Two years ago, I said if the ICCC conference came to Chicago, I’d go. One motivation was to meet SteveM and Anthony. Since that time, JeffId started blogging, I wanted to meet him too. Turned out he also wanted to meet SteveM and Anthony. We all met up yesterday:
Pajamasmedia hosted the dinner. I’ve very bad with names, but among the other people I can name Roger Simon and Charlie Martin of Pajamas media, Dan Miller of Heartland, and Richard Lindzen of MIT, Christopher Monckton who sat across the table from me.
SteveM, Jeff and I all sat next to each other so we could discuss our plans for world domination whatever happened to come up. SteveM, will be giving the 2nd keynote today (Sunday), so he gave us a little bit of a preview, in a chit-chatty sort of way. Stefani’s is a rather loud restaurant, so I can’t do justice to what SteveM said, but no matter. Pajama’s will be streaming the conference, including Steve’s talk at 8 pm. You can read more at their streaming the conferenceannouncement page.
I think Carrot Eater wanted me to ask Anthony some pointed questions. Anthony’s flight was delayed; he arrived late. The restaurant staff had us all squeeze together, and Anthony ended up at the other end of the table. He did come over to say hi, and asked me a pointed question: Was my hair longer when Josh drew his cartoon of me. The answer is yes. It’s now quite short because I decided I needed to get back to exercising before I become a totally spherical Lucia. I had it cut to simplify washing and drying. Worried we’d have no more time to chat, and we’d risk reporting that the only thing we discussed was my hair, Anthony asked if I would be at the conference on Sunday. I said yes. I’m not sure how my “interview” plans are going to pan out, but I’ll ask Anthony Carrot’s question.
I know you all are wondering what other things were discussed: I asked Monckton how he was doing. Evidently, his flights were massively rerouted, and then canceled. It took him 2 event filled days to get to Chicago from England. Two attendees discussed various Congressional bills– one related to the EPA, others having little to do with climate. Charlie Martin was at the other end of the table, but then came over to my end. We discussed scheduling an interview; this segued into discussing make-up to wear during the interview, make-up experience we’d had in amateur theater performances and Gilbert and Sullivan.
It was then 11 pm. I realized I’d made the mistake of choosing a parking lot where it sort of mattered that I get back at 11pm. So,I excused myself, thanked our host Roger Simon, and drove home. When I arrived, I postponed blogging until the morning, and went to sleep.
I’ll be back in Chicago today. Because Pajama’s is live blogging, I think I’m going to try to mill around outiside the talks and see who I can buttonhole. If I were a sexy young babe, I suspect I could buttonhole almost anyone in the nearly all male group of presenters. At 51 yo, with no particular reporter skills… I’m not so sure. Well see. 🙂
Pajamas Streams for SUNDAY, MAY 16, 2010:
- 7:30 p.m. CDT:Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D. and former Apollo 17 moonwalker, speaks on the Constitutional constraints related to climate and energy.
- 8:05 p.m. CDT: Steve McIntyre, Ph.D. and editor of www.climateaudit.org, speaks on key events that led to exposure of the Climategate scandal.
PJ streaming the conferenceannouncement page.
… be glad I’m not there…I’d make all of you look REALLY young
Lucia,
Thanks for the update and photo.
“If I were a sexy young babe, I suspect I could buttonhole almost anyone in the nearly all male group of presenters. At 51 yo, with no particular reporter skills… I’m not so sure.”
Compared to most of them, you still are “a sexy young babe”! Plenty of people will want to talk with you; besides, most of them will know you are smart, so their answers will not fall on uncomprehending ears.
Wish I was there! Then I could have drawn you all on the spot. Looking forward to hearing about the conference – I am sure you will unearth something good.
Save for Anthony, you all look so pale! Northern winters…
I think the skeptic movement is too full of socialization to the detriment of actually pushing for real insights. You should ask the “pointed” questions. And you should call out dishonesty AND sloppiness wherever you find it. Including your own tribe. For you should value honor over party.
MikeC– I’m sure agewise, Jeff is the youngest.
SteveF–
Actually, there were (to me) funny encounters in terms of points where things seemed to “click” with people. From, “Who the heck is this person?” to “Oh. You’re a blogger, sorry I don’t really read blogs.” (To which I always respond “that’s ok”, because, obviously, it is ok. )
Then, eventually, they would say “Oh. I have read your blog.” (Thereby revealing that almost everyone involved in the Heartland ICCC event does read at least a few blogs sometimes. Wouldn’t it be weird if they didn’t? )
PolyisTCOandbanned,
“I think the skeptic movement is too full of socialization to the detriment of actually pushing for real insights.”
For goodness sakes, it was a dinner.. lighten up! Your “tribe” doesn’t eat dinner I guess, or maybe they are just always eat in a really grumpy mood.
Lucia,
“Wouldn’t it be weird if they didn’t?”
Heck, even Gavin reads your blog sometimes. So it would be kind of weird if these skeptics never did.
Yawn. Lucia’s had non-dinner opportunities to be pointed in the pursuit of truth. So has McI. The whole thing reeks. Big on plausible deniability, low on honor.
PolyisTCOandbanned,
“The whole thing reeks. Big on plausible deniability, low on honor.”
Were you there? Just wondering how you are so certain. If you were not present, then I find your comment very odd indeed.
TCOitis is back. We’ve never met each other before, so your comments are way off the mark. I see nothing has changed in the gymnastics world.
I learned that SteveM has a lot more to say about the political process of the IPCC (which I sincerely hope doesn’t take his advice, because I don’t want their solutions), Lucia has a very similar view of climategate to myself, Anthony’s job and site are so big now that he doesn’t have time to review the nuances of all of his posts, Charlie at PJTV, was very sharp and is considering delving into more detail on the emails. There were plenty of hard comments and questions between all of the group for my ears. Skeptics are skeptics of a lot of things.
TCO:
Fun to have somebody who was banned and came aback anyway lecture people about honor.
SteveF–
TCO might be stunned to learn that during the conversation between SteveM, JeffId and myself, I said I felt kinda sorry for Gavin during the whole “climategate things”. More later.
And yes, this was just dinner. I’ve been to similar dinners at ASME conferences and even “Particle Fluids Interaction”, a conference held in Davos, Switzerland. If TCO familiarizes himself with what happens at conferences, people often have dinner and talk about random stray stuff.
I had a feeling you were a redhead kind of girl lucia.
(me too!) Nice to see you!
Okay Lucia, quit lying about your age… just because you have a fakie ID for buying booze doesnt mean you have to use that line here.
