tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post3149890509621037968..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: Lisbon MeetingNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-55821568553533654962011-02-22T00:45:19.703+11:002011-02-22T00:45:19.703+11:00Summing up from someone who was actually there:
I...Summing up from someone who was actually there:<br /><br />It was a mixed bag of successes, failures and positive interactions.<br /><br />I don't think anyone went with the expectation or hope that it would be 'neutral'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-68857023403762186792011-02-19T11:02:31.937+11:002011-02-19T11:02:31.937+11:00Summing up, Lisbon was not 'neutral'. Tal...Summing up, Lisbon was not 'neutral'. Tallbloke demonstrated that, as did Curry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-65336553522919761602011-02-14T03:17:50.388+11:002011-02-14T03:17:50.388+11:00Hi Nick,
In fact the posts and topics on my blog l...Hi Nick,<br />In fact the posts and topics on my blog listed by John Mashey are not really representative of the 'related cluster of ideas' which form the central core of my research. He cherry picks science issues mentioned there to suit his pre-concieved agenda. ;-)<br /><br />These core topics are easily found by reference to this recent post:<br />http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/statement-of-intent/<br /><br />Also, I have an interesting analysis of forcing factors and ocean surface temperature from Roger Andrews fresh up today in which he concludes co2 could be the major forcing factor from 1960 onwards. I hope this goes some way to showing people that I'm happy for the chips to fall where they may on attribution, once the uncertainty is reduced, and that people with a full range of opinions on the subject are welcome.<br /><br />I am for open debate of the actual science, rather than the usual character assassination and misrepresentation indulged in by deep and friends.<br /><br />By the way deep, Bill Hartree and I exchanged emails this morning and he assures me he will be setting the record straight concerning the reasons I gave him for mentioning Gavin Schmidt's response to other conference delegates in reply to their questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-12934582048674166002011-02-12T19:19:59.761+11:002011-02-12T19:19:59.761+11:00Nick: thanks.
He certainly does seem fond of a cer...Nick: thanks.<br />He certainly does seem fond of a certain related cluster of ideas.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-47573246565409096262011-02-12T18:27:48.726+11:002011-02-12T18:27:48.726+11:00John,
Tallbloke is always keen to talk about his c...John,<br />Tallbloke is always keen to talk about his current ideas. He did so in Lisbon. I don't think he presents them differently in different places.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-55043444183025248852011-02-12T17:32:20.216+11:002011-02-12T17:32:20.216+11:00Nick (& Bill H)
I ask since you were there.
th...Nick (& Bill H)<br />I ask since you were there.<br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/02/pearcegate.php#comment-3267180" rel="nofollow">this comment</a>, and next few @ Deltoid summarize some information from Tallbloke's site.<br /><br />I am curious if TB's discussions at Lisbon were consistent with the worldview shown there. [This is worded carefully to not break Chatham.]John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-37423850474028009622011-02-11T18:47:09.878+11:002011-02-11T18:47:09.878+11:00"My post was linked in this passage from Stei..."My post was linked in this passage from Steig" (I mean hyperlinked, not just figuratively - another few hundred get to see the truth).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-30927505162176355792011-02-11T18:45:05.880+11:002011-02-11T18:45:05.880+11:00Well, of course, it's right. I wouldn't ha...Well, of course, it's right. I wouldn't have said it otherwise.<br /><br />My post was linked in this passage from Steig.<br /><br />"Sadly, attacking climate scientists by mis-quoting and mis-representing private correspondences or confidential materials appears now to be the primary modus operandi of climate change deniers."<br /><br />That's exactly what happened at your nice Lisbon workshop. <br /><br />"Of course the organisers probably can't do much about breaches anyway." <br /><br />Well, they can could at least pretend concern, instead of suggesting contacting the worst offender. Sheesh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-87334431590609042022011-02-11T14:05:32.133+11:002011-02-11T14:05:32.133+11:00Deep,
