Dr. Shoosh is clearly eager to discuss an recent incident that will surely become known as lunchgate. The breaking story was reported at Anthony’s blog as a guest post by Monckton.
As I understand the details are as follows: Roger Helmer was invited to lunch with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of East Anglia. The Vice Chancellor evidently told Helmer to bring anyone else who might be interested. Helmer invited Monckton and Delingpole, then sent their names to UEA staff. Time passed. Very shortly before the lunch the Vice Chancellor uninvited Delingpole and Monckton.
Letters and/or emails were exchanged. The following bit of prose appears in one of the letters (or email) complaining about the rather rude dis-invitation.
Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.
Well, guess what! The snub became public! Who’d a thunk?!
In response to the complaint the Vice Chancellor evidently wrote back:
Again may I offer our apologies for altering arrangements at this late stage and thank you for our willingness to suggest another accompanying colleague. The Vice-Chancellor would be very happy to meet you with your fellow MEP Stuart Agnew as you suggest. This would be a meeting over lunch with the Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor Research Prof Trevor Davies and colleagues from Environmental Sciences, Profs Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, between 12:30-1.30pm in the Vice-Chancellor’s office.
My interpretation: There will be a “first lunch”, attended by the Helmer, Stuart Agnew, Vice-Chancellor, and UEA colleagues Trevor Davies, Julian Andrews and Peter Liss. These people will eat.
Monckton will presumably mill around the general vicinity, but will not be sitting at the table.
The VCs letter continues:
“I am sorry to learn in your second email of the inconvenience caused to Lord Monckton’s travel schedule. In view of the late alteration to his plans, the Vice-Chancellor has agreed to see Lord Monckton along with some of the same UEA colleagues in a separate meeting, immediately after you and Mr Agnew leave us at 1.30pm. We will make sure lunch is still available.
My interpretation: There will be a “second lunch” attended by the already sufficiently fed Vice Chancellor, and “some of the same” UEA colleagues. Monckton will only gain entry after Helmer and Agnew leave. Assuming “some” is plural, either Davies, Andrews or Liss intend to leave with Helmer.
When Monckton arrives, lunch will still be available. So, Monckton will lunch while the others sip their coffee. As far as I can tell, the trim Mr. Delingpole will not get to eat lunch with the UEA crowd.
So, I wonder which UEA colleague will leave? Any guesses?
Clearly, we climate blog addicts will want to pursue this further. As I have no budget to follow the story myself, I hope a starving undergraduate in journalism earning money to pay tuition as a waiter sneaks in his digital camera, records the two back-to-back lunches, and using his “nom de ‘intertubes”, “DeepLunch”, posts a two hour video titled “Prof X, Eats and Runs!”
Then we’ll all know who left, what they various people discussed and what people ate. I think the lunch is tomorrow. Tomorrow is Friday. I bet Monckton will eat fish.
Oh… I don’t really hope someone sneaks in a digital camera. That’s so childish. Ok… yes. I secretly do hope for a youtube video. I want to watch this whole lunchgate thing unfold.
PS. Yes, Shoosh. You can discuss your theories about Monckton on this thread.
Heaven forbid that UEA should appear to be building bridges and communicating. Scientific American might accuse them of being heretics, or worse.
There are some people easier to build bridges with than others. Monckton has, shall we say, a rather adversarial approach at times.
DonB–
I’m not entirely sure they are building bridges. I’m not quite sure who Roger Helmer is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Helmer).
I’m going to speculate.
Likely as not, UEA staff are often willing to chat up members of parliament as it might dispose the Members of Parliament to vote more favorably on issues that affect UEA. Generally speaking, the VC of UEA could anticipate easily finding people who wanted a chin-wag with almost any visiting member of Parliament. Since UEA has a relatively large staff, he doesn’t schedule the specific 3 before inviting the MP to lunch.
He might very well have circulated an invitation to UEA staff, indicating the first 3 to respond get the free lunch.
He may have not paid much attention to the fate of the invitations and finally “discovered” almost everyone on the UEA staff were “otherwise committed” and “unable” join a lunch on Oct. 29. Inquiring casually, he might very well discover the truth, which could be that UEA staff as individuals are all disinclined to have a chin wag in the presence of Delingpole and/or Monckton.
It looks like Delingpole didn’t push this issue. Monckton appears to have pushed. I don’t think the “second lunch” is going to be particularly enjoyable for him, but he will get fed.
Lucia,
Helmer is a member of the European Parliament, somewhat removed from UEA responsibility.
Monckton’s party, UKIP, has seats in the European Parliament, though not the British one. I think UEA might have suspected he had more ambitious politicking in mind. The split lunch could be a disappointment for him.
I look forward to hearing that Mashey has done a deep dive through their dumpster and has managed to divine a link between the participants and “Big Ham”.
Nick–
Ahh… Ok. Sorry- my mistake on which group Helmer was in.
Helmer? Or Monckton? Both? ( I suspect both. I don’t think Helmer picked Monckton’s name out of a hat.)
Do you mean Monckton or Helmer?
I don’t know about Helmer, but I think Monckton is going to have a very unpleasant lunch. If I’m not mistaken the lunch is tomorrow just after UK noon. Monckton posted about the snub today, in a forum that is widely read.
I think the UEA guys will already have learned of the post. Even if the VC’s dis-invitation was rude (and it was) the UEA staff are going to be rather peeved with Monckton for posting as he did. I don’t know what Monckton’s goals were for this lunch, but it’s not going to be a Monckton love-fest.
Zeke (Comment#57198)
October 28th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Monckton has, shall we say, a rather adversarial approach at times.
And he expects people to take him seriously in climate science?
Sheesh…de noive a de guy.
Lunchgate
rats, well that still leaves afternoon teagate and dinnergate. Breakfastgate will likely occur at a Starbucks
Anthony–
Or Dunkin’ Doughnuts.
Nick Stokes, since you pick up on the topic of motivations of the disinvitees, well the motivations of the invitors would be interesting as well. A little mitigation perhaps to lobby against angst in furture gov’t inquiries?
John
The important quote is the unambiguous threat made by Helmer,at Monckton’s suggestion:
“Moreover there is every possibility that this snub by the University to a public figure would become public.”
UEA backs down,but,yes,it becomes public…because this sort of fluff is more important to Monckton than anything else,it seems.
That Monckton proudly waves this sort of bovver-boy behavior around as though it’s some sort of victory for free speech is very telling.
Personally,I’m a bit bemused at how easily bluffed UEA still is. They need a media strategist…someone like Monckton.
Why couldn’t UEA be a bit bolder [and more honest] and simply say that Monckton is none of the things that Helmer presented him as being- “..acknowledged around the world as an expert on the science of climate change,and an authority on climate sensitivity.”-and hold their ground.
What had they to lose by excluding Delingpole and Monckton? They can only expect the choreographed mockery that these gentleman make their living from either way.
harry (Comment#57214)
October 28th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
I look forward to hearing that Mashey has done a deep dive through their dumpster and has managed to divine a link between the participants and “Big Hamâ€.
Harry, I spat out my sandwich laughing at that (not ham).
Funniest comment of the week for me! :=D
Nick (Comment#57238) They can only expect the choreographed mockery that these gentleman make their living from either way.
I’ve got a loverly bunch of mockery. Lord Bunchly of Mockerly?
John #57231,
No, an MEP would have no influence there.
Re: Nick,
If it were merely excluding the two, they would lose nothing by excluding.
The problem is the VC put himself in a sticky situation by first suggesting Helmer could invite someone, without including some caveats. It’s a bit like extending a wedding invitation to “Cousin Joe and Friend”, and then, to your horror, Cousin Joe’s Friend is someone who the hosts realize is really going to make other guests at the wedding extremely uncomfortable.
The hosts weren’t intending to specifically invite Joe’s friend.
The thing the hosts might lose by excluding Cousin Joe’s Friend is they might make Cousin Joe or the Friend angry.
I think the reason UEA wasn’t bolder is they were a bit embarrassed and they want to try to have a cordial relation with Helmer. It’s often wise for top level people at universities to have cordial relations with politicians of all stripes, so I don’t blame them.
So, even if the UEA staff aren’t eager to meet Monckton, it’s not much skin off their nose to sit in the same room and sip coffee while Mockton eats his lunch in front of them. If that smooths things a bit with Helmer, sipping coffee will be worth for the UEA staff.
I don’t know why Monckton wants this particular free lunch so badly. Maybe we’ll learn sometime next week.
Cowards are as cowards do.
The inevitable link to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4SJ0xR2_bQ
Comes to mind.
But on a slightly more serious note:
Have the AGW promoters done anything to build credibility in the past year?
Have they missed any opportunity to screw up, to show themselves as cretinous, unethical, ill mannered, inaccurate, self-referential, dissembling twits?
Hunter–
I don’t think cowardice is the issue. I think either of the following are more likely than fear:
1) The UEA guys have a motive for lunching with Helmer, and Delingpole and Monckton’s presence would interfere with achieving their goal.
2) The UEA guys just flat out don’t like Delingpole or Monckton and don’t want to eat lunch with one or the other (or possibly both).
I really don’t think they think there was much to fear from sitting at a table and eating with Monckton or Delingpole. It’s not granting an interview. They don’t have to answer questions. They can change subjects, just like at nearly any somewhat social lunch.
Stop it,Lucia,you’re being…so reasonable!
You’re right that UEA have made their bed and must lie in it,and unicrats are typically careful with the political class.
And in the spirit of reasonableness,I’ll repeat that Helmer’s take on Monckton’s scientific status is false representation.
