over the world, with the paper being awarded the best article published by the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013. However, the paper has also been relentlessly attacked by climate deniers who reject the scientific consensus. Hundreds of blog posts have criticised the results while newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and Boston Globe have published negative op-eds. Climate denial organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Heartland Institute have published critical reports and the Republican Party organised congressional testimony against the consensus research on Capitol Hill. This sustained campaign is merely the latest episode in over 20 years of attacks on the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. John Cook will discuss his research both on the 97% consensus and on the cognitive psychology of consensus. He will also look at the broader issue of scientific consensus and why it generates such intense focus from climate deniers.
Registration
You must register for this event. https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dogma-vs-consensus-letting-the-evidence-speak-on-climate-change-tickets-12288231431?ref=ebtnebregn
This event is free to attend and open to all. Please contact cabot-enquiries@bristol.ac.uk if you have any accessibility requirements.
The event will run from 6 pm – 7.30 pm. Please ensure you are seated by 6 pm.
================================================================
Note: I registered since I’ve always wanted to come to England anyway, and this was as good as an excuse as any…plus I have many questions to ask. Note also that while the event is free, there are a limited number of tickets available.
All that is required is an email address and name. The ticket was delivered by email as a printable PDF – Anthony
===============================================================
UPDATE: Guess I’ll be staying longer. I just registered for this one too:
Cabot Institute Lecture: The Hockey Stick and the climate wars – the battle continues
23 September 2014, 6 pm The Victoria Rooms, Queen’s Rd, Bristol, BS8 1SA
In this special Cabot Institute lecture, in association with Bristol Festival of Ideas, Michael E Mann will discuss the science, politics, and ethical dimensions of global warming in the context of his own ongoing experiences as a figure in the centre of the debate over human-caused climate change.
Dr. Michael E Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, with joint appointments in the Department of Geosciences and the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute. He is also director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. He is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published books include Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008 and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines in 2012. He is also a co-founder and avid contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.
Registration
This event is free to attend and open to all but you must register to attend. We expect this event to be very popular so we encourage you to register as soon as possible to avoid disappointment. If you can no longer attend this event, please email cabot-enquiries@bristol.ac.uk so that we may reallocate your ticket.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/custombutton?eid=12014388359
A starting point would be to point out that his categories are skewed. 3 and 5 are not equvivalent, since the definition of 3 is so wide that the definition include neutral papers.
Skeptics obviously will not be given much rebuttal leeway. The most effective would be to distribute a short set of reasonable criticisms outside the venue to attendees before the talk.
Of course, there is plenty of time to invite a speaker from the Heartland Institute for this event.
This way there will be true academic discourse available for attendees. But I am told that this doesn’t exist in the UK any more. I hope to be proven wrong by the University of Bristol.
Should I hold my breath? Or will that hasten my demise too!!!
John Cook knows that denier is a derogatory label in the climate debate, since before he started Skeptical Science.
John Cook in 2007
JC’s Law
——————————————————————————–
There’s a famous rule Godwin’s Law which predicts the inevitable eventuality when fierce online debate rages:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”
Apparently in a flame war, there’s no greater insult than comparing your opponent to Nazis. I’ve been following the global warming argument closely of late and I’ve noticed both sides often fulfill Godwin’s Law. Global warming advocates liken skeptics to Holocaust deniers (akin to a Nazi). Skeptics compare Al Gore’s public awareness campaign to Nazi-like propoganda. It’s lazy debating – why discuss the issues with facts and logic when you can easily write off your opponent with a derogatory label?
I’ve noticed a similar event occurs when cricket fans argue online about Australian cricket. It’s even happened several times on cricket-blog recently over SquashBallGate. So it’s time for cricket to have its own version of Godwin’s Law which I’ve rather unimaginatively title “JC’s law”:
“As an online discussion involving Australian cricket grows longer, the probability of invoking Australia’s convict past approaches one.”
————————————
http://web.archive.org/web/20130821112704/http://www.cricket-blog.com/archives/2007/05/13/JCs-Law/
http://web.archive.org/web/20130820001731/http://www.cricket-blog.com/about.php
yet Cook still uses ‘climate deniers’ in 2014
So if you’re a “denier” with say a physics/engineering/chemistry/geology/meteorology degree you aren’t qualified to speak on climate, but if you’re a drank the kool-aid cartoonist you’re qualified not only to speak on climate but on cognitive psychology as well?
Science does not work by consensus. the claim of 97% consensus was debunked so many times I fail to see why you are still touting the idea.
No sceptic denies climate change only the mechanism by which change happens and the associated processes.
The mighty brains of the University of Bristol don’t even know the past tense of ‘to lead’. So it looks as though Cook is on their intellectual level.
Not too far from me, so if Anthony can make the effort I’m sure I can. Anthony, let me know if I can be of help while you’re in the area.
Interesting as the research continued and they did not fine “that many” #1 papers.
Finally they had to few that they did not report on it at all, and merged #1 #2 and #3.
As Monkton pointed out #1 was only 0.05%
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-03-05-Strategy%20for%20anticipating%20denier%20response%20%27we%20don%27t%20deny%20that%20humans%20are%20causing%20global%20warming%27.html
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo…
64.129.227.4
I thought category #1 was our response to that criticism – in addition to ‘x’ percent of papers endorsing AGW, ‘y’ percent endorse AGW as the primary cause of the observed warming.
Then there’s the future phase of the TCP where we do a survey of climate sensitivity papers to prove there’s a consensus on that issue as well. That’ll really kill the deniers.
2012-03-06 09:37:13
Andy S
skucea@telus…
209.121.15.232
So far, I haven’t had that many category #1 papers.
One step at a time. If we force skeptics to say that they never denied AGW, just “CAGW”, then that will be progress in itself, since many of them will have to get in the low sensitivity corner with Lindzen and so on. That’s when the climate sensitivity Plan B will kick in.
Since the BEST study, I have noticed relative silence on the part of skeptics with regard to the temperature record and urban heat islands. Of course, “no-significant-warming-in-the-past-decade” is still alive as an idea but that meme should die after a couple of hot years.
This is trench warfare, not a Blitzkrieg.
2012-03-06 10:57:09
John Cook
john@skepticalscience…
121.222.175.176
Dana, yes, category #1 addresses the “amount of human contribution” argument but TCP doesn’t address climate sensitivity at all. If TCP has deniers conceding AGW, we should pin that on them because for sure they will try to back away from that afterwards and go back to “it’s not us” arguments.