Lucia,
““Particle Fluids Interaction—
Now there’s a conference I could get into… since my company produces instruments that measure nano/micro particle size by the interaction with fluids under high g-force.
My experience with conversations at conference dinners is that they cover just about any subject under the sun, including, remarkably enough, the subject of the conference.
‘including, remarkably enough, the subject of the conference.’
SteveF,
Lets not get too far beyond the bounds of probability here. The 99.999% probability subject is usually whether it is not time for the next round, and the composition thereof.
If it is electrical engineers, they were usually designing an audio amp.
Conversation is nice and all, but you left out the really important stuff: What did you have to eat and how good was it?
Chuckles (Comment#43211),
Since I am a wine drinker, I actually discuss if there will be another bottle, and if so, the type. But that conversation usually runs in parallel with others. Haven’t been to any EE conferences… and designing an audio amp at dinner would appear to require paper napkins, and that would depend on the quality of the restaurant.
TCO is just upset that nobody would want to socialize with a grump like him.
But in his eyes, everyone is guilty of blind camaraderie until proven innocent.
Alright, here’s something, ask Lindzen to elaborate on his views on using paleoclimate to test sensitivity of models. This is, after all, the “proof” most offered by those who are alarmed. I know personally what the technical explanation of his views would be, but it’s an under-appreciated point of argument, ignored by his critics and supporters alike. (Except me 😉 )
That is a cool pic of you guys, Lucia. 😉
Andrew
Incidentally, Heartland does make an effort to get opposition voices to attend-they just don’t want to. I can’t imagine why. No really, not sarcasm or anything. I guess they figure, even if they are correct, which they know they are (self assured sillies) they can’t possibly convince a bunch of right wing neanderthals of that.
Andrew_FL,
“a bunch of right wing neanderthals”
Are you aware that recently published comparisons of Neanderthal DNA with modern human DNA suggests that most people carry 1% to 4% Neanderthal sequences? Maybe the concentration is higher among CAGW skeptics? Just askin’…
Andrew_FL,
“ask Lindzen to elaborate on his views on using paleoclimate to test sensitivity of models.”
Lindzen has stated that such paleo studies are basically nonsense, because since the true forcings are essentially unknown, you can settle on just about any sensitivity you want.
Nice pic! I just hit the tip jar to buy the four of you a round – hope you can dig it out whilst you are there.
Thanks for all the education and entertainment on your blogs.
C 🙂
SteveF (Comment#43225)-Neanderthal and Troglodyte are common epithets used by the left.
SteveF (Comment#43226)-There’s a little more to it than that. I’ll give everyone a hint, look at his publications during the earlier 90’s.
If it had been an alarmist dinner, it would be held in some exotic location and the taxpayers would have paid for it and all the expenses for travel and lodging. I suppose PolyisTCOandbanned isn’t impressed unless governments are footing the bill and the total is a whole lot higher.
Andrew FL,
“Neanderthal and Troglodyte are common epithets used by the left”
I was joking, you didn’t need to explain this! 😉
i disagree with you folks about nearly everything, but seeing pictures and giving faces to names is always a nice thing.
so thanks for that, and i hope you had a nice dinner.
sod,
I had expected Jeff and Lucia to be really scary looking; I was surprised. 😉
Hey, you can’t be too careful. The feds read these pages too, y’know 😉
Did anyone else look at that photo and think Velma? Or was that just me?
Re:Chuckles (Comment#43211)
If it is electrical engineers, they were usually designing an audio amp.
—
I resemble that comment. Any self-respecting electrical engineer should have been redesigning or optimising the restaurant or conference’s amps. Or maybe a noise cancellation system. Have fun!
Andrew_FL (Comment#43224) May 16th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Incidentally, Heartland does make an effort to get opposition voices to attend-they just don’t want to. I can’t imagine why. No really, not sarcasm or anything. I guess they figure, even if they are correct, which they know they are (self assured sillies) they can’t possibly convince a bunch of right wing neanderthals of that.
.
the last time the conference tried to call all scientists on stage for a photo op. only a handful did show up. most embarrassing moment. there will be hardly any scientist present, again.
.
it would give completely unnecessary support to this conference, if pro-AGW scientists would join it.
.
—————————
.
in some of her last posts, lucia was lecturing us, on how the pro-AGW side should deal with problems. for example we are not supposed to attack sceptics, when they focus on the picture of a polar bear.
.
now she finds herself sitting opposite Lord Monckton. (i know that direct confrontations are a little different from blog contacts, but still..)
.
we will all look at her reporting from the conference.
.
the big question is: can “sceptics” actually be SCEPTIC?
.
ps: take a look at WuWt reporting on sea ice for example. i document Anthony’s latest dishonesty in the sea ice betting topic.
.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/sea-ice-betting/
sod (Comment#43245)-Typical nonsense from the guy who doesn’t understand a moving average…I seem to recall the “incident” occurred at the first conference. As I recall, what happened was somebody suggested the photo as people were shuffling about, I doubt everybody even heard it. But regardless, it’s not about the number of people in the pictures, it’s about whether the arguments stand up to scrutiny. I think it would be absurd to suggest that lucia has no intention of applying scrutiny to some arguments she hears. But supposing she doesn’t? She isn’t a “sceptic” (british anti-war fanatics…) so that wouldn’t answer the question. Indeed, the behavior of any one individual can’t even speak to the attitude of a group they are actually loosely aligned with, let alone someone who’s an outsider.
Also, I don’t give a flying floof about sea ice or such and such post at Anthony’s. Like any blog that isn’t written by me, it has good stuff and bad stuff, and stuff I’m uninterested in. I prefer the discourse at more technical blogs like this one.
SteveF,
As a fellow wine drinker I agree, but having been to conferences with some geologists and geophysicists, there would be no ‘if’ about it, and it would be ‘bottles’ and ‘types’.
Cluri,
It is an inviolable law of nature that if 4 or more elec engs are gathered together, an amplifier will be designed. Such amplifier will usually actually be built, and will work. Once. Subsequent attempts to duplicate this will all fail.
There is one exception I know of, the Barney Oliver Amp.
http://www.hpmemory.org/news/barney_ampl/barney_page_00.htm
And your comments about the restaurant and conference amps/sound systems are right on the money
As I recall, what happened was somebody suggested the photo as people were shuffling about, I doubt everybody even heard it. But regardless, it’s not about the number of people in the pictures, it’s about whether the arguments stand up to scrutiny.
.
a lot of discussions recently was focused on the ice bear picture.