That letter from Helmer,mentored by Monckton,is really a scream! Clearly,Monckton so craves proximity to UEA and scones that he will cut short his China trip and delay “important” business in the US…all for puffing up his CV,I suppose. What in reality is a lunch as a guest of an invitee will metamorphose into “His Lordship was invited to advise UEA on science policy and outreach”
Nick–
In which case, it might have been wiser of Monckton to not post about the disinvite. He’d just go, eat the lunch, people would talk about the weather. Later, he’d puff this meeting up, naming who came. The UEA might characterize it as just a lunch Monckton kinda, first sort of finagled and then pressed (in the sense of refusing to be snubbed.) But Monckton wouldn’t have shown the world that clearly the UEA guys don’t want him there!
Hey. I want someone secretly distributing cameras around the lunch room. Anyone in East Anglia reading, HOP TO!!!!
when I was in England in July, I contacted Tim Osborn and offered to come up to Norwich to meet with him. Osborn turned the suggestion down, saying, in effect, that he was busy cutting his toenails and reading the newspaper.
Lunchgate should be reclassified from Politics to Gossip or perhaps better would be Silliness with the Intent to Waste Blogging Bandwidth. Is it revealing what can be the pettiness of academia or just a big to do about absolutely nothing.
The guys at east anglia should get a reality show.
The wives of east anglia.
tools.
Hell they should invite monck to speak for an hour and take questions. or teach a class. Let some undergraduates at him.
Zeke (Comment#57198) October 28th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Adversarial? More like paranoid raving nutter.
http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-interview-lord-monckton-talks-about-nwo-master-plan/
Roger Helmer has a website
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
Steve McIntyre (Comment#57276) October 28th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
The disingenuous act gets tired after a while.
‘Lunchgate’ demonstrates AGW community intellectual cowardice very well.
I go out of my way to listen to those persons I disagree with in person at every opportunity. I listen respectfully, ask polite questions, and seek out the chance to engage in personal pleasant conversations.
It works every time.
If Monckton is the great ignorant paranoiac boorish inbred buffoon the AGW community wishes he was, what is the possible harm of his being there in an open setting where his wickedness could be on display for all to see?
But the pattern of the believer and promoter community is evasion, deception, dissembling, defensiveness.
Again I ask:
In the past year what has the leadership of the AGW movement done to demonstrate intellectual rigor, a commitment to ethics, transparency, openness or even a token of good will?
Whitewash climategate, get outed over glaciers, have phony audits of IPCC leadership, suppress papers, flee debates, etc. etc. etc.
Cowardice, lack of character, all come to mind.
hunter–
You are totally confused about this. The lunch isn’t open. It’s a private semi-social function –i.e. lunch date– with a limited guest list.
The issue with respect to his presence at lunch date isn’t “harm”. It’s “do I think I’ll enjoy the somewhat social occasion if X is present.” One of the things people enjoy about social events is socializing. But few enjoy to go to parties or social events where the company isn’t convivial (from their point of view.) In this regard, lunches with people you don’t enjoy are worse than cocktail parties because you sit down for about an hour and you can’t “circulate”.
(“Romantic” dates with people you discover you don’t like represent the pinnacle of social discomfort. Haven’t you ever found yourself a first date gone awry? Ackkk….!!!! Is there any “harm” in listening to the boring whatever drone on and on and on, while you wonder how you can tactfully end the date before the more-or-less traditional amount time? No. But ACKKKK…!!!!!!)
My guess is that none of the people having lunch with Monckton actively want to socialize with him and at least one person insists he will not eat lunch. His feelings about Monckton are ACCKKKK!!!!!!
If we had a youtube video, we could see which one of the UEA guys leaves right away, and watch the faces of the already fed UEA guys while they watch Monckton eat. I, for one, would like to watch that video. (I hope someone makes one!! 🙂 )
Yes, lunchgate only serves confirm what we all know already…
Global Warming the idea, only exists to empower governments and marginalize people who don’t agree, all the way down to not eating lunch with someone or even meeting them. That’s all it ever was and is.
Of course, lucia will say that nobody has to meet anybody and nobody has to have lunch with anybody they don’t want to, which is true enough… but is not the whole story. The rest of the story is: If you want to cooperate, you meet and communicate. If you want to remain in your oppositional tribe, then you disinvite and clip your toenails.
Andrew
Well thank you for doing this post Lucia. I think this is a great example of the gridlock going on. And I am glad Steve McIntyre shared a similar experience. My theory is that Lucia is probably right but I do think some of these people genuinely fear Lord Monckton. I think it is very childish for them to not allow Monckton or Delingpole at the lunch and further undermines their credibility. You have people that come to this site like Bugs, who simply dismisses Monckton and calls him crazy or something like that, if the guy is so crazy and stupid, then why not let him speak and then explain why he is wrong?
Did you watch the link for his rant about the New World Order?
Dr. Shooshmoon-
Why are you injecting “let him speak” into this? Monckton speaks all the time. I suspect if he wants, he can grab a bullhorn and “speak” in some open area at UEA. (He could if this was the US.) He can get a friend with a camera to make a youtube video of him presenting his “case” while standing on the steps of the entrace to the cafeteria at UEA. UEA has not prevented Monckton from “speaking”.
That said: The private, social UEA lunch is not a debate forum. Lunch is not a forum to “educate” your guests or make a “speech”– in fact, it’s rude to do so. Lunch should not be a forum for Monckton to educate his hosts or make a “speech” either– it would be rude to do so.
A few guys not wanting to lunch with Monckton in no way represents “not letting him speak”. It’s not wanting to participate in a “faux” social function with someone whose company you don’t enjoy.
If we look at this from a “Miss Manners” point of view– which applies if this is a social function:
* It was stupid of the VC to extend an open invitation with no caveats by way of Helmer. He put his university in this stupid situation.
* It was stupid or ignorant of Helmer to suggest people he should have known would not be welcome. If he did know they would be unwelcome, it was actually somewhat rude of him to put his hosts in this situation.
* Even if Helmer stupid, ignorant or rude, it was rude of the VC to dis-invite people he’d inadvertently invited (by proxy) particularly at short notice.
* Even though the VC was rude, was pretty push, and possibly rude, of Monckton to insist that he could not be disinvited. (This is true even if Monckton was inconvenienced, spent money etc. In the “social” situation, you really can’t force people to invite you. You can’t get people to “unsnub” you. You can complain quietly to your friends, who of course you pledge to secrecy. They of course gossip– which may backfire on you or may garner you sympathy. You can’t be sure.)
* The VC came back with a bit of a face saving solution– Monckton gets to come to lunch. It’s second lunch, so the “disinvite isn’t gone.”
* Having now been invited to something (even 2nd lunch) it’s a rude of Monckton to publish the equivalent of an All Points Bulletin (APB) about the incident on Watts Up With That. I think from a social point of view, this rudeness is egregious! I mean… horrifyingly shockingly rude.
What we have here is an example of multiple social faux pas, one or the part of the VC and two on the part of Monckton. One of the two Monckton faux pas are really, really bad.
Alas poor UEA-wreck, I knew him well!
This seems a no-win situation for the UEA staff. If they attend a lunch with Monckton present, then whatever is discussed becomes potential fodder for Monckton’s later diatribes. If they dis-invite him, this also becomes fodder for Monckton’s later diatribes. And besides, they all probably hate him, and would find lunch with him rather unpleasant.
Maintaining good relations with politicos is something that publicly funded universities pretty much have to do, but they should have been a lot more careful in this case. Should the Republicans gain control of the US House next week, maintaining good relations with politicos will become a lot harder for climate scientists, at least for those funded buy the US government. The bad PR from a poorly handled dis-invitation will be tiny compared to the bad PR that will come from hostile Congressional hearings, where the majority controls who is ‘invited’, with the invitation backed up by a subpoena, if needed.
Politicians know not a bit about science, of course, but they know a political agenda when they see it, and that is what hearings will focus on. Climate scientists would be wise to stay away from anything that could be remotely construed as political. The UEA emails are so full of politics that they fairly well beg for a political investigation. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Lucia,
“What we have here is an example of multiple social faux pas, one or the part of the VC and two on the part of Monckton. One of the two Monckton faux pas are really, really bad.”
These things tend to escalate; I don’t think it is a surprise in this case.
“they all probably hate him”
SteveF,
I suspect this is true because they’d rather swallow the negative PR, and look unreasonable, than to actually share a meal with him, it seems. If course, the 2nd Separate Meeting just makes the whole thing even sillier, IMO.
Nice dYsFunctiONal culture, UEA.
Andrew
SteveF
Yep. The situation is very touchy, and Monckton is, in my estimation, behaving very badly. Worse than UEA.
First: I would like to point out that Monckton is a semi-professional gossip. That is: Though he is not a member of the press, he shares features with the press. UEA — and everyone– has a right to decline interviews by the press– or even decline their presence. The fact that Monckton is (whether he would admit it or not) a
semi-professional gossipsomething of an unofficial “news reporter” or “editorial writer” makes engagments with the guy a bit weird from a social point of view. One must ask: Is Monckton there in a purely social capacity? Or in his capacity assemi-professional gossip“unofficial news reporter”? Or something else?Owing to his capacity as “unofficial news reporter”, UEA would prefer to have the “social” lunch with Helmer without the presence of Monckton — that is, unless they could be sure that Monckton was acting in a purely social capacity and would never violate a social convention. If the social lunch was truly social, etiquette would require Monckton to not gossip about the conversation in a way that reflected poorly on his hosts — who in the case are UEA. Some flattering gossip is permitted, but you don’t get to share secrets, nasty bits of gossip about how the UEA guys served him cold warmed over left-overs and eat from the wrong end of their sporks making fists as they gripped their instruments. Etiquette requires that ones hosts were lovely.. lovely… cultured, generous, & etc.
Similar rules could also apply to Delingpole. But Delingpole is a honest to goodness member of the press and doesn’t pretend otherwise. So, UEA people can be very direct: Delingpole would be required to know whether his presence was as a member of the press or an invited guest. They can exclude the press if they wish. Note that Delingpole did not push back on the disinvite.