I haven’t seen that many category #1 although I will say I’ve seen a helluva lot more category #1 than I’ve seen category #4, #5 or #6 combined.
Just stand outside the venue handing people copies of that infamous picture of John-boy in Nazi uniform, with text that explains the photo came from Cookie’s own site. The text should also highlight the obviously deliberate link between the use of the name ‘deniers’ and odious Holocaust deniers. That should make attendees think about the agenda-driven odd-ball they are coming to see.
If people think my suggestion would be an over-reaction, I think it’s “all gloves off” as far as JC and his SkS clowns are concerned.
I’m certainly going to attend this.
Perhaps the “deniers” will make up a goodly proportion of the audience and confound Mr Crook.
I’m certainly going to take my vuvuzela just in case.
from the kidz secret, secret forum:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-03-05-Strategy%20for%20anticipating%20denier%20response%20%27we%20don%27t%20deny%20that%20humans%20are%20causing%20global%20warming%27.html
skucea@telus…
209.121.15.232
So far, I haven’t had that many category #1 papers.
john@skepticalscience…
121.222.175.176
I haven’t seen that many category #1 although I will say I’ve seen a helluva lot more category #1 than I’ve seen category #4, #5 or #6 combined.
john@skepticalscience…
121.222.175.176
This underscores the value in including the category “humans are causing >50% of global warming” as I think it will be interesting to see how many papers come under this option (yeah, yeah, DAWAAR). Here’s the full article:
====
Well it was “interesting” wasn’t it Captain Cook ( sorry, should that be Sturmbandfurher.Cook, are we dressing up today?).
So tell us why didn’t you report the “interesting” results in your prize winning paper. 0.05% #1 results, wasn’t it?
It just seems a bad idea to emit CO2 to see a cartoonist talk on a subject he doesn’t understand at an institution which just cannot see anything too debasing for itself.
I’ll pass.
But if you’re in the uk Anthony I’ll come and say hi. Just, not to seek the self-portrayed Nazi.
oops…I used the wrong word 🙂 – stuck in moderation. I stand by my comment…it simply described a historical occurrence.
Mods, OK the first post had the D word in the quoted text, but what blocks the second one, I was trying not to upset the system. Is thier domain name a trip too ?
It makes it pretty hard to quote and discuss these idiots if everything they say and their names are spam triggers.
[Reply: Sorry about that. Many times even the moderators do not know what trips the WordPress spam filter. This is one of those times. ~ mod.]
They managed to use the denier / denial tag three times just in the introduction to a lecture, not biased much?
Now that the talk has been ‘outed’ do you think he will turn up?
John Cately:
“I’m certainly going to take my vuvuzela just in case.”
Brilliant! 🙂
Made me start laughing in the middle of a restaurant whilst surfing on my phone. Scared the other customers.
Anthony, was it wise to announce your attendance? I think there might be some organised defenses put in place by the “Planet Savers” and it could become unpleasant, no doubt with articles appearing in The Guardian and elsewhere about a few brave souls battling the forces of darkness, etc.
REPLY: Well if they put up a blockade, they’ll out themselves for the imperious holier than thou fools that they are – Anthony
The content of thier discussions I quoted above shows they were very excited about the prospect of publishing the count #1 catagory endorsements…. until they counted them : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/calling-all-uk-skeptics-free-talk-with-97-bias/#comment-1687083
Failure to accurately report findings is scientific f_r_a_u_d . Isn’t that sufficent to demand retraction of thier “prize winning” paper?
Are we allowed to turn up in “fancy dress” ??
It’s worse than we thought….! http://www.bris.ac.uk/cabot/events/2014/479.html
“Dogma vs. consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change”
– plus the ability to ask questions
Judging by the fact that they got the D-word in three times in introducing the event, I would not count on getting the chance to ask too many ‘awkward’ questions, like how many #1 endorsements did you manage to find in 12000 papers?
I wish I could go!
Greg says:
“Are we allowed to turn up in “fancy dress” ??”
Can’t bear the thought of Anthony dressed in a “300” outfit being run over by “mein fuhrer Cook” in his tank. ; > )
I wasn’t aware that John Cook spent his entire life studying cognitive psychology and was an expert in the field.
Waste of time. it will be lectures with ignorance and ignoring.
Hot under the collar says:
July 16, 2014 at 5:26 am
They managed to use the denier / denial tag three times just in the introduction to a lecture, not biased much?
Now that the talk has been ‘outed’ do you think he will turn up?
========================================
This will most likely sum up their claims in total.. BUT YOUR A DENIER will be the basis for all thier claims. I am willing to bet that questions must be prearranged and will be tightly controlled.
I get a laugh out of any talk Mann would give on “ETHICS” ….. Where is my head hitting wall smilie when I need it… The same Michael Mann who told investigators what evidence was relevant ( and what they could use against him) in his indictment of ethical misconduct at Penn State….
Two so called scientists who have no clue what ethical conduct is… being heralded as pure by another academic institution…
Barry Woods says:
July 16, 2014 at 5:00 am
“Skeptics compare Al Gore’s public awareness campaign to Nazi-like propoganda.”
I see that you don’t know AT ALL where modern propaganda comes from. Joseph Goebbels cherished his copy of the book Propaganda, 1928, by Edward Bernays. Bernays was a Jew and the nephew of Siegmund Freud and advisor of progressive president Woodrow Wilson. He applied his uncle’s theories to marketing and came up with Propaganda. Which he later, after the term fell out of favor, renamed to PR.
He also became stinking rich through his marketing skills.
I am sure Mike Mann will join in remotely so as not to cause the collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland by jetting to the talk.
Have fun and bring me some butterscotch candies, please.
There is another ‘self portrait’ photo of Herr Cook that you could have used, Anthony. You know the one! 🙂
Bristol was the fifth heaviest bombed city in the last war and their university is inviting a moron who dresses up as a Nazi?
Tickets are going to go fast. I reserved mine. I’m hunting for cheap flights to Bristol now.
Alarmists always try to confuse the issue by concentrating on the wrong questions. Anthony Watts, Dr. Roy Spencer and others made it clear at the International Conference on Climate Change that no one is denying CO2 is a greenhouse gas and no one is denying the planet is slightly warmer. The question is, “is this anything to be concerned about”? The alarmists say yes and the data say no. So are you going to believe the alarmists or your own lying eyes?