.
looking at the conference (and back to your original point), the speaker list looks like a reshuffle from last year. and the years before.
.
Grandia had the story last spring:
.
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-instiute-trying-make-old-new
.
and here this years program, to compare:
.
http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/program.html
.
so will there be more than 255 NAS scientists present? and will all of them be climate scientists? i am holding my breath, for a photo op without and “shuffle”!!!
Lucia,
Looks like you guys had a great time. I’d love to have a 3 hour dinner with that crew and geek out about climate stuff; Its always fun to argue with smart folks who hold differing views (after all, thats why we blog!).
It’s funny to think about how, despite all the venom written by both sides, folks like SteveM, Gavin, and even Mann are quite nice and engaging in person.
Hi Lucia
Well Heartland made it on to the BBC news today here In England with our favourite (English sarcasm) environmental correspondent, Roger Harrabin, being rather snarky.
You are all apparently attending a gathering that is primarily for political purposes and backed by right wingers and supporters of the tobacco industry. Goood job none of you are smoking in the pic. 🙂
The serious point is that Heartland WAS mentioned so at least you are on the establishment radar. Best wishes to you all.
Tonyb
You didn’t spot Gavin or Mann hiding behind a newspaper on the other side of the restaurant?
You’re 51? You certainly don’t look it – Born 1959?
That’s the best year!
tonyb
I’ve got nothing against a good whiskey and a cigar after a steak dinner. Anyone against that doesn’t know what life is.
I’ve posted Harrabin’s report as an MP3.
I posted the following at my site about the ICCC:
“It goes without saying, the mood will be festive, buoyant, and giddy”.
Looking at the photo, right on the money! But even a climate model could have predicted that. 😉
Harrabin can eat dog.
They’re all so jealous. The sceptics are having a great time; the spirits are high. But their spirits are down in the dumps. They’ll never stop their whining. That’s all they do.
And I’ve posted what the ICCC will be like – my feeling.
That’s why Harridustbin and the rest of them are moping and whining.
http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/4th-iccc-is-it-worth-it/
Gute Nacht!
Here’s a hint: while you guys are giving lectures of how sceptics react to pictures of polar bears, you might take a moment to consider how everybody else reacts to events closely tied to Heartland.
At least Heartland does not retract invitations…
http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/19/world-dendro-2010-withdraws-invitation/
Somehow the ICCC sound more informative and fun to boot.
At least it is clear now, the Lucia and McIntyre are quite happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the denialist dregs and lunatic conspiracy theorists. Monckton is the one proposing a new global political party, with him as leader I presume.
You sat opposite Monckton, and didn’t get the chance to ask him about any of his crazy claims?
Dr Soon?
Either sheer ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation. Which has been the hallmark of all his papers on AGW.
Dr John Theon
Not true.
Heartland Institute is just one lie and misrepresentation after another on the facts and history of AGW, and all you have got Lucia is a picture of a polar bear that was changed. I don’t recall Monckton, Soon or Watts changing their stories.
They should rename the conference “Trivial Pursuit”, because everyone there is happy to be associated with numerous presentations that are of absolutely no consequence.
Bugs,
Patience. See what they come up with this year. Then mock as warranted.
I’m halfway curious what Lindzen will present.
I see they provided a very fitting registration handout. 🙂
bugs sounds like he was beaten up and bullied as a child by some one who looks like a confrence attendee
It’s nice to see all the blog hosts around the same table, having a good time, I hope. The conference is important to a much wider audience, and for me the ideal outcome would be something credible which articulates a position that we can all get behind.
Best regards
Cluri:
Active noise cancellation for an entire auditorium? Now there’s a challenge! Since the fundamental technology is inverse-phase and the auditorium is larger than a half wavelength at audio frequencies…
This is going to take SEVERAL napkins!
Thanks to all of you for bringing attention to the actions of those who sought to control us by turning science into a propaganda tool.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
bugs
Your resort to ad hominem attacks evidences the vacuity of your logic, with absence of any evidence.
Try getting out of the gutter and engaging in constructive civil debate for a change supported by evidence, rather than wasting everyone’s time.
Perhaps you can even rise to “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [your] intentions” as did the Founders of the USA, as you are actually accountable for every word.
For Dr. Theon see: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’
David, please learn to use the term and tell us exactly, which phrase that bugs wrote above was an ad hom.
.
For Dr. Theon see: James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’
.
the problem is, that Theon was NOT Hansen’s supervisor.
.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/01/john-s-theon-new-elderly-denier-on.html
.
learn a lesson from it: basically everything that you will here from the folks at Heartland conference is going to be FALSE.
David L. Hagen (Comment#43297) May 16th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Heartland is going to be wall to wall ad hom. Including insane conspiracy theories. Enjoy.
sod (Comment#43298)-“learn a lesson from it: basically everything that you will here from the folks at Heartland conference is going to be FALSE.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
bugs, sod: Wait for it. See what is presented first.
My thanks to Lucia and McIntyre for being happy with this result, because that is what Monckton is preaching, and you are happy to support him doing that.
From the Heartland Institute website
A complete lie, there has been no conspiracy to falsify the actual temperature record, and no-one has ever produced any evidence to demonstrate that. McIntyre is in good company.
carrot eater (Comment#43301) May 16th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
bugs, sod: Wait for it. See what is presented first.
All you have to do is look at what has been presented at previous years.
http://www.heartland.org/events/2010Chicago/PDFs/ConferenceProgram.pdf
Plimer Speaks. The Skeptic and Evolutionists would prefer to avoid.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/how-not-to-argue.html
He is in good company.
Nils-Axel Morner on PrisonPlanet. It’s a global conspiracy and fraud, get your tin foil hats on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMRHJPozCRs
Morner’s famous “Tilted Graph”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
It’s true, just look at it. One of the Heartland experts.
bugs, sod
I am never sure of what you wish to contribute, but I am sure of your marching orders. So be it
Even if most of us do not agree with Carrot Eater, but his command of conversation (listening and talking are not the same, of course) is much to understanding.
Anyhow, I must extend my appreciation to Lucia for her infinite tolerance. Some of us do not exercise it well (which does speak well of us, but I do believe we try).
After watching SteveM at ICCC, you do get reminded of the humility that reflects anyones better work. There is a huge amount of wisdom that can be gleaned.
HT to Carrot Eater, to his wisdom as well.
Quote: David Jay (Comment#43283)
“Active noise cancellation for an entire auditorium? Now there’s a challenge! Since the fundamental technology is inverse-phase and the auditorium is larger than a half wavelength at audio frequencies…
This is going to take SEVERAL napkins!”