Delingpole, maybe just a pushy about getting a story as the next reporter. (It’s their job man!)
But he at least, doesn’t pretend he is not the press, has decent manners and doesn’t protest when, after giving a go at getting an invite, gets disinvited.
BTW: Bloggers presence at the Heartland conferences was as members of the press. This designation was assigned by Heartland and our badges indicated this, lots of official and unofficial members of the press were around, and speakers were aware that the function was just chockful of people who were there in their official capacity of
professional or amateur gossipspress.So, while many aspects of the event had the appearance of being social, there would be no rule about not blogging something bad about the hosts–i.e. Heartland or even the other “guests”. Also: “members of the press” both official and unofficial were excluded from some events– like the pre-dinner for speakers etc. This is permitted. Similarly, UEA has a perfect right to exclude “members of the press” from “social”, “business” lunches of any lunch of the sort.
FWIW: I can assure you, my hosts from Heartland did not hold sporks backwards or eat with their mouths open.
Andrew_KY
I don’t think UEA looks all that unreasonable. The VC made an error in extending an open invitation without caveats. He the committed what would be a minor to medium sized faux pas.
Then, Monckton escalated this thing. I think Monckton looks bad.
If I ever extend a “X and friend” invitation, I may need to remember to include a list of “friends” who may not be invited. I may include Monckton. (Except, if we ever have a Blackboard get together under a Lisle Park District Pavillion, I think people would love him to come. So, I guess I’d let him.),
Lucia,
I’ll bet that during your days in grad school you never figured on becoming part of the press corps. 😉
Fah, Helmer invites Monckton and Delingpole and you think he didn’t know what he was doing?
============================
“I think Monckton looks bad.”
You always do. He’s your whippin’ boy! 😉
Andrew
Lucia,
“I would like to point out that Monckton is a semi-professional gossip. That is: Though he is not a member of the press, he shares features with the press.”
And therein lies the correct way for UEA to handle the situation. They needed only to ask for explicit confirmations from both Monckton and Delingpole that they understood the lunch would be purely social, and that they (Monckton and Delingpole) would keep what transpired private. Refusal to make that confirmation would be reasonable cause to issue a dis-invitation.
I suspect loathing for Monckton and Delingpole inhibited clear thinking at UEA.
SteveF–
Sure.
Ideally, the VC would have thought of that way out. The fact that Monckton’s status as press is unofficial probably made the solution less obvious to UEA, but, the move you suggest would have put UEA totally in the clear whether we view this as either business or social etiquette. The VC might have thought of it had everyone not been in shock at the thought of the names Monckton and Delingpole.
I suspect Delingpole would have done as he did: Not come to the lunch; not pressed, not groused about the “disinvite”.
Overall, I think Delingpole and UEA staff other than the VC come off mostly ok in this. Delingpole didn’t push back and blog his “dismay” at the “snub”. Other than the VC, the UEA staff didn’t extend the invitation. Their wishes were probably not consulted; they also are probably not obligated to attend unpleasant lunches at the VC’s command. (The VC does not have the governing powers of a reigning despot after all.)
The VC was clumsy. Helmer was initially either a dupe or a boor. When writing the 2nd email to get Monckton un-dis-invited, he transitioned to obvoius boor. Monckton started as a little bit of boor (by letting Helmer suggest his name at all), transitioned to boor (by pressing Helmer to write the letter) and graduated to candidate for “Boor of the Decade” by evidently accepting the invitation to “2nd lunch” and then blogging to complain about his treatment by his hosts!
Yes. Being put on the B list is a bit of a snub, but if you accept you can’t complain!
bugs (Comment#57319)
Oh my! I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with Bugs on this one. Monckton is regarded as a bit of a buffoon over here in the UK. His hysterical ideas on such matters as AIDS and UN World domination are rightly mocked. I don’t have much time for Delingpole either.
That I find myself seemingly in their company on this issue, is not a matter of great comfort to a naturally left-leaning soul like myself. I would have no wish to further any right-wing agendas of this self-promoter. But bad science, or advocate science, is what it is. The AGW movement has been so bungling, deceitful and arrogant that it has called forth the sort of larger-than-life loons, nobody previously took seriously and gifted them the moral high ground. Very stupid!
Hilarious! Helmer is having a little fun with the UEA. They invite him with an agenda (they want something from him and he knows it), he disrespects the UEA invitation by inviting two live grenades into the room with pins pulled. Now Helmer sits back and watches the fur fly while the UEA bomb squad attempts to disarm the grenades. Truly Monty Python inspired.
bugs – ok, so I watched the Monckton link you posted. What is it that alarms you about it? Sounds like rhetoric nationalists from all sorts of countries have been saying since the league of nations was first contemplated – and ever since.
BTW, Jesse Ventura has an upcoming episode on this Maurice Strong guy that Monckton mentions. This fact probably further bolsters your claim that Monckton is a nutter but I’m going to reserve judgment.
It seems the reality is that if there is any hope of tackling most environmental issues (be they legit or not) will require solutions that require international interaction. Hence there will always be a contingent of complainers making the point that national constitutional and democratic institutions are being run around. Isn’t this global aspect of “global warming” one of the basic problems of trying to deal with CO2? Why should anyone trouble themselves stinting on their use of CO2 producing fuels when the reality is that the undeveloped world will be burning coal at an increasingly rapid rate.
For me, one of the most potent arguments the CAGW crowd can make is by projecting future increasing annual amounts of CO2 likely to be spilled into the atmosphere as the underdeveloped world develops. There are billions of people in the world who deserve to have their homes wired for electricity. It looks to me like humankind’s destiny (like it or not) will be to burn all available fossil fuels, and the United Nations and the IPCC has next to zero chance of doing anything about it.
Shooshmon is Monckton using a devious nom de plume, I reckon.
‘Delingpole did blog his dismay at the snub’. Do you have a link please ? His blogs now get 1000 comments due to troll-infestation, making back-checking somewhat arduous. He has in any case gone with his family to India to check on ‘bio-diversity loss among leopards, blackbuck etc’, so can not have expected to be re-invited. I imagine Lord Monckton would not have been too happy to kick his heels alone, until Helmer & Agnew had left, and then be allowed to pick over the left-overs under the watchful gaze of the warmist cabal of Acton, Davies, Liss and Andrews.
Davies in particular must be terrified of anyone with a grip of all the facts. Watching him being made to look like rather silly by Steve McIntyre at Monbiot’s ‘debate’ was wonderful to behold.
McI ntyre was having to tell him on what dates he ‘attended’ which meetings !
Toad–
Sorry, when I wrote:
I committed typo. I’ve edited to
I think Delingpole acted rather well.
I’m sure he is happy. But it appears he has accepted this invitation and then complained. He could have declined the invitation to “2nd lunch”.
Do you see this differently?
As for the rest: Monckton’s boorish behavior doesn’t suddenly erase any bad, silly or other things UEA people may have done. It doesn’t make Davies less retroactively foolish looking in an interview with SteveMc. But Monckton isn’t exactly acting like Prince Charming here. Monckton not only acted badly, but then blogged about it so we could all learn about his bad behavior.
Lucia,
Did Monckton, at some point in the past, Dis-Invite you To Lunch?
Sincerely,
MikeC 😉
Andrew_Ky
Monckton has never either invited nor disinvited me to lunch he hosted. I also never inveigled a lunch on his nickle. It should go without saying, he cannot dis-invite me to a lunch he does not host. (But I’ll say it anyway.)
I should add that that there is a long list of people who have never dis-invited me from lunch. An incomplete list includes: Gavin Schmidt, SteveMcIntire, Phil Jones, James Delingpole, The VC of UEA, The Queen of England, President Obama, Lady Gaga, James Hansen, John Wayne (RIP) and countless famous, infamous, unknown people both living and dead.
Lucia,
LOL
If you want, I could invite you and then dis-invite you to a lunch… then you would have at least one contrary example.
lucia,
We have a President who goes out of his way to seek oportunities to break bread with Iranian war mongers.
I disagree with the utility of that, but at least Obama is willing to look for dialog with and learn from the bad guys. Jonah Glodberg just wrote a column about how he learns what extreme leftists by making himself listen to NPR for their version of the news.
If I had a chance to eat with Hansen- who I detest- i would jump on it.
The UEA invited Helmer to bring along a couple of friends.
They did not say, ‘send over a list of proposed guests and we will approve of two.’
The UEA rewrote the deal in the manner of Sir Robin.
So I respectfully do not think I am confused on this.
But I beleive my larger question stands unanswered as well: what has the AGW movement gotten right in the past year?
By the way, amazingly you and I share the same experience with your marvelous list in #57391. ;^)
AnyColourYouLike (Comment#57375),
You sum this up pretty well.
Since Roger Helmer is a strong critic of UEA and the climate change scam, it is not obvious why they invited him in the first place.
hunter–
You wrote “he was, what is the possible harm of his being there in an open setting where”
The lunch is not an open setting. That notion is and others in when you wrote that post were confused.
That Obama is willing to eat with people he choses to eat with people you dislike or you would be willing to eat with a person who you think some people might not wish to eat with has no bearing on whether or not 3 staff members from UEA should be forced to eat with someone they dislike and who those 3 did not invite.
The VC invited him. The VC can feel free to eat with whom he pleases, but that doesn’t require Trevor Davies and Julian Andrews and Peter Liss, or anyone else to eat with them.
I should also note that the fact that Obama voluntarily eats with an Iranian war monger would not obligate Obama to eat with Sarah Palin if he wished not to do so.
As for your complaint about your larger question: No one is required to permit you to change the subject of the post and thread merely because you decide to ask an off topic question.
Knowing Helmer who the hell did the UEA expect him to choose when they allowed some guests? Lord Oxburgh? Santa Claus? It, again, shows how utterly naive some professors can be…
Hoi Polloi
One hopes VC’s everywhere will learn not to extend invitations to “Politician and Guest of politician’s choice.”