54 - well I can help you on that one - each ...Deep,<br />54 - well I can help you on that one - each dinner on that Fri night was populated by one taxi load (4 people) - the taxis never met up. So I think your inference is right.<br /><br />No, I didn't see Eric Steig mentioning what happened in Lisbon. In the latest RC post?Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-21282299892232174622011-02-11T13:45:39.755+11:002011-02-11T13:45:39.755+11:00Thanks, Bill - hope you enjoyed the train trip. Ye...Thanks, Bill - hope you enjoyed the train trip. Yes, I've tried to stick to the Chatham rule - fortunately I skipped that Friday evening meal (long day), so I'm not under pressure there. I think the rule has merit, mainly because otherwise there would be a cacophony of claims about who said what when, probably contradictory.<br /><br />Of course the organisers probably can't do much about breaches anyway.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-13566411464769865802011-02-11T13:15:32.661+11:002011-02-11T13:15:32.661+11:00Oh, and, Nick: Did you not notice that Eric Steig ...Oh, and, Nick: Did you not notice that Eric Steig directly tied what O'Donnell to what happened in Lisbon? Of course, it's all part of the same outrageous pattern. Over and over. <br /><br />Personally, I've had enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-46991213408316125542011-02-11T13:00:39.773+11:002011-02-11T13:00:39.773+11:00Well I'm not sure if all these events happened...Well I'm not sure if all these events happened at the same time. I think Mosher was talking about an earlier time as the discussion swirled about Schmidt's absence. The reading of the email happened after the conference was over and apparently only McIntyre, McKitrick and Perace were there with tallbloke. No one has contradicted that. I admit it's hard to keep track, as the story kept changing.<br /><br />Bottom line, Pearce wrote about it in fairly favourable (and misleading) terms. Mission accomplished. In fact, it sounds like "tallbloke's" real role was to get press coverage. I guess he did whatever it took.<br /><br />I think it's surprising that so far only one attendee appears to find this very problematic. And the cavalier attitude of the organizers is puzzling, to say the least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-60713349748484884002011-02-11T12:32:43.288+11:002011-02-11T12:32:43.288+11:00Hello, Nick, it's Bill Hartree here: we met in...Hello, Nick, it's Bill Hartree here: we met in Lisbon, so I thought I'd renew acquaintance. I have been finding out about the shenanigans there on the Friday night, after I had departed, not least through Deepclimate - yes, DC, I'm the "Bill H" who provided some info on your blog about the Science is Settled story.<br /><br />What I find strangest is that the various participants are so anxious to sound off publicly about the meeting. Sure, the Chatham House rules were soft but for a meeting that styled itself as "talks about talks" I would have expected a distinct reticence from the attenders, and yet we have Tallbloke commenting at enormous length on a variety of blogs about a boozy revel during which Schmidt's email was hauled out for general viewing, and exactly who read it to whom, and why. We have McIntyre contradicting Tallbloke's original version of events with his own, and then TB admitting that McIntyre's version was actually correct. Mosher then chimes in to say that he advised against publicising the contents of the email at this drinking session. Apart from anything else this seems to flout the Chatham House rules - but then Judith Curry tells us that it doesn't because the events took place after the completion of the formal conference, though this seems to be pure conjecture on her part, and I have no idea whether the organisers would agree. I have indeed contacted the organisers to express my disquiet and been told merely, and bizarrely, that I should "forward my email to Tallbloke". They already seem to be past caring. I did indeed contact TB, who defended his actions with the claim that all publicity is good publicity (an adage for which there seems to be no empirical evidence).bill hnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-73344492516227343072011-02-10T15:30:30.096+11:002011-02-10T15:30:30.096+11:00There's a difference between outrageous and ma...There's a difference between outrageous and manifestly false accusations and saying "nasty things". <br /><br />The point is reconciliation is impossible (not to mention undesirable) with those who have made and continue to make these reprehensible false accusations. Many of whom you sat down with and attempted this so-called reconciliation, under the facilitation of those who refuse to call a spade a spade.<br /><br />If you don't want to accept exactly what you were dealing with in Lisbon, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you don't agree that reporting on the "sceptics" has been shamefully gullible - or worse - well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that too.<br /><br />I was just curious to see how far you would go in defending the Lisbon farce. I think the answer is there for all to see.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-14918255264223460332011-02-10T14:50:06.490+11:002011-02-10T14:50:06.490+11:00Deep,
Not sure why you're getting into the ODo...Deep,<br />Not sure why you're getting into the ODonnellgate stuff. I'm very well aware that sceptics say nasty things about scientists. And I defend them, on the blogs where the slurs originate. eg Steig<br /><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-vi/#comment-40206" rel="nofollow">here</a>, or<br /><a href="http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-vi/#comment-40660" rel="nofollow">here</a>, or<br /><a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/in-moderation-at-rc-yes-no-whatever/#comment-68681" rel="nofollow">here</a>Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-52322187266008183182011-02-10T14:31:30.840+11:002011-02-10T14:31:30.840+11:00Can you handle the truth? (From the same post)