And just imagine the acoustics in that noisy restaurant. All those reflections, the nodes, the standing waves… The horror!
Since sea level has come up here… I’ve never really looked at the issue much… have any of the studies on sea level taken into consideration all of that ground water which has been pumped to the surface… or all of the water normally held by forrests and their soils which gets released when they are cut down… or all of the sediment that gets channeled out to sea when we dyke up rivers… all of these things should contribute to sea level rise but I dont recall hearing about them in any of the IPCC studies or in any of the blog discussions
Re: bugs (May 16 21:12),
I looked at all 4 links in this and the previous post, and can’t for the life of me see what you’re trying to prove. They were all interesting, mind you (except for the evolution one), and I thank your for them, but I don’t see why any of them would give anyone, skeptic or not, any pause.
Global Runoff Data Centre
http://www.bafg.de/GRDC/EN/Home/homepage__node.html
.
Changes in Continental Freshwater Discharge from 1948 to 2004
Dai, Qian, Trenberth, Milliman, 2009
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/Dai-discharge-JC09.pdf
Dardinger:
You didn’t find a graph (Fig 5) that’s actually been physically rotated in order to remove the appearance of a trend to be … a sign of eccentric scholarship?
That graph has been a running joke, since it was made.
Also, Morner’s very second sentence (purporting to re-state a basic idea in climate science) is wrong, in at least 3-4 ways.
Sod is showing questionable scholarship from some of these guys in the past. Doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of something better in the future, but it suggests some odds. The odds are good that the goods will be odd.
What are the odds that Watts and D’Aleo repeat their claim that the measured temperature record has been fraudulently changed by an international conspiracy? And then provide absolutely no evidence to support that claim?
@bugs
Jeff Id has already provided us with Watts’ excuse:
“Anthony’s job and site are so big now that he doesn’t have time to review the nuances of all of his posts” 😉
Watt’s isn’t man enough to say something as weak as that himself, he?
Jealousy is so horrible to see on blog comments.
But the panic behind it is very funny.
Wish I could have been there, but thanks to Pyjamas for the video. (I’m in Oz so the time zones are a problem – we did not even see the Brits beat us at toy cricket).
Discussions at dinner? I had a mate named Terry who was mute until he got a pencil and paper and drew a triple integral to shape his talk. Now, seeing a photo of triple integral Lucia, I can tell Terry that she is in beaut shape even with the brackets on.
Jeff has to remember Taylor’s expansion and limit the terms.
Jokes aside, contemplate the global impact of those in the photo, over the last 3 years. Why, I might even take down the celebrities gone stale – Madonna, Britney and Paris Hilton photos to be replaced by logicians.
I see Heartland’s James M Taylor is going to be there. Maybe you can ask him about his fabricated quote from a Chicago Sun Times article a few years ago:
(I can’t find the op ed on the Chicago Sun Times page, but here is a reprint, courtesy of Prisonplanet–and there are other places where it’s been copy/pasted. It’s from June 30, 2007.)
The quote doesn’t appear in any scientific paper, let alone one from the JoC September 2006.
bugs:
“Either sheer ignorance, or wilful misrepresentation. Which has been the hallmark of all his papers on AGW.”
Did you see Soon’s recent paper on a naive forecast outperforming models? It was a tour de force of obviously biased choices.
First, he used the projected warming from the IPCC first assessment report. Then, he didn’t note that this projected warming (.3/decade) was an average for the entire 21st century.
Then, and this is just brilliant denialism, he took the .3/decade and compared it to the beginning of the industrial revolution, noted that the warming wasn’t .3/decade starting in 1870 and proclaimed GCMs to be completely flawed.
The paper was actually published in some journal of forecasting or something. I can’t wait till my hoax paper comes out.
Boris–
That’s a person I haven’t run across.
One of the reasons it’s difficult to implement my plan to interview people is that all those who I would like to interview have been surrounded by swarms of people. Plus, the more formal PJ media guys are doing interviews– which they scheduled ahead.
Clearly, I my media skill just don’t match those of the professional.
51 yo?? wow… looking at the pic 41 at the most.
.
“Heartland is going to be wall to wall ad hom. Including insane conspiracy theories. Enjoy.”
Evidence, pls.
Lucia,
He’s easy to find: he’s the bald guy with the guitar and the mellow singing voice…
Boris (Comment#43339) May 17th, 2010 at 6:10 am
“I see Heartland’s James M Taylor is going to be there. .â€
The quote doesn’t appear in any scientific paper, let alone one from the JoC September 2006.”
Try this article in journal of climate September 2006
Conflicting Signals of Climatic Change in the Upper Indus Basin”
“The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with the observed thickening and expansion of Karakoram glaciers, in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the eastern Himalayas. This suggests that the western Himalayas are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.”
The eastern Himalayan glaciers are retreating, the western Himalayan glaciers are advancing.
Dropping the qualifier eastern or western from the Himalaya’s are advancing as one side claims, or the Himalaya’s are retreating as another side claims seems to be quite common among various agenda driven people.
However, the article, supporting both sides claims depending on how it is ‘parsed’ in fact exists in the September 2006 Journal of Climate.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3860.1
There is no shortage of folks spewing half-truths on both side of the AGW debate.
Lucia,
“Clearly, I my media skill just don’t match those of the professional.”
Try the hard core elbows tactic, it works for most reporters
c (Comment#43328) May 17th, 2010 at 3:26 am
@bugs
Jeff Id has already provided us with Watts’ excuse:
“Anthony’s job and site are so big now that he doesn’t have time to review the nuances of all of his postsâ€
This is generally true.
I wonder when Jones or Briffa will be asked tough questions.
FWIW, SteveM got asked questions about
1. why he doesnt use the word fraud
2. Why he believed in government action.
Tougher questions to him than have ever been asked of Jones.
Also, see his talk on hide the decline. The whole story from 1998 on. Nicely done.
You call those tough questions? Wow.
Nicely done? Is he not omitting inconvenient bits of email using ellipsis anymore, nor generally misinterpreting everything so that it fits into the story he so wants to tell about divergence?
http://deepclimate.org/2010/05/14/how-to-be-a-climate-science-auditor-part-2-the-forgotten-climategate-emails/
Speaking of Divergence, I’ve just read the Briffa et al. 1998 Letter to Nature.
harrywr2,
Yes, I’m aware that the article exists (as well as the nuance of eastern vs. western). The quote is fabricated. It was never corrected. I wrote to the Chicago Sun Times at the time. Nothing.
