Many people wondered why I would travel halfway across the world to attend the Cook and Mann lectures. The answer to that question is: I decided to come on a whim (I also had not visited the UK since I started blogging) hoping that other more valuable meetings could occur. As I pointed out in my posting last Saturday there was little if anything new in the Cook lecture on Friday night and I don’t expect much new in the Mann lecture either. But, I also pointed out the importance of face-to-face communications in overcoming walls that can be built up in electronic communications.
There has been one other meeting thanks to the foresight of Nicholas Lewis and others; an extraordinary dinner meeting occurred on Sunday night, September 21st, at his home in Bath, UK. In attendance was a nearly equal balance of climate scientists and climate skeptics, some of whom were also scientists.
The photo of that Sunday night meeting is shown below.
Starting with the front row from left to right we have: Prof. Paul Valdes, of Bristol University, Prof. David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, David Holland independent climate and FOIA researcher, Prof. Ed Hawkins researcher at Reading University, myself, Prof. Ted Shepherd of Reading University, Prof. Tamsin Edwards, researcher at Bristol University. Top row from left to right: Prof. Richard Betts of the Met Office, Marcel Crok, Dutch freelance science writer and initiator of climatedialogue.org, David Rose of the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Prof. Michael Kelly of Technology at Cambridge University, and Nicholas Lewis independent climate scientist and our gracious host.
The evening’s discussion was spirited and in-depth, covering topics of climate sensitivity, scientific publishing, science policy, the surface record, and finding agreements amongst ourselves on the various topics that we discussed as well as many of the topics that are in contention.
Since the venue was under Chatham House Rule, I am not at liberty to discuss any of the particular conversations that I was involved with nor will I discuss the conversations of others. However, with prior approval of all participants involved we’ve all agreed to bending the rule slightly to show the photo and name the participants. I think it is important to do so, because I cannot recall any similar meeting. Our goal is to lead by example.
More than anything this meeting demonstrated that a group of people with diverse ideas and some levels of distrust due to heightened rhetoric can come together and have an intelligent, polite, and enlightening discussion. I felt it important that this historic meeting be noted and to let it serve as an example of cooperation and hope for more future meetings so that we can understand each other better.
I was honored to be there and I thank you all for your willingness to participate and have a respectful discussion. I give a special thanks to Nic Lewis for his choices, his hospitality, and his foresight in organizing this meeting. A special thanks also to Sarah Lewis for her hospitality, which made this gathering excellent and seamless.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m happy this meeting took place. If it helps lead us all to a point where rational, scientific discussion can begin to replace the current scaremongering and shouting (the UN conference and attendant headlines), then all to the good. Nothing is lost. That such a meeting took place in Bath, one of the world’s most beautiful cities, is even better. I hope Anthony got in a few days to sightsee, and took a trip down the road to Stonehenge.
I hope you put to rest the oil funded skeptics myth
An interesting combination of characters. Perhaps everyone there is willing to accept that their opponents act in good faith….. at least I hope that is the case. I note a lack of firebrands at the table, which is probably not a coincidence.
A table for 12? Big table.
“Perhaps everyone there is willing to accept that their opponents act in good faith….. ”
What I don’t accept is that the people at the dinner party ARE our opponents. (And I find the “skeptics and scientists” dichotomy implicit in the title unfortunate.)
It’s hard to get worked up about anything Tamsin or Richard Betts has done, isn’t it? They’re not liars are they? I might have missed a big alarmist paper or two of theirs, though. (Richard can seem hypersensitive and combative on Twitter, but that’s just as likely to be a function of the mistrust we all labor under.)
But I hasten to admit I don’t know all of the figures named, so I’d be curious to know which dinner guests are perceived as on the “other side”.
Good for you. I, on the other hand, don’t trust any of them to sit down and have a discussion. Least anything be taken out of context or appear that I have capitulated. I do realize that what you’ve done is important and civilized.