From the spiel about the Mann-monster:
“his own ongoing experiences as a figure in the centre of the debate over human-caused climate change.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the crux of Mann’s ridiculous court case with Steyn revolve around Mann claiming he wasn’t a public figure?
This write-up for the talk implies he very much is in the public eye.
I’ve just started to rewrite and condense a long article (original 22 pages, publ. Sept. 2012).
Now I’ll have to accelerate keyboard velocity to get it published before the event, don’t care much for peer reviewing, it wouldn’t pass it anyway.
Abstract states that the decadal temperature variability in the North Hemisphere can be reconstructed from (the) amplification of the solar magnetic (Hale) cycle by the natural oscillations emanating from the Earth’s magnetic field.
I’m still trying to figure out whether they truly believe that there are people out there who deny that there’s a climate…
David Smith, not at all. Michael Mann freely concedes he is a public figure for the suit.
In 2013, cartoonist John Cook lead the Bandwagon Project, a crowd-sourced effort to complete the most comprehensive attempt to take climate researchers for a ride. They found that among relevant climate papers, 97% endorsed the consensus that humans were causing global-climate-change-extreme-disruptive weird-weather-warming followed by a ….long pause.
When this propaganda was published, it was catapulted by President Obama and the media all over the world, with the paper (but not the cartoonist who produced it) being awarded a shiny badge by the journal of Viral-Mental Research Letters in 2013.
In this Crappy Destitute public lecture, John Cook will discuss his research both on the 97% consensus cartoon, and on the cartoon psychology of consensus.
Please attend.
I have just booked both. Very excited at the thought of seeing a legendary giant of the climate change world. Guess I can put up the presence of Cook and Mann for that!
Dogma vs. consensus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma
Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1]
Isn’t “the debate is over” proof that Climate Change is dogma? Isn’t the consensus opinion itself dogma? The authority of the majority?
Consensus is the Dogma of the Majority.
lucia liljegren (@lucialiljegren)
…….
Take a budget flight to London, train from Paddington takes 1h20min, book online (thetrainline.com) in advance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
“Don’t be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice.“
—Steve Jobs, “Commencement Address at Stanford University“ American Rhetoric (delivered June 12, 2005)
Brandon,
Fair enough, thanks for the correction.
David
And the bonus is that presumably Lewandowsky will be there too as Bristol has taken him under its wing. In fact, he’s probably the organising genius behind the project.
heh Anthony – if you make it over, this is my neck of the woods (normally – if I am not in Czech woods)…and I would like to meet you, even briefly. I have registered for the 19th – can’t seem to access the 23rd. Mann overboard. I am scheduled to be in Europe but may make it over in mid-month and don’t want to miss this – even that I doubt very much they will be fielding questions or giving time for discussion. Bristol University is a hotbed of psychologists studying Global Warming Denialism! They were going to come and interview me for their research until they discovered I had an intelligent grasp of climate science and was not denying anything!
Isn’t that Lew’s Lair too? Why wasn’t he invited to speak as well?
Is Steyn going?
What other theory in science is above question? In what other field of science is “the debate over”? Isn’t this proof that AGW isn’t science?
No other field in science holds that the debate is over. It cannot be. As technology and understanding improves we continually invent new techniques to better predict observations.
The inability of the climate models to predict future climate is evidence that there is room for considerable improvement in our understanding of climate.
The IPCC recognizes that we cannot predict future climate. That such prediction is impossible with current technology due to chaos as per IPCC 2. They call the results of the models projections, not predictions.
Thus the consensus belief that we can predict future Climate is Dogma. It is belief, passed down by authority. The modern equivalent of Papal Infallibility.
Dogma vs. consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change
======
typo in the title. it should be:
Dogma is consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change
How apt that Cook and Mann will be appearing at a location with a “BS” postcode
rogerknights says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:36 am
You have to be from over 50 miles away to be an expert.
Sundance says: July 16, 2014 at 5:44 am
I wasn’t aware that John Cook spent his entire life studying cognitive psychology and was an expert in the field.
Isn’t a life of cognitive dissonance close enough?
Realscience has won an award!!??
Looking forward to the outcome of Anthony’s attendance at this event.
With regard to Godwin’s Law (see comment from Barry Woods) here is another example of this law (if it is a law). That is the inevitability of someone sooner or later describing a view with which they disagree as ‘religious’. It is quite common on this site to find comments referring to AGW as a ‘religion’. Why people have to use the word ‘religion’ in this context is a bit baffling. After all, lots of people would regard Marxism in the same way but it is unlikely that they would call it a religion. And then there are the inevitable, highly misinformed, references to the Inquisition.
DirkH
I was quoting John Cook!! – his words not mine
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/calling-all-uk-skeptics-free-talk-with-97-bias/#comment-1687066
Will Cook be posing for pictures in his SS uniform?
It’s no good running around wasting time and money on an event that may be all talk and no answers.Check out how much time will be allowed for questions first.
The link to the organiser is here.
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dogma-vs-consensus-letting-the-evidence-speak-on-climate-change-tickets-12288231431?ref=ebtnebregn
Sorry direct link doesn’t work,use the contact button at bottom of page.
Don’t worry. Anthony’s amazing ‘300’ abs can deflect even armor piercing tank rounds. hahahahaha
But seriously, what really disarms is that Anthony listens and behaves like a reasonable human being, whereas Cook, Mann, Lewandowsky and Nuccitelli come across as angry, smug, intolerant, dogmatic whingers with delusions of grandeur. Get a little of that distinction on the BBC, and boy howdy, things could turn south for the ’cause’ in a hurry.
Remember Gavin Schmidt’s appearance on the Stossel show, wherein he walked off the set to avoid sharing a stage with Dr. Roy Spencer? As bad as it looked, there may have been some perverse cost-benefit self awareness in Gavin’s decision to act like a petulant child on national television. Maybe deep down in his psyche, he didn’t want to be compared with Dr. Spencer, who comes across as a competent, kind, confident and a happy person to boot. The ‘team’ needs to maintain a public narrative of its intellectual superiority over us Neanderthal deniers and it needs the press on board to do this. Gavin might have realized he risked torpedoing that narrative with his own arrogant smugness or even with obvious discomfort at simply hearing a reasoned voice from the other side, in a forum where he had no Bore Hole to flush away offending ideas and words.
Make sure and get video.
“This sustained campaign is merely the latest episode in over 20 years of attacks on the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.”