This sort of invitation is always a dangerous thing both and life and sitcoms.
In sitcoms, at least one ” and guest” always turns out to be the bride or groom’s crazy alcoholic ex-boy or girl friend, who goes on a rampage and….”
They were probably expecting him to bring the wife and kids.
lucia,
I certainly have not intended to annoy you on this and for that I apologize. I see the entire lunchgate as silly and I should have picked up on this more quickly. Same for the off topic detour.
Best regards,
hunter
hunter–
No need to apologize. I’m also not annoyed.
Yes, lunchgate is silly. Monckton was silly to bring it up. The story makes him look bad, silly, etc. But he brought it up; Shoosh wanted to read what I thought, and linked so I blogged.
lucia,
Now that you have got this silliness out of the system would it be possible to have a post about climate change rather than than the people that talk about it? I would have thought that there are more important things happening in the physical world. For example:
1/The possibility of a negative AO becoming a climatic feature casing cold northern winters.
2/Changes to climate being considered as more than temperature, but also precipitation and the timing and seasonal aspects.
3/ The likelihood of climate wars, most of the protagonists are nuclear armed.
4/ And of course the likelihood of Lord Monckton choking over lunch and being canonized by the Catholic Church as the new ‘St Christopher’
The whole thing is just a silly episode that shows how the level of civility has deteriorated in the climate science world. Very childish actions on the part of several people.
Steve McIntyre (Comment#57276) October 28th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Steve’s strength of character shows in that he can relate the incident in a humorous manner rather than whining about it like Monckton.
He certainly took you in. He did exactly what monckton did, but made it less obvious. Look up disingenuous.
Actually, what McIntyre did was worse than what Monckton did. He invited himself along, then let everyone know his ‘invitation’ was turned down.
I think there is an opening; the old one got de-sainted.
What “incident”? A retired mining consultant issues an invitation for lunch to a climate scientists. He gets turned down. So what? Since when does attacking people on your blog entitle you to lunch dates? If that’s going to be a thing, tune in next week for my anti-Felicia Day post.
bugs:
Bugs should get a broken record award. Maybe Robert too, but definitely bugs.
I didn’t bring up McIntyre’s supposed ‘amazing strength of character’, but I am going to point out it’s not true. There is a mythology that has been built up around the man that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, that has been carefully cultured by the man himself, using claims like the one he just made here.
Would you like to explain what, if anything, in the single comment I’ve made on this thread (also the only comment I’ve posted here in the last week) is repetitive? Don’t get me wrong, Carrick, I love that false-voice-of-authority, sit-in-judgment thing that you do, but that complaint seems unusually baseless.
comments 57450 and 57451 might b a clue… although I think Carrick was talking about the day to day repeat of the same political bs eminating from the stink pipe
MikeC (Comment#57471) October 29th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Those statements were just statements of fact, refuting McIntyre’s claim.
bugs,
Criticism from you is high praise indeed.
S Basinger (Comment#57479) October 30th, 2010 at 12:42 am
You didn’t actually refute the statement.
bugs, It looks like you’ve been eating the carrots growing next to the pot plants again
MikeC (Comment#57482) October 30th, 2010 at 1:17 am
You can’t refute it either.
Lucia. re57381. I’m beginning to wonder if Delingpole even knew he’d been ‘invited’ before he was ‘dis-invited’. That could explain why ‘he acted rather well’.
I’m sure James would have ‘given his eye-teeth’ for such an opportunity, if it were genuine. As someone who blogs every day about the misinformation that emanates from Acton, Davies & Jones, the chance to check it at source would have been irresistible.
Let us not forget that because of the corrupted ‘science’ spewed out by Jones, Mann and ‘the team’, we are all going to have to cough up untold BILLIONS pointlessly.
This is no storm in a teacup !
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1012158.shtml
Billions of dollars spread over many years really isn’t going to be noticed, but besides reducing CO2 output, it will give us a means of coping with the end of cheap oil.
Bugs. ‘Billions of dollars…. isn’t going to be noticed’. You really haven’t got it have you ? Why WASTE billions on something which is now known to be a total scam ?
CCS is never going to work and known oil reserves are as large as ever.
toad (Comment#57512) October 30th, 2010 at 5:03 am
The oil reserves are getting smaller. It’s not an infinite resource. It will run out, then what do we do? But it won’t run out before we put a lot more CO2 up there. It is not known to be a total scam. That would imply massive fraud, incompetence and conspiracy on a global scale. For what end? Did the worlds peak science bodies and the majority of climate scientists get taken over by aliens or secret communists? If you are going to have such a massive conspiracy, the ‘real’ reasons would have leaked out long ago.
JC doesn’t buy any of that, she just doesn’t think the certainty is there in the projections. I don’t know why that would give her any comfort in doing nothing, it just makes it more concerning to me.
Re: toad ,
I sort of wonder if he knew too. If he didn’t know, and had nothing to do with this, then he can’t have acted badly during the incident of lunchgate — right?
On JD’s blog you will find ‘Reality Returns’, a power anylist for 30 years who says ‘Oil reserves have been at about 40 years since the start of the last century. They will be at that level throughout this century’.
Re ‘massive fraud, incompetence and conspiracy on a global scale’, congratulations, you’ve summed up the great global warming scam so accurately !
Sorry should read ‘analyst’.
bugs (Comment#57516)
October 30th, 2010 at 5:30 am
You said, “The oil reserves are getting smaller. It’s not an infinite resource. It will run out, then what do we do? But it won’t run out before we put a lot more CO2 up there. It is not known to be a total scam. That would imply massive fraud, incompetence and conspiracy on a global scale. For what end? Did the worlds peak science bodies and the majority of climate scientists get taken over by aliens or secret communists? If you are going to have such a massive conspiracy, the ‘real’ reasons would have leaked out long ago.”
——————
bugs,
Bugs, aliens or secret communists aside, I could see a way to concede all your thoughts. That said, we go back to the crux of the matter regarding any significance and urgency of AGW-by-CO2 which is supported by ‘settled/consensus science’. My independent assessment is there is time for the current obviously advancing reformation /renaissance in climate science to ascend over the biased approach of the old climate science of more than 20 yrs. What I suggest we all do is intensely focus now on the daily AR5 preparation efforts to make it absolutely open and at the same time encourage climate scientists to come forth and aid the climate science reformation /renaissance. : )
Not to put the point too bluntly, but that’s just crazy. How does such a conspiracy, of peak science bodies around the globe, remain hidden for over 20 years? To what end is the conspiracy being perpetrated? What do the perpetrators get out of it?
“What do the perpetrators get out of it?”
Their paychecks?
Andrew
Can I recommend all of the following books- ‘Heaven & Earth’ -Ian Plimer, ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster’ Christopher Booker, ‘Climate The Counter Consensus’ Bob Carter or ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill). Any or all of these will answer your questions.
Toad,
“Why WASTE billions on something which is now known to be a total scam ?’
Do you mean that the whole concept of AGW is a total scam? Like Senator Inhofe’s “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity”?
A grand conspiracy of a world-wide coalition of climate scientists, producing widely different types of data that all support the hoax? Carried out for the purpose of spending billions, creating a one-world government in which individual countries are forced to work together to combat a common threat? A conspiracy of progressive climate scientists working tirelessly to transform the good old USA into a socialist society?
Is that what you mean? You probably won’t be invited to lunch either (or dinner)?
Re: bugs (Oct 30 07:28), Really, it only takes incompetence. Incompetence comes in many forms. In this case, the incompetence is in forcing a solution that does not address the problem. At present, unless we start building large numbers of nukes, we will not meet humanity’s appetite for energy. Wind and solar are not economic, and the % energy penetration by either is currently limited.
However, massive fraud has been found for solar, carbon credits, and offsets. And apparently Mafia activity as well.
So, 2 out of 3 Ain’t bad. Meat Loaf: Paradise by the Dashboard Lights
Channeling bugs:
“Upside Down Mann (Steve’s quip, not Mann’s improper use of Tiljander) is destroying Science as we know it. McIntyre is EVIL.”
Seriously bugs, what’s with your emotional focus on Steve? Is Mann a favorite uncle or something?
David Jay:
More like bug’s daily loop.
War on Weather
Climate’s clever clusterfcuk
Let’s have Lunch
Bugs, There’s nothing to dispute except perhaps the dosage
My reading: This is another example of the political naivety in the climate camp. Really basic stuff.
They were totally set up here. I think the really bad behaviour is Helmer’s. The invitation was extended to him in good faith and he abused it a bit. It’s like being invited to a wedding and bring the groom’s ex-wife as your +1. It’s kind of rude but also kind of funny, and does nothing to build trust between the two ‘sides’.
There’s no question that Monckton and Delingpole would have used it as some kind of ambush.
UEA know that, got a bit spooked and fluffed their lines.
The thing is you have to have a script when you meet people like Delingpole and Monckton, one being a ‘journalist’ and the other being an aspiring politician. You cannot go off piste or they will spin all sorts of stuff.
Mark
If ex-wife does not have good enough relationship with hubby or bride to be invited on her own, the groom’s ex-wife probably ought to know better than to accept any invitation as a +1. (Reasons she might not include: insanity, addiction to crack, etc.)
If, after accepting, she finds herself rudely dis-invited, I will recognize that, while technically, being disinvited any guest is a breach of etiquette on part of the host, I have no sympathy for the batty ex-wife. I suspect few would.
If the ex-wife complained of her ill-treatment in a blog post read by thousands, or on reality tv watched by millions, I would think very badly of the ex-wife. (Of course, bad behavior often garners good high Nielsen ratings on tv. But that doesn’t mean people approve of the misbehavior!)
Mark—
I think both the first and second lunches should have taken place by now. I wonder how things went?