Yes, Mosh. DC pints out that large parts of McIntyre’s narrative are contradicted by the emails. Comments?
carrot eater (Comment#43364) May 17th, 2010 at 9:48 am
A. I didnt call them tough questions. I said they were tougher than those posed to Jones. I would say they were 5s. neutral.
B. As to the accuracy, I think there was one thing that stuck out.. cant recall exactly what it was. Generally, when I heard the scope of what he wanted to cover I felt it was too much ( 1998 to 2010) in a less than 1 hour. So, I expected a bunch of detail glossed over.
I’ll make a final assesment of steve when people here take as much time with their assesment of Jones and briffa as I have.
I guess that would include anything to do with the case for AGW. Perhaps someone else will deal with it at Heartland.
That seems like rather circular logic, if your assessment of Jones/Briffa/Mann is based on the same assessment of the emails that McIntyre is using.
Ok,
Read DC.
Nothing new there relative to the mails. I don’t see how it makes Mann, Briffa, Osborn, Jones look any better. For my part the question has always been.
Why did briffa choose to Hide the decline and smooth the series out beyond 1960 in Ar4. In my mind there has been only one bit of documentary evidence that bears on this question. Briffa had a choice. Show the decline and explain it. hide the decline and explain it absence. My suggestion was that the mails from the 1998-99 period shed light on possible motives. That is, “dont dilute the message” Nothing DC says changes that. For me the question is about Briffa’s decision. Since briffa wont answer that question, I get to.
Also, You’ll note that DC himself does some selective posting of Briffa charts before and after the IPCC. That’s about all I’ll say about anonymous bloggers.
carrot, when you’re done trying to tear people down… any chance you can give your ideas on how that particular area of science can be improved to reduce the uncertanties…
Mosh… same thing from the other side…
and if you cant get serious, can ya tell me what you think about Mann being retired to the hair club for men… think about it, he would have a great sales pitch… “Now you can hide the decline”
Its a joke CE.
In any case, One of the disagreements that Steve and I have about the mails is the place/role/character/ of Briffa. Its not a huge disagreement, but we do differ on a few key points. None of those points make any difference. hey its climate science!
At some point, I may write up a whole “hide the decline” narrative.. for me the end of the story ( the FOIA deal) was most important. So, I dont spend much time on the pre 2003 stuff. But, anything in that period that puts briffa in a better light HELPS my story line. Just to put it bluntly the story line I saw was this.
Mann influencing Jones to work on Briffa. It’s the CRUTAPE structure.
Oh, CE.. more people should know about Rons work. That was a great effort. ( Off topic I know )
Well, let’s see. We could take the text of AR4 at face value, where it explicitly says there is a divergence there that is not shown in the spaghetti graph, because those data were not used in any of the calculations. Why clutter up a graph with data that can’t be used? You could do so, if you wanted to precisely show why it couldn’t be used. Personally, I could have gone either way on that. Eh, I’d probably have left it there.
Such a great job of hiding it, when the text discusses it clearly for a few sentences, and refers the reader to papers that show and discuss it some more…
I know you guys are fascinated with this thing, but there really isn’t that much here. Maybe if the discussion was as sparse as in TAR, you’d have a bit more of a point.
No, if he were actually as devious as you are trying to paint him, there was a third choice: don’t show it on the graph, don’t talk about it in the text, and while we’re at it, don’t publish a Nature paper about it.
Even though “don’t dilute the message” wasn’t even related to the divergence…
There’s an explanation in the text of AR4. If you don’t like it, fine, but it’s written there.
hey, that’s a fun game. Can I play, too? I get to impute whatever motives I want to whomever I want? Weee.
steven mosher (Comment#43388) May 17th, 2010 at 11:40 am
You could just read the AR4 and find out?
Did McI include that in his speech?
MikeC
That’s the real question, MikeC. All I can give is the most obvious answer, so it’s not helpful – more proxies, of different types. In my thinking, if you have redundant proxies, then you can better infer when any one proxy stopped behaving like a thermometer.
You are a little slow, CE, but you seem to have realised how this game works. 😉
It’s interesting to note that carrot and Boris are concerned about selective quoting of the mails by Mcintyre or by deletions of certain passages. Well, we have the mails. We can check. We can see what was left in and left out.
You have problems will not quoting certain portions. You want me to render a judgement on that. I would say it distorts the record.
Now, I ask you to render a judgement on deleting the decline data from the archives. IF one is come to an understanding of the decline, IF one wants to explain it someday, then how is that possible if the source data is deleted? Answer that question about basic science and data keeping. Can any one of you say that this was good science. can you say that? How can a future scientist EXPLAIN this divergence without access to the data.
HOW?
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt
Thank the hacker for preserving the actual post 1960 data
Bugs
I actually quoted that section in the book.
The question remains;
Briffa had a choice:
1. SHOW THE DECLINE in the graphic as he had in many of his papers and EXPLAIN the decline in his text.
2. HIDE THE DECLINE in the graphic and explain it in the text.
He chose #2. he was requested to do #1. His response was “it would not be appropriate” That’s not an answer. Neither is your quote an answer.
FURTHER, how do you extend a curve that ends in 1960 out beyond 1960? THAT IS NOT EXPLAINED in the text. that is the trick.
Bugs, yes McI did make reference to that section in his speach.
He and I in fact discussed the 264 relevant words included in ch06 to address the issue.
To recap. In his comments to Briffa Mcintyre officially requested that the decline be SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC and explained in the text. Briffa said the decline would not be shown, but its deletion would be ‘explained’ in the text. Those are the facts.
The question? Why? why not show the decline as he had done in the source texts and explain the divergence? I have yet to read any explanation of this that holds water.
The closest we can come to understanding why this editorial decision was made is to look at how other editorial decisions are made. To read overpeck on what to include and exclude, to look at similar situations. That’s the only way to get a sliver of insight into this. All we have, unless Briffa were to submit to questioning, is this sliver. Maybe at the next AGU one of you can corner him and ask him.
Well, the accusations seem to have retreated.
Instead of horrible scientific malfeasance for not showing the divergence in every single graph, we’re at: how can future researchers quantitatively study the divergence if they don’t have the raw numbers.
I don’t know, maybe if somebody emailed Briffa and said, hey, I think I found this explanation for the divergence, and I could really use the raw data to help me check, they might get it.
That said, they may as well just make it as easy to get as the rest of it, just with a note explaining why they don’t use the last portion. But my personal outlook here will be different; maybe in some fields every publication results in all the data being put in some online public folder. That isn’t what happens in my neck of the woods; if you want the original data, you have to email for them. Sometimes you hear back, sometimes you don’t and you’re stuck digitising their plots.