The latest attack on the consensus being that waged by the Earth itself, and it’s stubborn refusal to actually heat.
There was a 97% consensus the earth flat. There was a 97% consensus that travelling over 35mph would cause one to burst into flames due to friction. Prior to Neils Bohr there was a 97% consensus that a career in physics was waste of time because there was nothing more to know (except for that pesky black body problem but that was probably nothing). I could go on so excuse me if I’m not impressed by consensus.
Just hand out some buttons:
Argumentum ad populum!
2+2=5 !
Alba says:
Why people have to use the word ‘religion’ in this context is a bit baffling.
Regarding eco-religion, Crichton nails it:
We have a spotless sun today.
This is a job for the ‘Dark Lord’ – Has he put himself forward as a potential speaker or debater ?
auralay says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:21 am
“I have just booked both. Very excited at the thought of seeing a legendary giant of the climate change world. Guess I can put up the presence of Cook and Mann for that!”
==============================================================
Nicely put!
(Take notes. I’ll look for your impressions/observations in comments.)
Assuming the reviews conducted by the SkS team are unbiased, it’s fair to say the following about the findings of Cook et al. (2013):
1. Of the 11,944 abstracts reviewed, the majority (7,930 or 66.4%) were found to have no position on the cause of global warming.
2. Of the 4,014 abstracts that were found to hold a position, the reviewers found:
i) a 97.1% implied consensus that humans are a cause of recent global warming;
ii) a 24.6% explicit consensus that humans are a cause of recent global warming;
iii) and a 1.6% explicit consensus that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
I frequently cite the 1.6% consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming.
Tom Wysmuller says:
July 16, 2014 at 4:59 am
Of course, there is plenty of time to invite a speaker from the Heartland Institute for this event.
This way there will be true academic discourse available for attendees. But I am told that this doesn’t exist in the UK any more. I hope to be proven wrong by the University of Bristol.
==================================================================
Sorry, you can forget about that. Bristol employed Lewandowsky, for heaven’s sake.
Just flung a few funds to help out with the trip. Bristol is well worth a visit – enjoy your visit.
I admire your fortitude in planning to spend time with this lot of science perverters. Hopefully you’ll be able to score a few points!
There’s a possibility that I might be passing through — en route to another conference — for a brief visit with relatives that week. It would be really neat to meet up with other skeptics.
Careful, now. This could all be a Lewandowsky plot. You could become featured in Recursive Fury 2.
@ lucia liljegren
Megabus also allows you to books seats on some ordinary train runs from London to Bristol. My husband and I and two sons travelled from Bristol to London for a total of GB 80 pounds (one way – a relative drove us to Bristol from London). Ordinary fares can run higher than that per person one way, so this was a tremendous bargain.
You all noticed how regardless of facts and science, the AGW train continues, defying all odds of sanity… You read that Obama’s USA influence is waning in a servile media preparing the next wars by charging the White House of indecision and next welcoming Clinton militarist agenda as a “renaissance” of the US… Meanwhile Obama’s administration’s very busy training ISIL in Jordan in 2012, teleguiding Neofascist groups in Kiev and destroying all Europeans economy links with Russia in order to promote their own free trade.
This is no coincidence. This is the globalist agenda at work. More misery, state control will result of this. Watch out…
Going to be in Bristol the week before darn it
Anth0ny:
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help your visit to the West Country.
I am amazed at how quickly things have changed.
In 2008 I attended a Climate Event in Bath that was to be addressed by Jonathon Porritt. Prior to the event I asked to be allowed to speak and was told that if I attended I would be allowed to ask a question. Porritt brought an IPCC Author to answer technical questions on his behalf, and his address said nothing. Indeed, the meeting Chairman asked Porritt a pointed question as a method to obtain anything of substance from him. As far as I could ascertain I was the only climate realist who attended.
Now, Climate Events are to be held in nearby Bristol and notable climate realists want to travel from around the world to attend. The info. says tickets are limited so I will not apply for one because my health issues may prevent me from attending in September and I would not want to waste a ticket. But I will do what I can to assist attendees if asked because I think all climate realists need to unite in effective use of the opportunity.
Richard
Was that, then, 97.1% of 4,014 abstracts? BTW, who decided which were the relevant papers that made up the 11,900+ set? And, based on yesterdays post, how many of the papers were just rewrites of the same paper, over and over again, by the same authors? Note that Professor Mann has published over 160 papers. Were they all in the 11,900+ set?
Anthony – first, thank you for all the work involved in running this site, and all the other effort you apply.
Second, while in Bristol make sure to go to Harvey’s fro dinner, and tour their museum. You’ll also have plenty of time between the two lectures to visit God’s Own Country, which is just across the Severn. You’ll also be able to visit Somerset (the Levels are no longer flooded), Devon and Cornwall. Maybe even visit the Cotswolds.
I look forward to your reports form the field.
Alas, I’ll be in Australia that month. But I’ll try to make sure someone gets in and asks the right questions.
19 September 2014
23 September 2014
Any chance for snow in Bristol in September?
“The event will run from 6 pm – 7.30 pm. Please ensure you are seated by 6 pm.”
1½ hrs is not much time. Though I wish all the skeptics my best, my guess is that the event will be so closely scripted that no one will lay a glove on either Mann or Cook. Questions will probably be by writing only and chosen at (cough) “random.”
Traveling to Bristol just to hear Cook (and/or Mann) speak to a fawning, compliant Green audience would be a pity. You NEED to contact a local TV station to tape the Q&A after the talks (otherwise these fellows will just slip away from tough questions like a pair of slippery eels in the Avon River).
Do take the time to explore Bristol’s rich history, from early port days to the pirates of R.L. Stevenson to the engineering brilliance of Brunel. And do some serious pub-hopping with your sceptic friends! For the w/e, drive to Devon & Cornwall and/or to Wales (some very serious history on coal mining and smelting N. of Cardiff).
Kurt in Switzerland
I think that if a lot of climate realists are coming to this event, we should also try to have a meeting independent of the Cabot talks; I live in Bristol not far from this venue and have booked my tickets for both talks. What do others think? Could we book a church hall or something between the two talks just for a catch-up or something? I shall be in Australia from next Monday till end of Aug, but would like to hear what others think of this idea.
Anthony-do you or anyone here have connections in the area that would allow YOU to speak while you are there.? Perhaps provide a venue for you to hold a “rebuttal” seminar after theirs? I can’t imagine them fighting against a chance for the good people of Bristol to hear both sides of the issue and decide for themselves. 🙂
Heavens above, Bristol used to be one of Britain’s top quality universities – first Lewandowsky and now the anti science fascists! What are they thinking?