The only thing I’m a bit curious about is how one should properly, in the best way according to Miss Manners, organize a double or sequential lunch for people who can’t stand each other.
Will the VC of UEA have two lunches, one with each party? Will these be held in the same room with a small pause in between to change the tablecloth and arranged flowers? Or will be two identically furnished and decorated rooms prepared with the VC of UEA running between them?
EW–
Maybe we need to ask.
I have often read Miss Manners, and once owned her guide to excruciatingly correct behavior but no longer do. I never achieved any certification in “mannerology”. Still, my impression is that in purely social situations, one may not simultaneously hold an “A list” and “B list” party or do anything to make it obvious that someone on the “B” list is, erhmmm, on the “B list”. So, for example, you can’t have a wedding reception of cake only, to which you invite 500, immediately followed by a reception with a band, dinner and free bar for a select subset of 100 who are on your “A” list.
This is not to say that you can’t host small intimate birthday parties for 100 in April and later host a huge fourth of july bash for 500. That those invited to your birthday party are your “A” list and those at the 4th of july bash are on your “B” list might seem evident to anyone. But this is nevertheless not a breach of etiquette. But what if your birthday is july 3rd? Or even the 4th? And you have a birthday brunch with a small group followed by a huge bash? You can see where this gets complicated; one must often consult Miss Manners herself.
But I think things will become more (or possibly less) complicated when applying rules to diagnose any etiquette violations in “lunchgate”. I have read some of Miss Manners scholarly words expounding on the difference between business functions masquerading as social functions and real honest to goodness social functions.
Sometimes, “some” with business interests will try to convince “others” that rules of social etiquette apply to what is either a purely commercial transaction or some sort of business transaction. In these cases, “social rules” do not apply for a simple reason: They aren’t really social.
In a common easily recognized example, one might receive “invitations” addressed to “resident” “parties” of the “grand opening” sort by bulk mail; inspection will reveal these were sent by bulk mail. These might even indicate “RSVP” and contain a response card. (Occasionally, you can attend this “party” for a small fee.) This thing can easily be recognized “not an invitation” and one may chuck it in the recycling bin feeling no guilt when not responding.
But sometimes, its a bit more difficult to diagnose an event. The UEA/Helmer/Monckton/maybe Delingpole “first lunch”, “second lunch”, “no lunch” situation falls in this category. Is it really social? (UEA a university was going to pay for the food right? UEA pays their staff, right? UEA may not be commercial but it’s not exactly a person or family, right?) We don’t know the UEA VC’s motivation in inviting Helmer– a politician– but, it seems quite likely, it was not entirely social. Right? The VC isn’t inviting Helmer to his home to meet his kids– he’s inviting him to meet staff, and Helmer is a politician. Helmer’s motivation in coming quite likely wasn’t entirely social, but at least partly political.
So, a lot of this looks like an event dressed up as “social”, but I’m not sure it is. Given that, I can’t begin to guess the official ruling from Miss Manners. But we could ask her. (Maybe I should! She has a column after all.)
Andrew_KY (Comment#57530) October 30th, 2010 at 7:38 am
There is climate to research even if there is no AGW.
EW–
I submitted this question to Miss Manners:
Dear Miss Manners,
A question surrounding the etiquette of scheduling lunches for different groups of invitees has arisen at my blog and many of us are trying to puzzle out the precise rules of etiquette applying to the following sequence of events.
The Vice Chancellor of a university in England invited a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) to a lunch to be attended by the Vice Chancellor and leading faculty working in a particular discipline. When extending the invitation, the Vice Chancellor also invited the politician to invite others of his choosing. The politician responding, providing the names of “Mr. A”, a political activist , and “Mr. B.”, a journalist. ( Those following recent news stories and reading editorials “Mr. B” or speeches and editorial by Mr. A have reason to believe the presence of both Mr. A and Mr B would be extremely distasteful to all or nearly all leading faculty members slated to be present at the lunch. )
Roughly two months later, and only two days before the scheduled lunch, the Vice Chancellor wrote the politician withdrawing the invitation to Mr. A and Mr. B on the pretext that “It is not normal practice for the Vice-Chancellor to meet MPs and MEPs accompanied by journalists or party political activists, and to avoid setting a new precedent I am afraid that the invitation to meet with the VC cannot be extended to ” Mr. A and Mr. B.
The MEP responded, acquiescing, and then suggesting the name of a third individual who was an a member of parliament (MP.) Shortly afterwards, at the behest of Mr. A, the MEP wrote complaining of the disinvitation of Mr. A, and asked the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the disinvitation of Mr. A.
The Vice Chancellor did reconsider, and proposed a solution which seems to involve two lunches. The first lunch was scheduled between 12:30-1:30pm and would be attended by the MEP and MP, the Vice Chancellor, and three members of the University Faculty. At 1:30pm, the MEP and MP would leave, and Mr. A would meet with the Vice Chancellor and some of the University faculty. Lunch would still be made available.
Though I am not certain, I believe Mr. A accepted this offer and intended to join the Vice Chancellor at the 1:30 pm meeting. The details of this event were blogged by Mr. A who quoted mulit-paragraph portions of emails exchanged between the Vice Chancellor and the MEP.
Now, for my first question: Do rules of social etiquette apply to this situation? Or is this more of a business event? Either way, if there were any breaches or social etiquette, when did the first breach of either business or social etiquette occur? One reader in particular wishes guidance in the niceties of scheduling two separate lunches for people on different guests lists.
I thank you in advance for any insight you can provide me and my readers.
Your fan,
Lucia
http://www.missmanners.com/ask-miss-manners.html
“There is climate to research even if there is no AGW.”
Indeed. But what is it worth?
I mean, If all climate research can do is produce meaningless squiggly lines, no one would want to pay for them. Give a monkey a crayon and he can make a squiggly line on a piece of paper. He’d do it for free.
But if the squiggly line represents AGW… imagine the possibilities! 😉
Andrew
This claim is meaningless. What are you trying to say, John?
One thing that has not been picked up on is why UEA hold these lunchtime meetings in the first place. Why invite Helmer? Well, obviously he is an MEP and UEA seems to feel it will derive some benefit from inviting him. They are playing a ‘system’ but when it doesn’t quite go according to plan they cry foul.
Can I have any sympathy with that? NO!
Dave Andrews–
That was not revealed in Monckton’s blog post. Also not revealed: Was Helmer’s invitation to a lunch time meeting solicited by Helmer in the first place? Did a third party suggest the VC invite Helmer? Either seems as likely or more likely than the VC sitting in his office, and suddenly thinking, “Geeh! I’d sure like to have lunch with MEP Helmer. He seems like such a swell guy.”
I’m sure much of the VC’s motivation is currying favor with politicians to place his university in a more favorable position for funding, support etc. He should have been more careful in wording his invitation. I bet he’ll know better in future.
That is just inane. If you want to just make money, there are much higher paying careers out there. These guys are paid regular university or government salaries. The total Wall St bonuses each year amount to about 25 billion dollars, IIRC. The vast amount of money that goes into climate research goes to the hardware and expenses, not into anyones pocket.
David Jay (Comment#57547) October 30th, 2010 at 9:21 am
It’s not emotional, it’s logical. McInytre couldn’t crow loudly enough about his status of being one of the Statesmans’ “50 People who Matter”. He just didn’t realise the ambiguity of the status. It’s not for his scientific ability, which in climate is seriously lacking, but his ability to create mountains out of molehills with his ’emotional focus’ on a selective few areas of the case for AGW. He does so by using his website to belittle and demean scientists, and in doing so, has reduced the scientific debate to one of juvenile taunts and slurs. That’s not science. We now have the disconcerting situation where science in general is under attack by populists such as Beck, who is lining up evolution with climate science. As the Nature said, science is under attack.
Bad science is under attack, and rightfully so.
Lunch being under attack is another matter entirely. It’s quite the jam they’ve gotten themselves into.
Bugs, you don’t seem to appreciate that Jones has received £19,000,000 so far. You may not think it’s very much, but it does help to pay for Davies & Acton’s lunches. When even Monbiot declares that Jones has been a ‘naughty boy’ everyone knows that the game should be up.
However none of the ‘team’ dare declare that this is so, as the whole house of cards would come tumbling down and the funding would cease.
Had you been at Monbiot’s ‘debate’ and been able to watch Trevor Davies’s performance you would have wondered whether CRU could ever recover from the humiliation.
No wonder they have this ‘bunker’ mentality.
As Mark says (57567) ‘UEA got a bit spooked and fluffed their lines’.
Possibly the understatement of the century !
Lucia,
your matter-of-factness and ability to summarize succinctly the core of various disputes here does not cease to amaze me 😉
Now let’s wait and hope for the ultimate judgment of Miss Manners, although I feel that this would be a bit difficult even for her…
toad (Comment#57667) October 31st, 2010 at 4:09 am
Jones ‘received’ nothing like 19 million pounds. His department received research grants. Jones is paid a salary.
S Basinger (Comment#57660) October 31st, 2010 at 2:46 am
That’s the funny thing, there is a cornucopia of bad science on WUWT, but it never gets ‘audited’.
The Wegman paper, that said it was time for statisticians to get involved because there were errors in Mann’s work, had plenty of errors itself.
bugs,
what exactly were Wegman’s statistical errors?
And when we are at errors – did you already read the Tiljander paper paying special attention to what the authors have to say about the 20th century part of their data?
Bugs. (57617) ‘The vast amount of money (your words) that goes into ‘climate research’ (my italics) goes to the hardware and ‘expenses’ (my italics again) not into anyone’s pocket’.
The ‘prestige’ and lifestyle that these professors enjoy depend entirely on keeping Jones in place. Never mind that he was moved sideways and told by Trevor Davies that HE would handle things in future, the mere presence by Jones at CRU is critical to the continued existence of the ‘house of cards’.
