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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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!