Relics of the Roman Warm Period can be visited in the nearby Bath
“The magnificent bath-house attracted visitors from across the Roman Empire.”
Does anyone know if there will be live streaming or a recording (clandestine needed if nothing official).
Anyone that mann may recognise should sit as near to the front as possible so mann can see you laughing.
I don’t know; will Al Gore be in attendance?
Excellent news you’re coming to blighty, Mr. Watts
Someone should start a ‘climate camp’ (one for ‘climate realists’) near Bristol. Could be interesting. You could be a keynote speaker. In any event I’m sure you’ll find you have many friend this side of the pond.
richardscourtney says:
July 16, 2014 at 9:03 am
///////////////////////////////////
Sorry to hear that you are not well.
I wish you all the best for a speedy recovery.
“Dr. Michael E Mann is Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University,:
Michael Mann is “distinguished” all right, just not in the way they think.
Yeah, I wouldn’t shout it from the rooftops, Anthony. The UK National Domestic Extremism Unit considers Climate Change sceptics as fair game:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8453117.stm
This article was from the good ol’ pre Snowden days when the police could make impressive statements, safe in the knowledge that their sources were keeping it zipped; loose lipped statements like “[we have] a good background knowledge of climate change issues in relation to criminal investigations.”
So sceptics are considered a threat to national security in the UK, not because of Climategate or any perceived criminal behaviour but evidenced by the data trawling that (I presume) was being done before it broke.
“Climate denial organisations such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation …”
Would be good if Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser could request attendance to respond to that charge. If the GWPF requested an opportunity to take the podium, the (inevitable) refusal would be symbolic.
Like that Stossel interview mentioned above …. great tip one that one Mickey Reno as I had not seen it – thanks
@ Caroline,
Having a separate venue at which to meet fellow skeptics is a nice idea. Not sure of my own plans yet, but this would give an extra incentive for me to detour to Bristol en route to my conference.
Hoping Algore is not planning to come to either Bristol or Norway this September 🙂
Anthony, I would strongly suggest that you start with “softer” questions – perhaps something even a lukewarmist might ask – such as:
“With such strong (almost unanimous) current agreement on the subject of climate change, how much should we all be concerned with the matter of confirmation bias, as science continues to progress in this arena? Will scientists only find what they’re looking for? What if some evidence presents itself that flies in the face of the current theory/hypothesis? Do you worry about any of this? ”
I think the way he answers questions such as these will be very telling, and will likely open the door for more aggressive questioning.
Traveling thousands of miles by a petroleum fueled aircraft to talk for an hour and a half about a pseudo-psychology paper intended to convert more humans into green zombies is not hypocritical at all! Ask why it wasn’t a 100% consensus and where are the papers that found that humans have no influence on climate.
This will be a Soviet-Vyshinsky style show trial. I would advise extreme caution from Anthony and any other high profile skeptics. Some nasty ambushes will no doubt be prepared. I would nonetheless like to attend of it was possible since Bristol was the last University that I graduated from.
Mr. Watts for what it is worth, my advice is go and have a good holiday in England. But don’t go to the events at U of B. Yo will be eaten alive by pretentious and pompous Brits.
Dogma yields consensus…
@John Cook: Some practical advice for your field research:
Be sure to swap in your PzVDs for PzIIIJs. The 3Js, unlike the 4Ds, can at least sort of stand up to the T-34s and KVs, and are quite adequate to clean up the soviet infantry. Then, after you have conquered Russia, upgrade to PzVGs — and include at least a couple of KonigsTigers to crack the M26s you will encounter when invading America.
Forget about air superiority. The Amis will shoot holes in you down the line when you most need strength. So include only a couple of FW190a units for defensive purposes and back them up with mobile AAs, and keep them upgraded. Use this to protect your artillery (though you will lose some).
And don’t invest in Jagdpanzers; you will find pure armor to be a better investment.
Hope this helps.
Good luck, Watts. You are one of a kind, that’s for sure.
“UPDATE: It’s a double feature, Mann will be there too, see below”
Ah, now I understand the title of the event. Dogma vs. consensus
I could not work out who “dogma” was supposed to refer to, now we know.
They’re dogmatic zealots, or zealous doctrinaires. Those would be better terms. Or frenzied bandwaggoneers.
In that part of the world, the Roman Baths at Bath, and Stonehenge are absolute musts. There is other ancient relic stuff around there as well. Plenty else to see in the UK dependant on your interests. Though I would guess, you’ll be flying into London and getting the train to Bristol. Then hire a car and make sure you visit Bath and Stonehenge. Visit Buckingham Palace, tough out the crowds and watch the changing of the guard, a bit drawn out but can be impressive if you haven’t seen that sort of thing before.
Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament where we keep many of our crooks, fraudsters, mentally unhinged, and the just plain deluded. Yes, I don’t have a high opinion of the right honorable members of parliament.
Train to Bath is probably better than driving, and the train from London to Bristol will go through Bath, though whether it stops there is another matter.
Anthony,
FYI,I have just registered for the two Bristol events and if you do come over will be pleased to meet you again. You may remember that my wife, Kathleen, and I met you in Brussels on Climatgate’s Eve. I am not sure what your plans will be but if I can do anything to help let me know nearer the time. It would be great if some sort of gathering of skeptics could be organised at the over that weekend.
F. Ross says:
“The event will run from 6 pm – 7.30 pm. Please ensure you are seated by 6 pm.”
1½ hrs is not much time. Though I wish all the skeptics my best, my guess is that the event will be so closely scripted that no one will lay a glove on either Mann or Cook. Questions will probably be by writing only and chosen at (cough) “random.”
====
1h15 for propaganda; 10min for a few pre-planted “questions” that let the speakers reply with more propaganda.
I doubt there will be any time for any meaningful questions. Cook is better at PR and propaganda than science. Don’t expect him to open himself up for any serious questions from someone knowing the subject better than he does ( which would not be hard ).
Also EVERYONE expect some of his Gestapo officer friends to be keeping an eye discussions here. Any suggestions made here will be pre-warning them of what to expect at the meeting.
These guys only _pretend_ to do science but they are serious about the politics. Don’t expect to rock up with with a couple of well placed questions and force him to admit his paper was nothing but Lew paper.
