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.
Tamsin Edwards, Richard Betts, Ed Hawkins, etc are not on the other ‘side’. If there are ‘sides’ to be had. They are on the side of adults, professionals everywhere and reasonable civil discussion and the very important – nice to meet people, put a name to a face and have a chat.
THEY are at risk of considerable blowback from some (and only some) scientists and a whole bunch of climate concerned activists.
Richard is a big boy and can look after himself ( Head of Climate Impacts, Met Office, etc)- we chatted last night about this in the pub last night), but Ed and Tamsin are early- ish career scientists taking a (potential) big risk (sadly) professionally – I really hope all of their colleagues cheer them on.
I can feel the AGW Inquisition getting up to speed as I write , how long before this people will be made to publicly atone for their ‘sins’ and how many sack clothes and ashes will they required to don for their ‘heretical beliefs ‘
Whats interesting is the “Public” / “Private” mix. All “pro” AGW’s are Scientists on the public payroll.
All the skeptics are professionals in other areas looking at climate and thinking this is all a bit rubbish…. If i did this sort of work at my job………
Skiphil, at the Bish, on Chatham House. Note well his final paragraph.
e: the Nic Lewis group
UK readers will have a surer sense of the nuances of Chatham House Rule, but a couple of comments at WUWT have said that there is no prohibition on public discussion of what was discussed under CHR so long as nothing is attributed to persons or said in a way that could allow individual or organizational perspectives to be inferred:
jim2 September 23, 2014 at 7:01 pm
“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
Reply
JJ September 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm
[Anthony]: “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.”
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.
From First Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson:
Just substitute ‘dissolve this Union or to change its republican form’ with ‘repudiate AGW or to change its catastrophic form,’ and you get some notion of what it means to have the fair and open discussions I would like to see.
Perhaps this is an opening to such an exchange?
Will we see a website devoted to such an open exchange?
I think that it’s more important to hear that you all had an “intelligent, polite, and enlightening discussion” rather than to hear what was discussed. If you can add “cordial” to the list then so much the better.
Obviously a meeting of some high-powered minds but, unfortunately, completely trumped in New York where, at the United Nations no less, the warmists wheeled out . . . wait for it . . . Leonardo Di Caprio.
We’ve lost. I mean, the guy is not only an Oscar winner, he has a well-trimmed goatee beard, ties his hair back in a mini pony tail thing and is married to Angelina Jolie.*
Can’t beat that.
_____________
* It may be the other guy who’s married to Jolie . . . was di Caprio adopted by them, maybe?
Some weird comments about Chatham House rules on here.
A group of people get together to discuss something and agree not to divulge to outsiders what was said nor what positions were taken by whom.
That’s all there is to Chatham House rules. It is an overarching term to describe a closed meeting. There are no hard and fast rules about what can and cannot be revealed and what penalties will apply if the pact is broken. Each gathering decides its own approach on an ad hoc basis.
The group doesn’t trail along their lawyers and have a pre-meeting hearing where they thrash out the agreement and go over a binding contract clause by clause and line by line. No one says, “Did you bring the Chatham House Rules document?” There simply isn’t one.
“Chatham House Rules” is just a fancy way of tapping your nose and saying “everything stays within these walls” and having everyone else agree.
Excellent post as always, Anthony. I am glad my fellow countrymen/women are treating you well and I hope you are enjoying your stay.
I think you are 100% right, it is very easy to rant and rave to someone from the anonymity of the keyboard, together with an alias but once you have met them face to face it is a great deal more difficult. It is also difficult if you use your real name; then you have to debate logically and concisely without resorting to malice and insults, which could easily be read by friends, who may become ex-friends as a result!
Pleased to see that there’s a sub rosa dialogue. You don’t get funding without propounding either extreme or popular views but, as a Professor you must be aware of the need for a dignified exit route should your high horse stumble.
Everyone who’s ever published a paper knows that you learn more about the weaknesses of your case from your rivals than you do from your friends.
Its nice to be reminded through this meeting that we are all actually on the same side, interested in the same phenomena and trying to get a handle on the chaos that is weather and climate.