To have had Monckton and Delingpole in there together would have brought the whole lot tumbling down !
I hate to break the news to you, but the science is being independently replicated around the world in other scientific institutions. The idea that the science stands or falls on one man is a ludicrous.
Bugs says that McIntyre uses his website “to belittle and demean scientists, and in doing so, has reduced the scientific debate to one of juvenile taunts and slurs.”
This is absurd. Climate Audit has published detailed critiques of many studies and hosted long and interesting discussions of many statistical topics in particular. The level of debate is more civilised and scientific than anything I have seen that Bugs has produced. It is true that there is sometimes some sarcasm and snark, but considering what McIntyre has been subjected to, surprisingly little.
Depends on what science is being replicated. If I, EW, find a good gene for phylogenetic studies of fungi, then surely other people will use it as well and through their application verify my results.
I don’t think that many people outside the “inner circle’ of the spaghetti graph producers were able to use the same data and to replicate their findings. And if someone did that with a bit different results, he was criticized even in case he was the former member. See Moberg’s case.
You don’t provide a logical response. In your words it has ‘hosted long and interesting discussions’. Therefore, you can just ignore the matter of belittling and demeaning, and demonizing for that matter, scientists. You cannot ignore that.
Aside all that demonizing – did you read the Tiljander paper? Simple question, isn’t it?
“Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors”.”
It is interesting, McIntyre can barely present a topic without snark, demonizing scientists, but I am the one who is guilty for pointing it out.
McIntyre is the king of selective quoting.
from the Tiljander paper.
The series is not useful for since the arrival of humans, but Tiljander seems quite happy to look at the paleoclimate implications before then.
Bugs, do you really not understand the Tiljander issue after all these months? Your quotation shows exactly why what Mann did was wrong, as McIntyre pointed out.
Mark
“There’s no question that Monckton and Delingpole would have used it as some kind of ambush.”
Why not ask? I’ve emailed Monckton in the past and gotten a response. He HAS said that he is a troublemaker, but on the other hand goes about it in a very civil and proper way. He might have something interesting to say about whether one can advance an issue they are championing using conversations at lunch dates, and whether it is possible to “break the ice” so people can eat comfortably in situations where people are so on guard. Monckton must be a pretty well heeled guy, I’m sure he would have something pertinent to say. I’m sure he’s been in situations like this many times before.
Bugs, Have you read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ ? If either Jones or Mann were to be ousted, then the whole crooked deal would collapse, whatever ‘scientific institutions round the world are replicating it’.
Once again – did you, bugs, read the original paper of Tiljander 2008?
Yes or no?
Look at how convoluted true believers like bugs must get to avoid applying their money rule to their own side.
Jones has built an empire at UEA based on his ability to raise millions in grants over years. To say that his 19,000,000 in grants is not important because it did not all go to him it ridiculous. – He makes, in his world, plenty. He gets speaking engagements, book deals, paid travel, etc. due to his UEA/CRU results.
Guys… CO2 is soooo yesterday. Biodiversity: is the new magic word, follow da money!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11609159
Hoi Polloi,
maybe there’s hope. From your quoted article:
“It’s your usual story – it’s people putting their national interests far above the importance of biodiversity.””
I am afraid the man on the street, will view this cat fight, as a clear example of the elite squabbling, over who gets to eat caviar, and who doesn’t. Just whose nickle is paying for this “private social event”, which has been carefully crafted to produce nothing of worth. I think Joe Taxpayer, may be getting tired of funding such extravagance, without a clearly submitted agenda, outlining the work component. If everyone invited merely confirms attendee (s) biases… where is the labour and what value is being added?? GK
Hank
Well, Monckton could probably accurately report whether he was comfortable and whether he was pleased with the outcome. To find out whether everyone was comfortable, pleased or let down their guard, we’d have to interview both sides of the lunch date.
Steve McIntyre (Comment#57276) October 28th, 2010 at 9:00 pm | Reply w/ Link
when I was in England in July, I contacted Tim Osborn and offered to come up to Norwich to meet with him. Osborn turned the suggestion down, saying, in effect, that he was busy cutting his toenails and reading the newspaper.
##########
My experience this. If you fight with somebody in business they will most certainly have lunch with you. Even put the issue aside in order to find out what makes you tick, and to find a win-win solution, and to show you that its nothing personal. On the other hand, in the climate business are entirely different.
Bugs:
It is interesting, McIntyre can barely present a topic without snark, demonizing scientists, but I am the one who is guilty for pointing it out.
########
perhaps english is not your first language. SNARK does not demonize.
A comment that is “snarky” is sarcastic and irreverent. So for example
The comment ” but hey, its climate science!” is sarcastic and irreverent. It is not demonizing
You revere climate scientists. They can do no wrong in your book. You revere climate science. It’s correct in every one of it’s statements. When Steve is sarcastic and shows a lack of reverence for what you cherish, you cannot help but conflate “snark” with demonizing.
Steve’s snark is principally aimed at taking the climate scientists and climate science off a pedestal. Demonizing, would require talking about their evil character. They dont make mistakes because they are evil. They make mistakes because they are human. When they refuse to admit mistakes, then irony and sarcasm are handy tools.
if you want to see demonizing, then just read the mails, where Mann demonizes steve. In short. mann is wrong and steve uses math and sarcasm to attack him. He does not say Mann is evil. Mann thinks steve is wrong because he thinks steve is evil ( an oil shill) I would have no issue with Mann if he engaged Steve and gave steve what steve gives him: that is, show some math and add some savage sarcasm. Steve has his big boy pants on. he is not a pussy. Note, I’m not implying that mann is an evil pussy.
bugs (Oct 31 06:32),
Here are the two most severe problems with the use of the Tiljander data series — they aren’t really proxies — by Mann08.
1. Mann and co-authors miscalibrated all four of them to the instrumental temperature record. This couldn’t be helped, because they are uncalibratable.
2. There actually aren’t four data series–only three exist. The fourth, “Thickness”, is simply “Lightsum” and “Darksum” added together.
This late in the game, the commonest and most plausible way to excuse Mann08’s use of Tiljander is with careful application of lawyerly phrases. The classic sentence, which you can see deployed at Arthur Smith’s (and linked earlier discussions) is “I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.” Very meta: what does “to know” mean, what is “it,” and how is “doesn’t matter” to be defined?
This tactic has risks. Notably, the informed reader will recognize that she is being misled. The person new to the story may come to feel deceived by this strategy, once she digs in a little deeper.
Bugs, I would be delighted to have you author a guest post at my blog, to fully flesh out your view of the Tiljander series, and the way they have been used. I think the best thing to do is to lay things out clearly, with links and references to supporting data. (That should be straighforward; the site already catalogs all of the significant Tiljander-relevant material that I am aware of.)
SteveMosher–
People in business don’t always have lunch with people they fought with. Sometimes, the most productive thing is to just ignore each other, and people in business do often do that.
In any case, if business owner “A” tries to organize a lunch with business owner “B” and “B” declines, if “A” has decent business sense, he drops it. It’s not productive to try to waste effort (time and money) to try to force B to the table where the two can try to negotiate a “win-win” whatever that might be.
“My experience this. If you fight with somebody in business they will most certainly have lunch with you. Even put the issue aside in order to find out what makes you tick, and to find a win-win solution, and to show you that its nothing personal. On the other hand, in the climate business are entirely different.”
Part of the difference in that in business, you have two businesspeople. They’re in the same profession, doing the same thing. Where as there is no “climate business.” There’s climate science, and there are retired minerals consultants who peddle psuedoskepicism. Again, criticizing scientists on your blog does not make you a scientist.
Whereas. Stupid autocorrection!
AMac, I notice you’ve spent several years and many thousands of words on your blog attacking the Tiljander proxies. Just to be clear, have you ever submitted or published any of these analyses in the peer-reviewed literature?
“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”(Sun-Tzu)
Sure, you find a business war that works like this and I’ll give you a billion quatloos. Why on gods earth would they need to know what makes McIntyre tick to do their science? You don’t even need to meet him to know. He’s a self absorbed narcissist. This is all about Steve. Monckton without the New World Order lunacy.
Re: Robert (Oct 31 13:37),
> AMac, I notice you’ve spent several years and many thousands of words on your blog attacking the Tiljander proxies.
Robert, “spent several years,” es, but this is a very modest contribution to a very specialized subject that was undertaken as a hobby. Attacking,>/i> that concept doesn’t make sense to me. What would it mean to attack a proxy?
> have you ever submitted or published any of these analyses in the peer-reviewed literature?
No, for these reasons.
(1) I don’t know of a peer-reviewed journal that would be a good venue for a commentary on the use of the Tiljander data series in Mann08. Do you have any suggestions?
(2) I am a citizen-scientist, not somebody who has made a career in a relevant field. As such, I have a day job. As Rick Trebino’s amusing account shows, getting a Comment accepted can be challenging, even in a field that is much less politicized than paleoclimatolgy.
(3) Peer-reviewed journals value novelty. I have “published” items in comments and then on my blog, as I have discovered them. As a result, I would have little to say in a peer-reviewed comment that wouldn’t be seen as “old news” by climate scientists who keep up with Gavin Schmidt and other bloggers.
i think that #3 is a problem that peer-reviewed journals are beginning to grapple with.
And I would be glad to discuss the prospects for joint authorship, if the prospective coauthor had insights into how to overcome these obstacles.
Re: Robert (Oct 31 13:37),
> AMac, I notice you’ve spent several years and many thousands of words on your blog attacking the Tiljander proxies.
Robert, “spent several years,” yes, but this is a very modest contribution to a very specialized subject that was undertaken as a hobby. Attacking, that concept doesn’t make sense to me. What would it mean to attack a proxy?
> have you ever submitted or published any of these analyses in the peer-reviewed literature?
No, for these reasons.