Anthony,
Thanks for bringing this event to our attention.
I’m a physics graduate from Bristol. Class of 1999. I’m disappointed and saddened in how Bristol has become a cheerleader for AGW over the last decade, and as a result, have drifted away from the university.
Just the title of the first event “dogma vs consensus”, regardless of what you believe about climate change, is shocking to any conscious scientist.
I’ve registered and will be attending both events. Let me know if you’d like to meet in advance or after the event for a drink in a local pub. If it’s still there, I recommend the White Bear.
This isn’t even a science debate!
A study about how many people agree with vague points possibly made in other studies has absolutely NO bearing on the science itself.
Science is not a democracy.
Democracy is not a science.
REPLY: Hence my sage advice earlier on. ~ Evan
Bristol’s only an hour away but I’ve used all my leave on romantically proposing to the fiancé and visiting poor, deathly father.
So someone pin the Cookie Monster down for me:
What is the 97% consensus for? Any manmade warming or newsworthy manmade warming?
If it’s the latter then he is irrelevant.
And it isn’t the former
It is a near certainty Watts Up With That will be cited in Cook’s talk as the most outlandish of the climate skeptic blogs. If Anthony is allowed to ask a question — he may not be if he raises his hand and Cook doesn’t acknowledge his presence — first he should identify himself as “Anthony Watts of the Watts Up With That” blog, and his question should be simple, short, and to the point; for example, “Why haven’t the general circulation models predicted the current pause in global warming?”
The skeptical grass roots are rapidly growing in their territory.
Just hand out copies of the bladeless input data for the latest hockey stick sensation and Mann’s enthusiastic promotion of it:
http://s6.postimg.org/jb6qe15rl/Marcott_2013_Eye_Candy.jpg
That’s not confirmation bias. That’s Enron.
David Smith says:
July 16, 2014 at 5:08 am
Just stand outside the venue handing people copies of that infamous picture of John-boy in Nazi uniform, with text that explains the photo came from Cookie’s own site. The text should also highlight the obviously deliberate link between the use of the name ‘deniers’ and odious Holocaust deniers. That should make attendees think about the agenda-driven odd-ball they are coming to see.
Be sure to put reference links on that flyer so folks can verify the accuracy of what is being shown and don’t add anything. Let Cooke’s words and images do all of the talking.
Wouldn’t present it in any way that would imply you are trying to discredit him. Better to call it a “Fact Sheet” and let the facts speak for themselves.
Just thinking out loud.
Does anybody have an idea how many people will be in attendance? The linked web page says there is an audience limit, but I can’t see a number.
I wonder how Cook might respond if he thinks there is a relatively large number of his “cognitive psychology subjects” in the audience. Does he moderate his presentation to avoid raising heckles? Is he encouraged to go on the attack from his vantage point of the podium and control of the meeting? Does he lose his nerve and make an excuse to withdraw?
Also, will his “cognitive psychology subjects” be able to keep their cool as he is trotting out his version of the Recursive Flim Flam Meme? Do they sit quietly and hope he’ll grant them an opportunity to respond (which might never come)? Do they lose their patience and heckle with calls of “rubbish” and the like? If there is heckling and rises above a certain level, it could result in something of an own goal.
If he thinks there could be an ambush in the making, I’d see an excuse and withdrawal as likely.
What about doing something that actually works like starting a political party or at least passing out leaflets to the attendees with some questions to ask. The Freedom and Prosperity Party in Australia, formerly the Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party, successfully did that to Al Gore when he spoke in Australia, did they not?
Freedom and Prosperity may not have won any elections but they did have a considerable influence. That’s what has been needed here, a skeptical party to compete and pressure the establishment. Had skeptical bloggers here formed a political party years ago like they did over in Oz you might be winning the good fight by now. Instead we get to look at absolutely crazy news stuff like this…
Former Reagan official predicts Republican skeptics will be ‘mummed’ by climate change — Monday, July 14, 2014
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060002783
Senior GOP statesman George Shultz urged Republicans on Friday to be proactive on climate change, calling it an “obvious risk” to the economy and national security.
The former secretary of State for President Reagan says that rising temperatures could be addressed through an inexpensive “insurance policy,” similar to Reagan’s support for restrictions on gases that degraded the ozone layer in the 1970s and ’80s.
In this case, Shultz supports a revenue-neutral carbon tax that would begin small and slowly increase. He often points to melting sea ice in the Arctic as a sign of changes to the climate.
“I think the people who say the climate isn’t changing are going to be mummed by reality,” Shultz said in a webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Climate CoLab.
“It’s changing, and there’s all sorts of evidence out there,” he added. “And it isn’t just the science and it isn’t one-off events like a hot summer or something. With the Arctic Ocean being created, that’s a trend line. These huge melts all over the place, that’s a trend. Greenland is becoming green. So the climate is changing, and the most plausible explanation is the CO2 explanation. So I come back to President Ronald Reagan’s approach. Why don’t we take out an insurance policy?”
Shultz, 93, first proposed a carbon tax last year, joining a handful of other conservative economists, analysts and former lawmakers who believe that pricing the gas can benefit their political party, address environmental concerns and end energy subsidies. A condition of their support includes enacting tax cuts on income and businesses.
Can a Republican president push a carbon tax? …
Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina who now heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative, believes there could be more room for the GOP to consider the tax plan after the November elections. Better yet, he predicted that climate action could accelerate if a Republican president is elected in 2016.
“The Great Recession is letting up. Barack Obama is going to be a lame duck after … November. So Obama rejectionism is going to decline,” Inglis said on the webinar. “We’ve got an opportunity at that point to push forward on a very different proposal, different than cap and trade, and give conservatives the opportunity to actually lead on this.”
He added later: “I know this is sort of a strange thing to say, but I wonder if we’d be further along on climate action if Mitt Romney had won” the presidency in 2012. “Perhaps it’s only a Republican who could touch climate change. Because then people will think, ‘OK, he or she’s not overreacting. They’re not going with apocalyptic visions.'” …
David Smith, no prob.
Jordan, about twelve hours after the event was first announced on Twitter, there were a little more than 600 tickets left. I don’t know how many tickets were “sold” in the period before I checked, but that should give you an idea of the room size.
I’ve registered too. Bristol is an easy drive for me! But can’t get the link to the other lecture on 24 Sept (Mann) to work. A pity. No doubt there’ll be plenty of discussion here about how best to react to the Cook lecture. WUWT covered this in some detail not so long ago, so I’ll get searching.