&q...Can you handle the truth? (From the same post)<br /><br />"Perhaps there is a silver lining here. Perhaps the utter silliness of the shrill accusations that O’Donnell made against me — based on a version of the facts, in his head, that are demonstrably and unequivocally false, coupled with the fact that he then retracted them (or at least has promised to do so), will help more people see what the steadily growing list of other scientists who’ve been accused by McIntyre and his associates of plagiarism, dishonesty, data manipulation, fraud, deceit, and duplicity have been telling me for years: these people are willing to say anything, regardless of the cost to others’ reputations and to the progress of legitimate science, to advance their paranoid worldview."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-88990964167725472832011-02-10T14:21:12.865+11:002011-02-10T14:21:12.865+11:00One more:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar...One more:<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/odonnellgate/<br /><br />"Sadly, attacking climate scientists by mis-quoting and mis-representing private correspondences or confidential materials appears now to be the primary modus operandi of climate change deniers. To those that still don’t get this — and who continue to believe that these people can be trusted to present their scientific results honestly, and who continue to speculate that their may be truth in the allegations made over the years against Mike Mann, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Stephen Schneider, Andrew Weaver, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Gavin Schmidt, Darrell Kaufmann, and many many others, just because they ‘read it on a blog somewhere’ — I’d be happy to share with you some of the more, err, ‘colorful’, emails I’ve gotten from O’Donnell and his coauthors.<br /><br />If you still don’t get it, then I have a suggestion for a classic short story you should read. It’s called, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson."<br /><br />As noted previously, Chatham House rules permit the repetition of any statements as long as they are not attributed. Perhaps you could repeat the most outrageous, incendiary accusations you heard. Personal slurs would be best. You know, just "report" them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-29330585579960276802011-02-10T13:54:11.838+11:002011-02-10T13:54:11.838+11:00"And I think largely they did correctly repor..."And I think largely they did correctly report what happened."<br /><br />Climate science is the only field I know of where outrageous, unfounded accusations are routinely parroted (or "reported", if you want to call it that). Without even the courtesy of a response from those attacked. Sorry that is not professional or ethical reporting, "correct" or otherwise. <br /><br />And wait until you see what happens to Pearce's article when you put in what Schmidt really said, instead of the "science is settled" that Pearce then went on to report the contrarian "disagreement" with. Is it "correct" to report "disagreement" with something Schmidt didn't actually say? Is it "correct" and balanced to leave out that the fact that one of the organizers' confidants improperly leaked and distorted confidential communication in an effort to spin? But if he reported that, then he would have to admit that he had been gullible and should not have accepted to participate. <br /><br />JCH, Maybe he meant the Ravetz WUWT pieces. That was a pretty good indication of the real purpose of the meeting.<br /><br /><br />Nick, Are you trying to make my case? If so, you are doing a pretty good job. Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-58774802046402840512011-02-10T13:24:18.878+11:002011-02-10T13:24:18.878+11:00McIntyre did imply Gavin would have known one the ...McIntyre did imply Gavin would have known one the of participants, and the implication was that Gavin would not like the guy. I believe McIntyre indicated the person wrote something at WUWT about Climategate. It's on Climate Etc., but it is so hard to find stuff over there. <br /><br />I'm glad Nick went because he got to see Lisbon. That cannot be bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-2432879261451199912011-02-10T12:58:12.393+11:002011-02-10T12:58:12.393+11:00"This meeting should have been reported for w...<i>"This meeting should have been reported for what it really was. Or completely ignored."</i><br /><br />Yes, I agree. And I think largely they did correctly report what happened. You may not like what was said at the meeting; I didn't agree with much of it either. And ignoring was an option. If by "what it really was" you mean they should have taken a slant <i>against</i> the meeting because of its contrarian dominance - well, I think that is best left to the readers to judge.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-18979970653862800392011-02-10T12:07:23.703+11:002011-02-10T12:07:23.703+11:00Slanted but correct. Got it.