(1) I don’t know of a peer-reviewed journal that would be a good venue for a commentary on the use of the Tiljander data series in Mann08. Do you have any suggestions?
(2) I am a citizen-scientist, not somebody who has made a career in a relevant field. As such, I have a day job. As Rick Trebino’s amusing account shows, getting a Comment accepted can be challenging, even in a field that is much less politicized than paleoclimatolgy.
(3) Peer-reviewed journals value novelty. I have “published” items in comments and then on my blog, as I have discovered them. As a result, I would have little to say in a peer-reviewed comment that wouldn’t be seen as “old news” by climate scientists who keep up with Gavin Schmidt and other bloggers.
i think that #3 is a problem that peer-reviewed journals are beginning to grapple with.
And I would be glad to discuss the prospects for joint authorship, if the prospective coauthor had insights into how to overcome these obstacles.
bugs (Comment#57759) October 31st, 2010 at 2:36 pm | Reply w/ Link
My experience this. If you fight with somebody in business they will most certainly have lunch with you. Even put the issue aside in order to find out what makes you tick, and to find a win-win solution, and to show you that its nothing personal. On the other hand, in the climate business are entirely different.
Sure, you find a business war that works like this and I’ll give you a billion quatloos. Why on gods earth would they need to know what makes McIntyre tick to do their science? You don’t even need to meet him to know. He’s a self absorbed narcissist. This is all about Steve. Monckton without the New World Order lunacy.
##############
well bugs you make that same mistake that I had to fail many undergraduates for: believing they could read through a mans words to his soul. usually, they were projecting. the funny thing is that in my many conversations with Steve he never once tried to read into jones soul or mann’s soul. In short he resisted doing with them what YOU do with him. Further you don’t even do it that well. You obviously have not spent much time with an actual narcissist. ( thats a trick question that you dont even get ) But that doesnt stop you, because well…
Further, had mann understood that Steve’s interest was a hobby horse and NOT oil company shillism, much of this would have been avoided. It was exactly the kind of misreading that you engage in that Mann engaged in.
Hoi:
““Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.â€(Sun-Tzu)”
I think that bugs does not even get this. Something about the way he talks and thinks says that he does not have much experience with the real world of power. That would point to someone young, or someone disenfranchised (lowly worker) or someone in an ivory tower of sorts. Some serious disconnect in his thinking that bespeaks a lack of experience with real power and conflict. something not quite male about “bugs”
Lucia.
Some background on Helmer. Roger Helmer has long campaigned as a Eurosceptic libertarian with traditional Conservative values in the European parliament in Brussels, alongside Daniel Hannon, with many of his speeches at the EU posted on Youtube. He represents the East Midlands region in the EU, the region in which the UEA falls. He is a frequent blog and media contributor, including his own blog, the Conservative Home blog, and the press and BBC.
He has hosted several climate conferences with high profile international speakers sceptical of CAGW. One of these conferences took place in the Brussels Europarliament building on the very day Climategate began to break- I was an invitee and brought a guest too, and Helmer extended us every hospitality. I was disappointed the key speaker Svensmark could not attend through sickness, although the many other international scientists, and well as the sceptic bloggers Watts and Delingpole were there. He is the model of a courteous host, with etiquette and manners to match.
To disinvite his guests at the last hour, after such a long time, will have insulted his sensibility, as it would most of us. For sure, his guests proposal was provocative, but UEA had ample notice, and failed to respond. Thus the trap was set, and UEA sprung that rat-trap right royally. Helmer is no boor, but a consummate politician. UEA played right into his hands, with both hamfisted feet. In politics, because that is what it is all about, the fence and parry is their bread and butter. UEA should have risen to it and given them all the proper hospitality, their conficting views irrelevant to that courtesy, but hammed it up so utterly that Monkton is quite rightly making hay for all it is worth. Helmer and Delingpole will doubtless do so at their own pleasure in due course.
NOT oil company shillism
I always wonder about this. Why does McIntyre let himself be misused by think thanks who obviously are oil shills? Why doesn’t he distance himself from them, if he really does have good intentions? That would be the first thing I would do if I wanted to be perceived as independent and unbiased. Being buddies with folks from GMI or CEI or Heartland doesn’t really help the reputation.
BTW, stevenmosher, I loved the advice you were giving on WUWT (‘even if you don’t mean it, say to warmists that you also believe CO2 is a problem’, or something in that vein). You really seem to be a hypocrite, game playing… I’m not sure how to translate the Dutch ‘relnicht’.
lucia (Comment#57739) October 31st, 2010 at 11:39 am | Reply w/ Link
SteveMosher–
People in business don’t always have lunch with people they fought with. Sometimes, the most productive thing is to just ignore each other, and people in business do often do that.
#########
I suppose if we use the word always, thats true. So for me, there isnt an business enemy on earth I would not have lunch with. I’ve either won the fight and want to be a gracious winner or lost the fight and want to gauge his reaction to victory. If we are still in the midst of a fight i want to get as close as I can to my enemy. There have been a couple of funny instances in my career where an opponent saw me at the cocktail party and tried to slither away. Moshpit had none of that slithering away. Guy who slithers away and refuses to meet his enemy on neutral ground is a great type of person to go up against.
Yes, it’s all about the winning, isn’t it, stevenmosher? Who needs the truth when you’re a winner! Wonderful mentality, you must be an extremely happy man.
“something not quite male about “bugs—
Or something sexist and homophobic about steven. What the hell? That comment deserves a ban.
Steven
Do you mean, if someone happened to organize something and you found them next to you, you would not leave? Sure. No one would do that. But that’s not quite the same as hosting them at their request. They want to host me, fine. Make me host them? Kinda-sorta trick me into hosting them? Not so much.
Monckton pressing to meet UEA on UEA ground with UEA providing food is not meeting on neutral ground.
neven:
“BTW, stevenmosher, I loved the advice you were giving on WUWT (‘even if you don’t mean it, say to warmists that you also believe CO2 is a problem’, or something in that vein). You really seem to be a hypocrite, game playing… I’m not sure how to translate the Dutch ‘relnicht’.”
sorry. Given my background in working with models that do radiative transfer equations I have no doubt that C02 warms the planet. None. That doesnt stop me from giving rhetorical advice to those who dont believe in it. Because in addition to doing engineering I also taught rhetoric. Kind of an odd combination. But you get to meet all types. So yes, i would suggest that skeptics would do better in arguing if they just dropped whatever doubt they had about C02 as a warming agent and focused on the issue of sensitivity. So, even if they dont believe that C02 warms, they will do better by not arguing that. They will do better because
1. they are wrong ( but dont tell them that it just pisses them off)
2. it shifts the argument to the real scientific question
3. it takes certain arguments out of their opponents hands. ( skeptics are anti science creationists)
Which part dont you get.
As for McIntyre’s associations? Next, some skeptic will come on and tie Bin Laden to Global warming. Here’s the thing, when an anonymous person talks about what they would do if they were a public figure. I have to wonder if they have any IQ points whatsoever.
Your argument, which is an appeal to your personal character, depends upon a character that no one can verify. Do you understand how arguments work?
Re: Richard J ,
Look, my older sister and I could have given UEA tips. We both know how to sit at the other side of the table and batt our eyelashes at windbags who thought they could trap us at lunch.
She was the cute one so I usually played “wingman”. But we both know how to change the subject to the deliciousness of the food, the weather, swapping tips on how to best clean toilets or advances in mascara wands. The UEA guys might have finessed this this way. Or all gotten “ill” at the last minute and sent grad students, secretaries or whatever. We might even have sung and danced for them.
But you have to admit…. The complaints of ill treatment are a bit much. This isn’t quite a naive innocent who suddenly, without the slightest notion he was being pushy, got snubbed.
That doesnt stop me from giving rhetorical advice to those who dont believe in it.
.
Yes, exactly. You tell them to lie and be non-transparent. Wonderful advice.
.
So, what’s the idea behind it? We cannot possibly be saying warming isn’t happening and CO2 is harmless, so we retreat to ‘climate sensitivity’ and delay some more? You really are of the end-justifies-the-means-type. You have nothing constructive or positive to offer whatsoever. All you care about is your puffed up ego. Let me guess, no kids, eh?
.
As for McIntyre’s associations?
.
Yes, tell us about them. And why.
But…why the good ole UEA waited two months before sending their disinvites? They did know all the time who’s coming to dinner…er, lunch…
Why what?
EW–
The problem is when you create a “they” you are trying to deal with a collective brain.
The VC — one person– may have sent out a general invite asking for “volunteers”. He may have only realized the “problem” after he circulated the invitation two or three times and no one volunteered for this. So, “they” knew the problem in the sense that those volunteering might have laughed, said “oh ick!!!!” and done nothing. But the VC might not have figured this out because no one emailed saying, “Uhmmm. You gotta be kidding!”
Sounds weird, but I suspect it could happen.
What pathetic nonsense. What lifestyle? How would the “lifestyle” of a scientist at that institute change one whit with a different director?
It’s sad, the effort of fossil-fuel-owned psuedoskeptics to push this meme of rich and famous scientists riding the gravy train of research grants. It just underscores your total ignorance of what science is and how scientists work.
Lucia –
I don’t know, you really think that VC would not get a bit nervous learning about who’ll come to lunch? Therefore leaving it be without any comment for 2 months and only sending last minute disinvites seems to me a bit strange. Maybe the VC hoped that Monckton will somehow disappear from the face of this world in the course of these 2 months? Act of God?
Neven,
“so we retreat to ‘climate sensitivity’ and delay some more?”
.
Well, no, sensitivity is the issue I have focused on for the last three + years. There is no retreat involved, at least not for me. I think many of those who post here fully accept warming via radiative forcing (CO2 and other gases), but have honest doubts about the ‘consensus’ sensitivity value.
.