Mosher, we’re going in circles. You can say ‘why’ until you’re blue in the face, but the text will continue to give a reason why
Maybe you don’t think that’s an interesting enough answer, but it’s what it says. Just because McIntyre asked them to show it graphically doesn’t mean the reason has to change when he asked – that’s weird.
It’s really people coming from completely opposite views: On one hand, you have somebody obsessed with the divergence itself, and what it might mean elsewhere. On the other hand, you’ve got somebody who wants people to understand how the reconstruction was made, and not get confused by what wasn’t used. I think the solution is for AR5 to have two graphs: a spaghetti graph, and then a chart zoomed in on post-1850, for the express purpose of showing the divergence. Then everybody is happy.
CE.
“dont dilute the message” as you note is not related to the hiding of the decline.
For me it comes down to this. As I read through the mails I watched Overpeck giving guidance to Briffa on the editorial decisions that briffa made. here is what Overpeck wanted.
1. he wanted an image MORE COMPELLING than the hockey stick
he say this directly to briffa.
2. he told briffa to ignore the comments of Rind who was telling
briffa not to swep uncertainty under the rug.
For me, the call not to dilute the message is just another example of a type of behavior that was foisted upon briffa. For me its more about the considerations that govern these editorial choices. Overpeck was concerned about many things. ALL of them practical and political.
1. word count
2. pretty graphics
3. an image MORE COMPELLING ( his words) than the hockey stick
4. schedule.
5. presenting a neat picture to policy makers
6. Following the rules ( his note about being squeaky clean)
So, absent any answer from Briffa as to why he choose to Hide the decline and trick out the curve, I get offer an explanation. The same as YOU get to offer an explantion of why Steve Mc does what he does. Same as Mann got to suggest that Mcintyre was a tool of big oil, Same as Jones got to question warwick hughes motives, I get to offer a reading. On the evidence, it appears that the editorial decisions in certain cases were not driven by scientific considerations. Briffas decision here, Like earlier decisions ( dont dilute the message) , were driven, in part, by practical and political and rhetorical considerations. The skeptics were seen as selling doubt. The scientists (SOME, not guys like Rind) were driven to sell certainty, even where there was considerable uncertainty.
That doesn’t seem to me to be a controversial statement.
Word count is a necessary evil. But it’s a literature review, not a textbook. That’s what the references are for. The review tells you enough to know what you want to follow up on, and then you go read the sources.
You always like to have pretty, understandable graphics. Doesn’t mean fudging any data; just means expressing it clearly.
I’d love to see the context on the “more compelling” thing. Anything since then is (in the way the sceptics care) less compelling, because most everything has more variability in the stick period, and since none of them really agree with each other that well, it’s a big mess.
There’s also an element of perspective missing here. Even if what you’re working on has zero policy impact whatsoever, you like for your analysis to be compelling, and to explain all the observations in some tidy way if possible. If it isn’t, then you might still have work to do (though you’re never truly done). It’s what you do – you try to answer questions.
So where’s the beef? In what way was uncertainty undersold? I just look at the spaghetti plot and I see loads of uncertainty.
And now you know why I say that their actions created more doubt than they tried sweep under the rug. Ch06 is not critical to the science. Overpeck wanted a image more compelling than the hockey stick. those were the marching orders. Briffa complied. Showing the decline and explaining it in the text, has less impact than hiding the decline and explaining the hiding. The orders were to create something compelling. Briffa did his best, against his better judgment ( thats in the mails as well )
Now, you know why one of the reviewers of the summary to the policy makers complained about Ch06 not being represented very well. Guess who that was?
CE
Why dont you read the mails. If I say the words more compelling than the hockey stick and cite overpeck you can be pretty effin damn sure that the mail is there. See the last on the list.
For other context on how briffa was driven by Overpeck see the other mails.
FWIW in my book I did comment on the constraints like the word count. I basically made a list of all the factors that played on Briffa.
Also, if the spagetti is uncertain already then what the harm of adding the decline. cuts both ways
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=459&filename=1104893567.txt
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=461&filename=1104945887.txt
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=474&filename=1105627987.txt
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=528&filename=1116902771.txt
Where’s the beef, Mosher? What is missing? I see uncertainty and discussion of difficulties throughout.
Show the quote in context.
Hey, look at that. Misrepresentation. False dichotomy. They didn’t show the decline, but they still explained the decline in the text. Explaining why they didn’t show it was a passing parenthetical.
That’s how I feel, more or less. The things’s a mess anyway; what’s a bit more mess. So I’d have probably shown in there.
I’d just then have to go out of my way in the caption and text to make sure the idiots didn’t take that as proof that there was no global warming post-1960.
ha, i’ll pull an email out of unknown context as well.
Whatever the heck the context was, it sounds like the words were prophetic
Does that one feature heavily in your analysis, Mosher?
Carrot Eater:
And anytime somebody uses an email of somebody I feel allied to, I’ll suggest the email was used out of context.
That works every time.
IF you don’t have the context, then it’s out of context. So go ahead. Please do so.
CE:
The context is available to you, so you’re just being intellectually lazy as usual
It’s really a lot easier to assume bad faith on the part of another person who is quoting those emails, than to do any work yourself isn’t it?
No, it isn’t, and the fact that you think it is available speaks volumes.
The full context is not only just in whatever emails that weren’t downloaded (is every single conversation thread there in its entirety? I don’t think so), but all the other conversations and information these people had at hand. You simply won’t be able to figure out what everything means just from a collection of emails.
Who’s assuming anything? It’s been demonstrated that McIntyre used ellipsis to remove things from quotes, and that something changed the apparent meaning. Inasmuch as anything can be apparent under these circumstances.
This is all pathetic. You can read the darned publications. You can see the data. Make of it what you will from there. What difference does it make to Mosher, what Briffa was thinking when he did X? What’s relevant is that he did X, so just discuss X.
CE,
It’s evident that defending AGW is causing you some stress. Perhaps you should re-evaluate your position. It ain’t worth it, man.
Andrew
CE,
It is evident that defending AGW is causing you some stress. May I suggest that you re-evaluate your position. It ain’t worth it, man.
Andrew
If Andrew told me I was too stressed I’d demand a round trip ticket to a tropical island and vouchers for a couple of native girls… for massages of course 😉
Mosher? I read those emails… what a waste of time…Overpeck was on Briffa about publication space, not how to fudge, fraud or in any other way flubb the science. This is a normal part of how you come to a consensus on any issue for publication. The problem with the IPCC was already at play by this time in that the people coming to a consensus were pre selected based on their viewpoint.