You can register for the second event here:
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cabot/events/2014/479.html
September 2014 UK weather should be very fine.
“Free lecture”?
Churches give “free lectures” every Sunday, but they can cost you in pocket-change, taxes, tithes, prospects (employment, inheritance), fines, liberties, and ultimately, your life.
Thanks Bandon. Over 600 attendees is a lot more than I had imagined. It might be a better environment for measured expression of antipathy to bad points as-and-when.
Jordan, I’m curious how many people they actually expect to attend. They apparently are having it in a room which can hold over 600 people, but who knows how many will actually show up?
The get-together is described as “Dogma vs. consensus: Letting the evidence speak on climate change”. Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, according to Wiki. There is nothing dogmatic about skepticism. No one is telling anyone what to think, but instead to think for themselves. The warmists rely on everyone adhering to the dogma of CAGW, even in the face in incontrovertible evidence that there is a problem with the foundations of their cause. I can’t recall any claim so baseless as the 97% claim that has been used so often as a club against a perceived enemy. The warmists are so invested in the 97% claim that they can’t give it up. It is a leg on the tripod of beliefs that sustain their religion. The models might not be quite right, and the weather and global temperatures might not cooperate, but as long as they can keep their consensus, the church of global warming will live on.
Good luck, Watts. You are one of a kind, that’s for sure.
Nobody beats the Rev!
Sleepalot says at July 16, 2014 at 3:24 pm
If Cook and Mann don’t show due to an expected preponderance of skeptics, then Anthony… the podium is yours!
Shame. I can’t go but I did send this email though.
” I have just read your description of this event and I am appalled that a so called academic institution has used the expressions “climate deniers” and “climate denial organisations”. This is about as untrue and as unscientific/ unacademic as you can get as well as being utterly meaningless in any scientific debate. These expressions are used primarily as a deliberate slur to imply, by inference, that climate change sceptics are as bad as or the same as holocaust deniers.
You really display the feebleness of your position when you have to resort to such terminology which has no place on any university website and I would suggest that if you want to maintain any academic credibility that you rewrite your description and remove such offensive, unscientific and inaccurate terminology.’
M. Courtney says “Don’t worry. There is hope for another.” (life, that is.)
And there it is! I would be ashamed to make a living parasiting others while feeding them lies.
Theists have no such problems.
heh- if you want to contribute the appropriate gravitas to the event, please consider giving the news reporters something of major interest that will overshadow the silliness.
for example:
try to to that before cook gets to quoting monckton about how the consensus is actually 100%.
(cook seems to have anticipated that from the outset, that skeptics would end up claiming the only distinction was the C and not the AGW. now it makes no sense to dispute his claim of 97% with a refutation of 100%, doesn’t it?)
Anthony,
Please be circumspect on your trip to Bristol.
I hope you have the logistical and tactical support on the ground in England of either BH blog’s host and denizens and/or the GWPF!!!
John
Caroline K says:
July 16, 2014 at 9:52 am
If there is some sort of pub meet planned I’m in. Willing to throw some Canadian dollars into the pot.
Does anybody know how he has come to be described as “Distinguished”? Maybe it is self-bestowed, like the Nobel prize some of the warmists have claimed! Although, to be fair, he has distinguished himself with some apparently fraudulent scientific publications.
Re: Alba says:
July 16, 2014 at 7:04 am
Back when I was at university (1960s) communism/Marxism was commonly referred to as a secular religion.
Ian M
By Sept 19 the 2015 Arctic sea ice mininum will be already clear. If this is an upset for the Cookite CAGW dogmatists, and quite high, then this will be a useful point to make to sow doubt in AGW believers present who may be close to “losing their religion”.
Just go with all Tiger IIs, why bother with all the other stuff. Take out the T-34s well before they have any range.
As far as Jagdpanzers go: The Elefant really shone in Kursk, earning a K/D ratio of 13:1, making it one of the most successful Tank Destroyers of the war. Pity for Hitler that there were so few.
Don’t forget to ask how many attendees got to the meeting via low carbon footprint public transport, or in cattle class on the plane.
I look forward to the day when ALL the people who attend one of these talks turn out to be skeptics/realists. And while it’s underway, they all realize it…
Just my little fantasy. 🙂
Enjoy yourself, Anthony, looks like there’ll be a few with you on both occasions.
Neither of those blokes discuss anything!
One spews nonsense with copious green spittle; the other pretends to be a temple priestess channeling CO2 alarmism from trance like states.
What? Tiger IIs only get four space moves per turn. Very very slow! Yes, they make for terrific open country tanks providing long distance power and support; but slicing distance attacks need faster tanks.
The Jagdpanzers, especially the D’s and above provide both power and speed. The Elefants have terrific firepower, (as in it is a very bad idea to let them shoot your equipment), but are light on armor compared to the advanced tanks.
For all those confused by these exchanges; they’re discussing some of the game pieces in a computer game called ‘Panzer General’; one can play either one or both sides in the game.
You mainstream skeptics miss something.
Steve Goddard is a lark. A weirdo egomaniac CIA mind control conspiracy theorist divorced completely and willfully from civil society.
You mainstream skeptics miss something.
This very week on WUWT is featured Tim Ball, a man who with a convicted son/daughter rapist Oliver Manuel, published a book called Sky Dragons. It played right into Al Gore’s stereotype of skeptics as dysfunctional freaks.
You mainstream skeptics miss something.
Climate alarm is now sustained by partisanship in America between City and State.
There are too many violent gang members in big cities, so we all want to take away guns. There are too few police in middle America so more guns are needed to shoot violent criminals who are turning psychopathic lately, car jacking, home invasion, honor killings with bullets flying into crowds.
Please stop being so tribal. Love everyone. That means to no label either yourself or others as being some mere cartoon character.
You mainstream skeptics miss something.
God is Love.
It doesn’t matter how you define God.
We are a social animal.
We are meant to get along.
But you must call bad people “bad.”
At least for a day or two.
You mainstream skeptics miss something.
I’m not really sure yet what it really is.
But NYC is the real internet.
And nobody here gives a flying fuck about climate.
Could people hold off sending angry emails to the Cabot institute – ref ‘climate deniers’ for just a little while please.
Can’t explain why just yet
ATheoK and Jeff Alberts:
If our host is interested in tanks then while in the West Country he could visit the Tank Museum at Bovington, Dorset. The museum is much better than any game, and he may get to see a real Tiger II giving a demonstration in the outdoor arena.