Excellent shadow conference in ye olde Roman towne. I am envious!
I see a lot of names there listed on that photo. Not familiar with all of them. OK, which is the bad guy (or gal) – lol
The title of the movie version could be ‘The Incident of the Curious Dozen’ or ‘Guess Who Came to Dinner’.
John
“At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed ever to reveal the identity, employer or political party of the person making a comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion of public policy and current affairs, as it allows people to express and discuss controversial opinions and arguments without suffering the risk of dismissal from their job, and with a clear separation from the opinion and the view of their employer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule
The Chatham House Rule does not proscribe you from discussing the conversations that were held, it only insists that you not identify the speakers. You are free to discuss what was said, just not in a way that identifies by whom.
Thank you Nicholas Lewis for hosting and the 11 others for attending. Almost every day I look to WUWT and other climate blogs for some good news about genuine conversation and civil dialogue between those with points of view that can’t possibly be as polarized as the media describe and promote. Hooray for some good news! Discussing the topic of climate sensitivity will, IMO, bring the two sides much closer and help return climate science to science.
Anthony, my question, without quoting or identifying who said what, is this: did you come away with a sense that perhaps there is now a better understanding of the skeptic position, namely that the so called d*n**rs understand that there has been warming, that man is responsible for some of the increase and that the real disagreement is about magnitude?
Tom, I don’t believe that the anthropogenic CO2 portion of total atmospheric CO2 can be tagged as responsible for any part of measured warming. 1) The warming is within natural variation. 2) The tiny increase in CO2 does not have the chops to increase global air column temperatures nor increase ocean temperatures. The additional downwelling heat from just the anthropogenic CO2 increase would not be enough to change global temperatures in a significant way. Longwave infrared cannot be responsible for sea surface temperature rise. The second that weak source of warming hits the surface (not enough energy to penetrate to depth) of the water, it is evaporated away. And if the air is heated over land by this tiny portion, night time radiative cooling would send it packing.
There must be a stronger source of increasing temperatures. I think Bob Tisdale is on the right track and has identified a very large player in this game.
And what else could warmer temperatures at night but not during the day be a signature of? Peter, you fail in proper investigation because you fail to attempt, with all due course leaving no stone unturned, to disprove your theory. Significance is not what you do to discredit the null hypothesis. It is what you do to retain it. Lest you error.
Example: In NE Oregon we have experienced a spat of normal day time temperatures but warmer than average night time temperatures. 5 weeks ago we had hotter than average day time temperatures but colder than average night time temperatures. Care to guess why?
And even if anthropogenic, these types of temperature oddities are well within the natural variation range.
The CET ratio of min/max 1878 to 2013 has a flat trend.
Man’s influence on climate is more than any minor (if any ) CO2 increase. Certainly man made changes to our environment such as deforestation, building of large cities etc must be considered as part of how we influence the planet. But again, it all about the magnitude, or lack thereof, of those changes versus natural variations.
My observations have shown me higher humidity levels slow nighttime cooling rates and lower humidity levels increase the nighttime cooling rates.
The opinion that man has contributed to climate change is an unproven assumption unexceptable as real science. It may very well be true but if so it can not be caused by an increase in co2 which is an effect of temperature rise not a cause.
Even if one excepts this conjecture, the very small possible human contribution is too small to measure.
If you start with an assumption not falsifiable, you end with a result not scientific.
Tom, the climate scientists at that meeting already had a pretty good understanding of the skeptics, through interactions on blogs and on twitter.
Sound great. Thanks for the good news, and congratulations, A.
As the Carbon Dioxide caused AGW loses it’s credibility they are beginning to renegotiate their positions.
About time! Soon we will be dealing with Human caused “Global Cooling”. It never ends. Time for real Science and an end to pseudo-science political action committees. pg
I’m sorry Anthony but I could never in good conscience break bread with those associated with the deception of AGW, you have a stronger digestive system than I do.