“…a round trip ticket to a tropical island and vouchers for a couple of native girls… for massages of course”
MikeC,
Thanks for the ray of sunshine, bub. Now I want to quit my treadmill job immediately and go live in a beach-house on whatever tropical island you indicated. I’ll bring the golf clubs along, of “course.” 😉
Andrew
Begin OT: Lindzen hints that for Emanuel, it is all about funding . Emanuel says Lindzen is not part of the “machine.” Columnist hints that Lindzen is a serial skeptic.
End OT
H/T: Motl
Boris, #43339
Perhaps he was referring to this
“While the lag time of large Karakoram glaciers may be many decades, the reported expansion and thickening of many glaciers (Hewitt 1998, 2005) is consistent with the observed climatic changes. Karakoram glaciers offer a significant contrast with those in the eastern Himalayas (Hasnain 1999).”
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3860.1
Maybe Mosher’s big suggestion for AR5 will be to let it be twice as long… making it that much less likely that most people would ever touch it.
Carrot Eater:
The fact you want everybody to carry your water for you constantly speaks even greater volumes.
If somebody makes a claim that is easily tested, you test it, you don’t whine like a little boy because they aren’t doing it for you.
I do this myself, and I am sure I’m at least as busy RL as you are.
There is a constant litany of excuses from you and the rest of the AGW crew for why these researchers shouldn’t be held to the same standards the rest of us hold ourselves too. That is, indeed, what is pathetic here.
Carrick:
Since you are asserting that Mosher’s claim (“Overpeck wanted a image more compelling than the hockey stick. those were the marching orders.“) can be easily tested, what would that test be?
Since you have asserted this is an “easy” test, it should not take you long to explain it. Thanks.
You still resent that I suggested Lucia to try something out, and she did? Get over it there, buddy.
What standards aren’t they being held to? Give me a break. What academic field has been held to this level of scrutiny the last few years?
This is just saying stuff, Carrick. It’s meaningless, because there’s simply no actual substance behind it. Just petty tribalism.
In a true scientific sense, I can be as sceptical as you Carrick… I’ll happily admit there are a lot of things the models aren’t very good at. Nobody would deny that.
It’s the other stuff that’s just silly – the personality stuff. What’s pathetic is that all that’s driving the sceptic wheels is gossip. Where’s the beef? Ah, there’s a conference on. Maybe somebody will present something that’s an actual contribution to our understanding of a difficult subject area. Maybe Morner will give another tilted graph? Maybe Monckton will come up with something fresh? Maybe d’Aleo will take some more random ramblings off the internet and turn them into accusations of fraud? That’d be a great step forward for our understanding.
Re: Carrick (May 17 16:03),
“these researchers shouldn’t be held to the same standards the rest of us hold ourselves too”
Sure. Are you going to put your last decade’s emails on the web?
Nick Stokes:
This is a pure strawman, because nobody was arguing that point.
As it turns out, I do have emails appear in a book.
So what point is somebody arguing then?
Carrot Eater:
I wasn’t thinking of Lucia and no, I don’t resent anything.
The idea that everybody has to present everything on a platter for you is just pure hubris on your part. As you say “get over it.” You aren’t king yet.
As to the other part—I think the attention to the emails is as over blown as you do. If I thought somebody was presenting something “out of context”, I would be able to show it directly.
I just expect the same level of scholarship from you as I do from me. Hubris on my part perhaps, but that’s a compliment of sorts.
Carrot Eater:
Or better yet, you are Nick show where anybody was demanding that people release their private emails, if that’s the point you think they were trying to make.
If I say I read a paper that says X, then I’ll give a citation.
If Mosh says ‘the emails say x’, then I’ll expect a citation.
Basic courtesy.
Or you can just articulate what point you are trying to make. Enlighten us.
Look at this… a few hours ago I was thinking about how ridiculous this whole MWP issue is to the whole AGW debate. I’ll make that point first. The presence of the MWP neither proves or disproves AGW. Mann and pals trying to remove it was ridiculous. It’s existence does show that the climate is variable and that what we have been seeing in the past 150 years is not so unusual. However, even if the MWP existed hard and strong, that does not disprove that GHG’s are warming the atmosphere and oceans. The rest of it all is coffee house crap.
Now let’s look at the chat over the last few hours, how pathetic. Everyone has escalated and is at each others throats with science or AGW being thrown completely out the window.
… oh… and Andrew… we’ll need about a 6 month supply of Heinikins, limes, bbq sauce, … and extra golf balls since I don’t know a thing about the sport and will definitely be smackin em out to sea
… and no typoe comments please… by the time I’m finished drinking the things I cant read the label no how
MikeC
I’ve felt that way for years.
Nobody ever set out to remove it; it just gets spit out of the algorithm. As it turns out, I think we’ve learned that some ways of processing tree rings reduce long term variability (which is something I think you see Briffa dealing with in the emails), but I don’t think anybody ever set out with that as a goal.
But as for what the MWP means.. not what people want to make of it. It’s just a chance, along with all other bits of history, to try to learn more about what the climate does and can do, forced and unforced. It doesn’t prove jack about what’s happening today. But it’s a good challenge to try to infer temperature patterns all around the earth, what the forcings were, what the conditions of different ocean-atmosphere patterns were.
Carrot Eater:
It’s pretty simple. In this case, what I was objecting to was the demand for proof of context in a case where the context was already readily available to the reader.
Lucia’s blog isn’t a peer reviewed publication site (yet! j/k). It’s an online blog, which implies the immediate availability of search engines… While I would expect a link to the emails in question (if it weren’t so commonly known, as in this case), I wouldn’t expect people to endlessly copy and paste the original emails, if you yourself can look up in a few seconds and verify whether a quote in context or not.
This is a scientific blog, the standards for the reader are different than say for spoon-fed public education.
“Look at this… a few hours ago I was thinking about how ridiculous this whole MWP issue is to the whole AGW debate.”
I have to disagree with you here MikeC. It is THE issue.
If you want to market the idea that the squiggly line that represents temperature was “way down there” in the past, and now look, it’s “way up here”, you can’t have it “way up here” in the past. Not good for the sales pitch.
Andrew
I mean, if there is no line “way down there” squiggling up to “way up here”, there’s no Global Warming, no mansions with 6 bathrooms, no catered international conferences, no bad climate crisis poetry… no nothin’.