OK, like a team of sled dogs, all pulling in the same general direction but snapping and growling at each other on the way!
Wonderful! …..and I’m sure far more interesting and productive than either of the ‘Talks’.
As Machiavelli said, if you must go to war, you must crush your enemy completely. Leave it half done, and you’ll have to fight it again some day. eg WWI & WWII, Gulf 1 & Gulf 2.
Probably not a fashionable view with the sentiments being expressed here, but true nonetheless.
Pointman
I think it is important to make a distinction between those who will debate, and those who feel the debate is over with. The “enemy” are those such as Kennedy who think we should be put in jail, for expressing skeptical ideas. The “enemy” are a danger to civilization, whereas the dinner described in this post actually strengthens the bonds of civilization.
Nature — only nature — in control.
ENSO nature’s way jerking climate commentator like yo-yo.
Master of puppets century- & longer-scale stamina.
Best human do harmonize nature rhythm.
Alternatively, it might also be the views of Ayman Al Zawahiri wrt 9/11…………war always has two sets of aggressors you know.
I know it’s not fashionable to assume that the USA could ever lose a war, but you have been know to you know. Vietnam?
Next time it might be 500 targets, not 3……..
Pointman, popular or not, Machiavelli was right I think. I would be hard pressed to break bread with an enemy. Truces are very suboptimal, morally.
But do any of the dinner guests above represent our “enemy”? Which ones are our “enemy”?
Wonderful. I’d have enjoyed being there and being part of the dinner conversations.
To those on the warmist side at this dinner, I’d be very interested in hearing about any feedback (positive or negative) you get from your colleagues, supporters or the press for having attended this dinner. Please do submit a guest post here if anyone tries to impugn your integrity or ideological purity for being there, or if you’re praised for your open-mindedness and diplomacy.
When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. – See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule#sthash.RSVlb88n.dpuf
So in accordance with the Chatham House Rule you can report what was discussed and what was agreed – or not, as long as there is no attribution. Now that would be fascinating!
One hopes all participants arrived and departed the gathering with a positive spirit to better understanding varying viewpoints and ultimately a more complete resolution of climatic matters. Good show to all who organized and/or participated.
Only one question tho` … did the discussions start before or after the wine was poured? 8>)
Beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will…
My whole private and professional life (40 yrs) it was the most common situation to engage in meetings where it was agreed to that the conversation is confidential, however, the existence of the meeting and people involved were not confidential. In fact that was usually the default situation. No one ever used anything but common words to describe that situation.
So, I find it a little amusing that common situation which occurred at Lewis’ house in Bath isn’t just simply described with normal words like the common culture uses instead of with the arguable meaning of the terminology ‘Chatham House Rule’. It is more understandable when you say in real life words the situation like the common culture does.
John
Sounds like fun. But I have to wonder what the Warmists said when you asked them, politely of course, for any scrap of evidence that anthropogenic CO2 has had any measurable effect upon the Earth’s climate.
I guess we’ll never know.
/Mr Lynn
CH rules is all well and good in something where discretion is required (e.g. war politics, negotiations, etc). However, I would at least partly argue that in science, there should largely be no need for such application.
Yeah, perhaps it is right to ensure that general discussion does not result in folk losing their jobs, etc – but in the end, the science should be the primary basis that is upheld. If, at such a meeting, a scientist found his science discredited/disproved, or even suspected it to be so, HE/SHE should be the one to review his science and correct it where required. After all, couldn’t such a meeting be the equivalent of a ‘peer review’ of the general state of play? Protagonists from both sides should come away thinking – ‘I didn’t realise that’ or ‘we need to prove this further’, etc, in a genuine scientific promotional type manner?
I would hope that if nothing else, if there were friendly exchanges (and preferably of phone numbers and private emails) there could be new (and proper, imho) wider peer review of further science, perhaps helping avoid/reduce the ‘pal review’ publishing system we currently suspect!
It’s a short step to breaking down the entrenched barriers and false propaganda of ‘climate science’ from a consensus position, I hope it works, hopefully to put the ‘science’ back in climate science! (even though I often feel it was never really there in the first place!)
Well done to all who participated.