I mean, honestly, wh...Slanted but correct. Got it.<br /><br />I mean, honestly, why do both these journalists (and you) think it is acceptable to "report" these outrageous accusations from contrarians and "honest brokers" at face value? And not even ask scientists for a response? And misquote out of context from stolen or leaked emails? <br /><br />Of course, by this point any scientist would think twice before trusting either of them. <br /><br />This meeting should have been reported for what it really was. Or completely ignored.<br /><br />Keep going, you're doing great.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-19131035488196134002011-02-10T11:43:15.730+11:002011-02-10T11:43:15.730+11:00Deep,
OK, I've re-read Traufetter's post, ...Deep,<br />OK, I've re-read Traufetter's post, which does indeed have a strong pro-McIntyre slant. However, as a report of the meeting, it's reasonably correct. The last Curry quote may be wrong, but she did speak of IPCC's allegedly poor rendition of uncertainty. The slant was mostly in the meeting, not the report. So perhaps you could say the slanting was that der Spiegel gave too much prominence to the views expressed at the meeting.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-3217539496061092052011-02-10T10:37:12.287+11:002011-02-10T10:37:12.287+11:00Traufetter
http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/236...Traufetter<br />http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2361-climate-war-continues-despite-reconciliation-meeting.html<br /><br />"The uncertainties in climate models are researched completely inadequately. The science establishment attempts to conceal this fact from the public," said Curry.<br /><br />Even Curry doesn't stand behind the second sentence (which was actually attached in the German version) even though it is presented as a direct quote. But I don't know if she's done anything about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-3257071165992582232011-02-10T08:37:45.690+11:002011-02-10T08:37:45.690+11:00"Remember Gavin wouldn't have known who t..."Remember Gavin wouldn't have known who the other invitees were."<br /><br />Nevertheless he described them correctly. He understood perfectly well what this was really about.<br /><br />"I agree that there was not much likelihood of reconciliation anyway".<br /><br />Much likelihood? Try zero, as in "not possible". Again, Gavin nailed it.<br /><br />"I don't think the Chatham rule means closed doors". Agreed - in this case, it just means people talking about what they want to, according to their own agendas. And citing it as a cover for what they don't want to discuss.<br /><br /><br />"Fred Pearce made a bad error". I'll say - he sacrificed his credibility by even going.<br /><br />Don't you understand there's a huge conflict between buying into this "reconciliation" of "honest brokers" and contrarians as an active participant, and actually reporting properly on it?<br /><br />"I don't think the reporting has been particularly slanted". <br /><br />Then you're not paying attention. And I understand Traufetter "gave it with both barrels" on "climategate" at the public meeting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-71434558507160308342011-02-10T08:07:22.572+11:002011-02-10T08:07:22.572+11:00Deep,
Remember Gavin wouldn't have known who ...Deep,<br /><br />Remember Gavin wouldn't have known who the other invitees were.<br /><br />My contention in my contribution was that reconciliation at such a meeting is not likely to be useful, even if possible, because of the unstructured nature of scepticism. If you reconcile with some leaders, others will take over the lead. But I agree that there was not much likelihood of reconciliation anyway, for the reasons he gave. A meeting with a few Gavins present would have been interesting, and maybe positive, but I quite understand his unenthusiasm.<br /><br />I was actually surprised those journalists came. It's quite a time investment for one story. I don't think the Chatham rule means closed doors - you've heard plenty about what went on, and there was a public session. Fred Pearce made a bad error, but otherwise I don't think the reporting has been particularly slanted, and in any case, there wasn't much of it.<br /><br />I don't know whether other journalists were invited.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.com