The Bovington museum is well worth a visit whatever the day’s outdoor displays and I have been visiting more frequently than annually for several years. The annual Tank Fest is not to be missed by anybody, and on Tiger Day fans of Tiger Tanks can have a crash course including operation and maintenance. The only surviving swimming tank as used on D-Day is among the many unique exhibits at the museum.
Also, if such tanks are of interest, Trebah Gardens are very near where I live here in Cornwall, and one can stand on the remains of its concrete harbour built to load Americans and their equipment to Omaha Beach. Military Day at Trebah is an annual event held to honour them and some members of the present US armed forces usually attend.
Richard
George Steiner says:
July 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm
Mr. Watts for what it is worth, my advice is go and have a good holiday in England. But don’t go to the events at U of B. Yo will be eaten alive by pretentious and pompous Brits.
======================================================================
Hmmmph. Nothing like a bit of gross stereotyping to start the day with eh?
I agree with PHLOGISTON who suspected this to be an ambush.
A large group of academics .politicians and industrialists have turned a reasonable theory into a goldmine . Whilst others, from James Watt to Bill Gates , have used original thought and business acumen to create fortunes and generally improve the quality of life for everyone , these have enriched themselves at the expense of the public who have received nothing in return .
The sceptics and “deniers” are thorns to be plucked from their sides.
The BBC , Guardian and others will be briefed, Remember the famous Oxford meeting where Bishop “Soapy Sam” Wilberforce tried to destroy Huxley’s defence of Darwin. Instead of scientific arguments he used dogma and then personal abuse.
By all means go , but don’t expect Old World courtesy at the events.
Forewarned is forearmed .
Those pictures of Cook just totally spook me.
If both Cook and Mann are there, does that make it a “Science Fiction Double Feature”?
The charitable interpretation–and probably the correct one–is that the initials of his organization suggested a dress-up prank.
What? Tiger IIs only get four space moves per turn. Very very slow! Yes, they make for terrific open country tanks providing long distance power and support; but slicing distance attacks need faster tanks.
Yeah, but you only do the Tiger II upgrades to units with leaders. That gives them a movement of 6, which is sufficient for operational purposes. Once you scramble the Americans’ face with those, you can strike for the deep objectives with your Panthers; there will be nothing left to oppose them they can’t handle.
Yes, most of your upgrades will be Panther-Gs, but you need at least two, preferably three, King Tigers to made the initial attacks on the American M26s (followed up by your panthers). Otherwise your Panthers will take unaffordable losses in the initial shot. Artillery won’t help you much here, and you need that to take out the soft targets and crack the towns, anyway. You have to land and survive — and win — before you can deep strike anywhere. After that, it’s (relatively) easy (sort of).
The Jagdpanzers, especially the D’s and above provide both power and speed. The Elefants have terrific firepower, (as in it is a very bad idea to let them shoot your equipment), but are light on armor compared to the advanced tanks.
Yes, very pretty. But no overrun capability. There’s the rub. Give me pure armor every time. I’ll even sell off a tank destroyer if awarded one. And when landing, you must, Must, MUST have a high defense (preferably covered by mobile AA). Or there won’t be any power left alive. You are extremely vulnerable on those opening turns.
For all those confused by these exchanges; they’re discussing some of the game pieces in a computer game called ‘Panzer General’; one can play either one or both sides in the game.
Why, I am sure I have no idea what you are talking about. We are merely attempting to assist RF Cook in his field research.
(P.S., What I am saying applies to Pz General II. Savannah is a very tough nut to crack. And I only play hardcore: No saves. No do-overs. No milking the system for prototype units. No nothing. And Brilliant Victories ONLY — or else start it all over. I can knock off England, 1940, with virtually no losses.)
Just go with all Tiger IIs, why bother with all the other stuff. Take out the T-34s well before they have any range.
(@RF Cook: Mein . . . dickey old chum . . .)
Okay for a plan B, but arguably too expensive. 420 per upgrade rather than 300. But you must have two (preferably 3) to make the initial shots.
And T-34s are moot. It never comes to that. Brilliant Victories ONLY, no leisurely sojourns through Africa. In that case, none of that stuff is available for Russia.
That makes it very tough: the PzIVDs are essentially anti-infantry vehicles. You need them for France and England, when you hit Russia “downgrade” them to PzIIIJs for their higher defense and better anti-armor (which costs nothing). (Earlier I said IIIG’s. I meant IIIJs.)
Then at least you have a fighting chance against those T-34s — provided you can overwhelm them relatively quickly. Use your extra swag to “rent” whatever you need, don’t lose it, and sell it back afterwards.
When you go for America, sell off your bombers and any tank with less than three stripes and no leader. (8 to 10 remaining armor units should be sufficient.) Use this swag for your final upgrades, and you will have to suck it up and max. overstrength your armor (preferably everything) for the last two scenarios.
And BE SURE to follow this procedure: First overstrength two steps ONLY. Then upgrade. Then (and only then) overstrength the rest of the way. I play hardcore. Real losses along the way. I need every point of prestige I can swing. (You can’t count on getting a so-called “Liberator”.)
Sell off your old mobile AA and buy the new stuff. You’ll need up to six. (DON’T upgrade leaderless AA — ‘way cost-inefficient).
Hey, this is peer-review level stuff I’m selling you, here!
As far as Jagdpanzers go: The Elefant really shone in Kursk, earning a K/D ratio of 13:1, making it one of the most successful Tank Destroyers of the war. Pity for Hitler that there were so few.
But definitely not worth the wait. They put off Kursk a month on account of those things. If the attack had come in June, the Sovs. would have been at an extreme disadvantage (totally pants down) and might well have taken a tactical trashing to rival Izyum.
The charitable interpretation–and probably the correct one–is that the initials of his organization suggested a dress-up prank.
Yes, quite. For some reason the Brits seem prone to that. Even royalty #B^)
(But I can’t help it; I find some things impossible to resist.)
I will add that I don’t agree with all of Pz General II’s unit ratings and options. But it is a truly swell game with amazing staying power.
“rogerknights says:
July 17, 2014 at 8:04 am”
I should have been clearer. I was talking about the picture in the thread header. Either way though…
Thanks for the heads-up – I’ve got my tickets!
Now, I just need to get two sets of stocks and a job-lot of rotten tomatoes…
Events like these have been cancelled B4. I fear your trip may be for not.