Why are we still called “skeptics”? How does one become ‘skeptical’ about climate? Climate just IS.
We are Climate Realists. Nothing more, nothing less. Realists, as opposed to scaremongers.
Ralph.
Too bad there were no hockey players or cartoonists in attendance?
Anthony – I am so glad you enjoyed your stay in England – the Bristol meeting was right on my doorstep and ordinarily I would have been there – I even had a ticket booked, but alas, I was in Prague. The results of the meeting were much as I would have expected – with little chance of a discussion, but I would have liked to meet you and shake your hand for all the invaluable work you have done.
I wouldn’t eat with them, they’re nasty evil spiteful people who will stab you in the back as soon as look at you. Every single one of them has prostituted themselves for either money or a misguided ideology that, allowed to run, would devastate the civilized world. I couldn’t spend time in the same room as these disgusting liars.
First rule of negotiation – never get angry. Second rule – there is no time limit. Third rule – what hasn’t been written down hasn’t been said. Fourth rule – remember when you point a finger, there are three pointing back at you.
I don’t hob-knob with thieves or perverts either. I have no desire to understand their point of view. The vast majority of climate scientists fall into the same group – if only because their silence enables abuse on a massive scale.
I am angry – almost permanently, but that’s ok because I have no interest in negotiation. Why would I negotiate how much money a thief was going to steal from me, or how far a pervert could go with my child. It’s as ridiculous as it is disgusting. Such people are cancers or vermin and should be treated as such. I hope one day they will be.
‘they’re nasty evil spiteful people who will stab you in the back as soon as look at you.”
I have to assume you don’t know them individually, because there are at least a couple there who have stood up for integrity and been stabbed in the back by their own “side” for their trouble.
jaffa – I have not personally met Richard, Tasmin or Ed but have had discussions with them (on BH) and strongly dispute your description of them as spiteful nasty people etc. Name-calling and refusing to meet and discuss with them the many uncertainties over climate sensitivity and feedbacks will get sceptics/realists and science nowhere. Anthony and Nic and other (absent) dissentients should be commended for their efforts towards instigating a dialogue, and Richard, Tasmin and Ed likewise for engaging.
+1
Kudos to all, this is the way forward.
How did you like driving on the wrong side of the road? On my first trip to the UK, I remember being in the left side passenger seat dozing out (my advisor was driving) and I would be in terror each time I woke up.
My other re-markable experience was a few years later during a post doc in Germany driving the family to England for ein kleiner Urlaub (a little vacation) and being completely surprised by the 1st thing after the channel ferry, the 1st thing after the big side saying “drive on the left”: a round-a-bout going clock wise.
It was all seamless to me, ambimobiledexterous.
With a bit of study you may discover that driving on the left is taking the correct side of the road. The American way is the wrong way, brought about simply because the Conestoga wagon was constructed so that the reinsman sat on the left-hand side – something to do with the brake, I believe. When cars replaced wagons, the driving side was retained, forcing vehicles to adopt a “keep right” line.
Horse-riding and wagon-driving Europeans were laissez faire about which side to use but would more often than not keep to the left when passing oncomers.
Europe went against the natural order when Napoleon, on discovering that the British had a “keep left” inclination, decreed that Continentals would “keep right” when passing.
Archaeologists have discovered, in ancient quarries, that Roman Britain had a “keep left” policy; which they no doubt followed throughout their empire.
Unless you are left-handed, having oncoming traffic – whether it’s on foot, on horseback or in a wheeled vehicle – pass you on your right is the natural way. It more freely allows a handshake, a friendly wave or the drawing of a weapon.
Unfortunately, for Americans it’s too late to correct the mistake. You have chosen your lane and must drive in it.
One thing I’d like to see come out of this meeting is more members and papers for OAS and the quality of OAS. From what I understand, OAS papers will never need an FOIA request.
I’m not sure how papers will reviewed but I hope part of the process will be along the lines of a “blog review” to open it others with some expertise or something of value to add. Of course moderation would need to be tighter (no wisecracks) yet not censored. (Reasoned disagreement allowed.)
A paper that passes all of that should be sterling.