Andrew
Andrew, The point of the comment was that it doesn’t matter if there was an MWP or not. It simply does not prove or disprove AGW. I know what and why MBH did what they did (a point I will disagree with carrot on), but it still comes down to the question of what caused warming in the 20th century.
Andrew, Back in the day of the hockey stick birth there were no dreams of IPCC paid private jets to our tropical island with German beer and extra golf balls… except for Mann who was running around the talking head circuit like that chicken missing everything from the neck up
MikeC,
I agree. Since I began looking at the AGW issue, I have worked on the assumption that Huang was correct and take his upper result as being true. This upper result, based on a global borehole analysis, was that the global temperature during the MWP was .4 degrees warmer than the global temperature in 1990. Making this assumption has contributed to me being a global warming alarmist -although one who is perhaps not as alarmist as some, at least on a global scale.
So we’re supposed to go search the emails (for what exactly) and find out what Mosher is talking about? (FWIW I did a quick search for “more compelling” and found nothing.) If he wants to prove his case, link it. The reason why McSteve’s selective quoting works on convincing people is because it is tiring to go back through the emails and retrieve the context and then explain how Steve got it wrong. Steve’s got a vendetta against Mann and his credibility is shot on this issue.
Poor quality cartoons of him as an intrepid auditor/miner notwithstanding.
Re:ivp0 (Comment#43313)
This is going to take SEVERAL napkins!â€
And just imagine the acoustics in that noisy restaurant. All those reflections, the nodes, the standing waves… The horror
—
Never said it’d be easy, and where’s the fun if it were? Anyway, not just napkins, bottles. And is there correlation between the rise in formal methodology and smoking bans? Is this a right wing conspiracy to prevent fag packet designs? But as engineers, we have the amplifier precedent in that it does not need to be reproducible.
If we acted as climatologists though, it would be easier. Still dont need to reproduce the results, but could also redefine noise or use models to prove the noise had gone. Alternatively, just turn off the auditorium ventilation, allow CO2 levels to rise and demonstrate increased CO2 will lead to harmful noise reduction.
ps.. I like that HP story from Chuckles, wonder if they’d allow that kind of thing now?
Don’t you guys ever get tired of spewing the same arguments? What started out as a happy post, people getting together to break bread and chat, has once again turned into pure boringness.
I predict that this whole issue (AGW) will shortly be phased out by the general population because of this never ending “he said, she said” juvenile crap.
🙁
Dewitt
I had a Ceasar Salad, chicken something and an icecream sort of dessert. It was all excellent. I noticed the head of the Washington office of PJ TV also ate a ceasar salad; Monckton ate lobster.
SteveF
I didn’t drink wine at Stefani’s because I would be driving home too soon. Worse, I thought I would be driving on Lower Wacker. (I did– but not as much as I thought. A construction detour resulted in my not having to do merge with traffic shown in the movie “Batman Begins”.)
Andrew_FL
Unfortunately, Lindzen was perpetually swarmed by people wanting to do formal interviews on camera or explain their views to him. I did catch him yesterday, as he was leaving. He perked up when I told him that I had wanted to ask questions posed by my husband who’d worked on ARM. He even said, in a rather perky voice– I’m glad to see someone from ARM here! (Then, I said.. well… my husband.) Then a guy with a camera snagged him and had him do an interview.
I asked him if I can email. I’ll be emailing Lindzen some questions.
SteveF
Jeff expected me to be less bubbly. I expected Jeff to be blond.
Spence_UK
Well, if we are going to cast the movie, I nominate Donna deLaFramboise might make you think of Daphne. She’s slender with long blond hair.
sod (Comment#43245)
Twice! At breakfast the next morning too. I did learn the eye issue is related to Graves disease. Also as far as I can tell, Monckton’s “on his game” during the entire conference.
Donna LaFramboise and I lured Morano over for lunch yesterday. He’s bubbly and laughs a lot. We discussed the Lambert Monckton debate. We both agreed that that came out mostly a draw. We also discussed the Gleick thing. I learned that Morano learned of the Gleick thing from Nelson’s blog, that Morano has highlighted the photo-montage in his email to subscribers. Joe Romm’s name came up in the conversation. Readers asked me what I thought of Romm; I said I read him but rarely. I asked Morano if he thought Romm was effective; Morano said that he thinks Romm is less effective than he could be and even some of Romm’s friend’s have advised him to be less splenetic. (Romm obviously has lots of readers.)
Sod-
The answer is some yes; some now. Several of us had this conversation at the meeting. There is definitely a mix of people who are highly politically motivated with very strong feelings and people who are more focused on finding answers to questions. You could often tell the difference based on their reaction to the final portion of SteveM’s talk. Some just could not understand why anyone who thinks Mann did do some slippery things he should not have done should nevertheless not be pursued aggressively in the way Cuccinelli is going after Mann. But I found plenty of people who agree with SteveM, me, and Chip that Cucci is out of line. (I don’t think we were the majority.)
tonyb
I’m pretty sure smoking is prohibited in Chicago restaurants. I didn’t see anyone smoking at the meeting either, nor did I hear anyone say they needed to step out for a cigarrette break. I sincerely doubt tobacco is involved with conference!
The audience does have a conservative/libertarian aspect. There is a lot of networking at this conference. (There is a lot of networking at ASME, AICHE etc. conferences too. But this one is more political than most.)
As for those funding being conservative: Yes. There are conservative think tanks and liberal think tanks, in the US. There are conservative and liberal PAC’s etc. That’s sort of the way of the US. Heartland does lean conservative. An Ayn Rand group and a religious group had tables in the vendor section. Both were run by people who were very intense. I found the O’Toole brothers with their t-shirts more fun.
I would have liked to meet Harrabin. I met Delingpole for about 30 seconds. He was running to meet with Swedish radio. I wanted to meet everyone if I possibly could.
He told me that he recently discovered there were people going through his garbage. I told him anyone who goes through my garbage is going to encounter cat poop. He said his contains Labarador Retriever poop.
pgosselin
Thanks. Knowing the risk of photos, I wore makeup.
bugs
I didn’t hear him propose the latter.
The person who intrigued me much more than Monckton? Julian Morris. (See PJ Media’s coverage.
This guy is eloquent, has good timing, is nice looking, fun, but can also isn’t constantly pushing his points at every possible available moment. He also seemed to have a team of people who network with him.
bugs–
This is one of the things I wanted to learn. It was neither wall-to-wall adhoms or conspiracy theories.
Looks like people started discussing the MWP after that. No comments from me on that! 🙂