The Jean S post at Climate Audit highlights the duplicity at the heart of the AGW scare. The injustice that the whole scheme has perpetrated is awful, holding back development of third world counties, diverting monies, that could and should have gone to helping those less fortunate, to fund hair-brained alternative energy investments, I don’t need to continue, these issues have been discussed to the death.
Looks a little like the last supper. Which one is Judas Iscariot?
It is very powerful to meet with “the other side” and let them see you are not a paid, political activist or a radical. This sort of meeting can lead to a softening by the global warming alarmist crowd and might even eventually lead to some one changing sides. Anthony you are a hero.
Congratulations Anthony, looks like you’re making a break through.
Until real scientists get together and actually discuss this study of climate we will never get shut of the activists.
I applaud your successful outreach, which I believe comes down to your personal conduct and the way you run this blog.
Of course Chatham House rules or no, the fanatics may attempt to make life miserable for the fellows formerly considered consensus members.
But once this discussion takes off, CAGW is over, those who remain belligerently certain of, The days of Warmings Return, will gradually be ignored, just like the cargo cult extremists.
Isn’t it remarkable that such a cross-the-board meeting was instigated by climate sceptics? Would Dr. Mann have taken such an initiative?
It says something about the strength of one’s position, to reach out and include. It also highlights the reluctance of many alarmists to take part in face-to-face discussions and meetings. A rather defensive stance, IMO.
Nic Lewis for the Nobel Peace Prize!!!
+1
It was a wonderful time with Anthony for the four days, in pubs and without! Andrew Montford couldn’t make it to the Sunday event at Nic’s but he did though come down to Bristol yesterday and was able to meet AW for the first time. We’re all richer for the experience.
Excellent report, Anthony! Having lived & worked in the UK in the early & mid-1990s, I have cherished memories of Bath. Lovely place with stunning architecture, I’m envious.
I do hope that others seek out lively and honest debate on the science of climate. I’ve engage politicians of all kinds (having worked for US Rep. Jim Inhofe when he first ran for the US Congress), prominent university professors (UC’s Dr. David Archer is a lovely fellow), and journalists, and I’ve rarely had anyone run me off for my own views on these things, which are complex.
Such conversations are enriching, I’m glad that you made a very important impression on our Brit friends. Cheers, Charles the DrPH
Hard on the problem, soft on the people – to borrow a phrase.
My respect for Anthony has doubled, from a very high place. Respect to all – hats off to all those involved!
Whilst not always immediately successful, sometimes when folks go the extra mile long term, lasting gains can be made. Kudos to Nic for initiating and hosting the meet and the same for to the attendees for agreeing to be named, they now have a responsibilities, the first of which is to strictly adhere to their agreed version of the Chatham House rules.
The benefits of such meets will be many fold, but very few will ever be directly attributed.
Very welcome, positive news, much needed in the face of some frantic and at times bordering on the inane politicising of science.
Well done Anthony and all of you.
You have supped in one of my favorite places in Jane Austin’s wonderful novels (dare I say Novelettes?). In my youthful unsatiable desire to sample the life-story of others tucked away as I was in remote Wallowa County, Oregon, I stumbled upon the first novel published in America (North and South). Ben Franklin’s press released “Pamela; Virtue Rewarded” by British author Samuel Richardson. While I fall far short of such a title, it was great fun to read a novelette titled “Pamela”, a bit steamy for its time and a delicious short read. I didn’t want Grandma to find out I was reading such a book so kept it tucked in my dresser.
I think to meet with people you have been so openly critical of takes a lot of confidence. You are able to do it because you have never let your attacks get over-personal and your conscience is clear. The fact that they will meet with you shows the reverse, that they have to come to respect your viewpoints over the years and cannot deny that they contain truth, even if they find it hard to accommodate your viewpoint.
Michael Mann could never be able to meet at such a gathering for the reverse reason, he is becoming an irrelevance.
Good move