Sensitivity really is an important issue, with large uncertainty, and one that makes lots of people say “Let’s wait and see what is going on before we act.” Mosh is correct to point out to those who deny the existence of radiative forcing that they are simply wrong and and that advocating that view is self-defeating.
.
Same thing applies to people who deny the UEA emails revealed inappropriate, obviously unscrupulous, and perhaps illegal activities on the part of several very well known climate scientists. Just as Mosh points out to people who deny the influence of CO2, wishing something is true does not make it so.
Robert –
about that meme of “rich and famous scientists riding the gravy train of research grants” – being a scientist depending on grants myself, I can only confirm, that in the grant competition some are much more equal than others.
I don’t know this particular VC and I don’t know the extent to which he has memorized the names of everyone involved in climate. I don’t know how much personal attention he gives to individual emails– he may have an administrator handle a lot.
I am sure those names would have set alarm bells off in the heads of faculty in environmental sciences, it’s also possible they didn’t register all that much with the VC. He may even have just have assigned an adminstrator to answer certain bits of email and that administrator didn’t really make a connection. If so, the VC didn’t “hope” anything. He just sort of fumbled this.
I think that during the parliamentary committee enquiries at UEA and CRU he probably learned some names.
Lucia
‘But you have to admit…. The complaints of ill treatment are a bit much. This isn’t quite a naive innocent who suddenly, without the slightest notion he was being pushy, got snubbed.’
Undoubtedly. Exaggerated indignation is part of the showmanship.
Bugs, this ridiculous remark shows either you’re hopelessly deluded or a wind-up merchant.
Now Neven, getting anywhere with you hacking the Big Oil sites as promised? Money talks, bullsh!t walks.
“Yes, exactly. You tell them to lie and be non-transparent. Wonderful advice.”
I give the warmists the same kind of advice. If you want to have a constructive engagement then there are certain beliefs you don’t have to hold that will move your case into the real battlefield. For the most part I think skeptics dont know that C02 will warm the planet and they just say it wont to be obstinate. So, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with telling them to act as if. It also forces the warmists to engage on the real ground, which is the sensitivity question. For the most part I dont think any of them actually Believe that C02 will cool the planet. Most are in a state of ignorance. That is, they say “prove that it does” which is not the same as saying “I believe it doesnt.” That’s my impression from talking to many of them offline.
.
“So, what’s the idea behind it? We cannot possibly be saying warming isn’t happening and CO2 is harmless, so we retreat to ‘climate sensitivity’ and delay some more? You really are of the end-justifies-the-means-type. You have nothing constructive or positive to offer whatsoever. All you care about is your puffed up ego. Let me guess, no kids, eh?”
1. Retreat to climate sensitivity? That’s the entire issue, always had been in my mind. Ever since we kinda started the lukewarmer position. That position made the most sense to me given what I knew and given what I didnt know. So, it never been a retreat, more of a starting ground. So, I have no issue telling skeptics who bluster about C02 not causing warming, to just give up that nonsense ( even if they have to fake it) and join the real debate. Same thing with the ice. a silly sideline for both sides.
2. Delay? Wrong there as well. I’m Pretty much on record that the warming is coming. The effects will be negative and we need to take action. Pretty much published that in our book.
3. Ends justifies the means and nothing positive to contribute? I dunno, I don’t judge at my own contribution or lack thereof. That’s up to others. I pretty much adhere to some basic principles. Code should be open, data should be open, let the chips fall where they may. Oh, and dont make stupid arguments, cause then you just look stupid. For example, you don’t know whether I have children or not. I do know. That means that since I have knowledge you don’t I have power that you don’t. If you want to slam me, then the best way to do it is with a slam where I cannot disprove your slam.
Those are the best kind. Suggesting that I don’t have children just opens you up to look foolish. For example, some of the people reading this know me personally. Family photo albums and all that. So, they know what you dont know. So not only do you look stupid to me, you look stupid to them. You don’t know how to read people. You just proved that to me. Its the same with bugs. Here is a funny one. One time on RC some stupid fool thought I was steven W mosher and he went on about how I was some kinda christian, ant abortionist. Very stupid. was that you? Come to think of it it probably was.
#57770
“UEA played right into his hands, with both hamfisted feet. In politics, because that is what it is all about, the fence and parry is their bread and butter.”
A few mixed metaphors there!
This thread is becoming a bit strange.
Re: steven mosher (Oct 31 18:02),
> One time on RC some stupid fool thought I was steven W mosher and he went on about how I was some kinda christian, anti abortionist.
Brandon Shollenberger, a careful and serious (AFAICT) person who has commented here in the past, was critical of a Michael Tobis post. This turns out to mean that he is a sock puppet for the think tanks that find Curry convenient.
Things change, but things stay the same.
Lunch is serious business. Sometimes it’s hard to stomach your critics.
Suggesting that I wrote that comment RC about you being some kinda christian, ant abortionist just opens you up to look foolish. For example, some of the people reading this know me personally. Reading my blog and all that. So, they know what you dont know. So not only do you look stupid to me, you look stupid to them. You don’t know how to read people. You just proved that to me.
.
Bottom-line: if you have kids, you’re an even bigger hypocrite than I thought you were. If that opens me up to look foolish, I don’t care. I’d rather look foolish than play PR games.
.
I’m Pretty much on record that the warming is coming. The effects will be negative and we need to take action. Pretty much published that in our book.
.
Well, that has to be rhetoric (ie the advice you gave to your fellow-Galileos), because if you truly believed that your actions and writings would be completely different. You are just playing games and have no scruples whatsoever. I congratulate you on being able to live with yourself and continue being a hypocrite.
Robert 57789. At the forthcoming UEA Literary Festival on 12th Nov, that intellectual colossus Prof Phil Jones will be one of the speakers. He is described thus :- ‘Director of Research at UEA’s CRU. He has been a major contributor to IPCC Reports . He is the recipient of the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geophysical Society & International Journal of Climatology Prize of the Royal Society’.
Prestige ???
Jones is now ‘Director of Research’. He has to be kept there with some title or other because it is his ‘work’ that attracts the funding.Trevor Davies told us at Monbiot’s ‘debate’ that all questions should now be directed at HIM, So I don’t expect Jones to answer too many at the ‘Literary Festival’.
You know perfectly well that Vice Chancellors and their coteries enjoy a lifestyle that would be the envy of the outside world.
Acton,Davies and Jones are currently safe in their bunker, hence the prospect of being exposed further by the likes of Monckton and Delingpole is not that appealing.
Visit the Bishop Hill Blog for more details.
Phillip Bratby points out some of Phil Jones’s literary endeavours.
On peer review ‘ Just agreed to review another crappy paper’
On FOI ‘Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith’.
steven mosher (Comment#57803) October 31st, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Why don’t you write a book about it.
EW (Comment#57783) October 31st, 2010 at 4:26 pm
You have no idea why it happened, or how, so don’t make up explanations that suit you.
S Basinger (Comment#57660) October 31st, 2010 at 2:46 am
Even if it is bad science, and I don’t agree that it is, one of the fundamental principles of science is that you don’t ‘attack’ each other. All it does is breed disrespect for science, inhibits research, and reduces scientific discourse to the pathetic level we have now. “Attacks”, or other displays of emotion, are prohibited from scientific papers. If you think someone is wrong, then you publish what is right. Over time, it is the ‘right’ research that persists and progresses science. The idea that you ‘attack’ science, good or bad, is antithetical to the spirit of science.
steven mosher (Comment#57772) October 31st, 2010 at 3:59 pm
This isn’t business, it’s science. They free to bitch about whatever they want in private, but when they publish, formal rules are enforced. No bitchin.
What you are doing is like criticising a plumber because he’s not a good dentist. They are scientists, not politicians, not brawlers.
Bugs 57858. ‘When they publish formal rules are enforced’ – You just don’t seem to understand how the ‘Hockey Team’ organise their ‘peer reviews’.
You say ‘They are scientists, not politicians, not brawlers’.
No ? how about these comments from Jones then. About the death of John Daley ‘In an odd way this is cheering news’ or this about sceptics ‘ He’s nowhere near as good as yours and he’s an utter prat, but he’s getting a lot of airtime at the moment’.
Not at all, I do not ‘revere’ them. I have a lot of respect for what they do, and the sacrifice they make to further science. If you’ve got brains and want to make money, there are far more lucrative careers out there. If you read the history of CO2 by Weart, it’s a story of a progression. No one in the history was wrong, or revered, they were just guys doing their job. Over the course of a century or so, our understanding of climate has improved. The earlier scientists weren’t bad, or wrong, or revered. Neither are the current generation.
There is no other explanation for ‘lunchgate’ other than that Acton and Davies quietly soiled themselves at the prospect of a ‘journalist’ being entertained for lunch, even if he is an Oxford educated one. After all these folk often tend to ask incisive questions to which we have only a glib answer.
What these professors get up to in their ivory towers would not matter so much if their fabrications were not costing us all untold millions !
Daley was a prat. I can’t believe how bad his website is, and how it people still refer to it today. They didn’t publish that, you only found about it because the emails were stolen. That is why there is a formal publishing process. It is designed to remove individual faults and prejudices. It’s not emotive, so that’s why people like Monckton are able to win debates. It’s exactly the same tactics as the creationists use. “Make em laugh, make em laugh”, or “amusing ourselves to death”.
bugs 57874 ‘our understanding of climate science has improved’.
Yes, it has, to the point where we now know that Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ was indeed an ‘illusion’, and Jones was perverting ‘science’.
Bugs 57880. ‘Acton and Davies don’t have time for idiots like Delingpole and Monckton’. My case rests !
Bugs,
it seems to me that while you were getting concerned about me ascribing motivations to VC of UEA, you’ve forgotten to answer my simple and honest question about your reading of Tiljander 08.
So is it yes or no?
toad (Comment#57881) November 1st, 2010 at 6:13 am
Are they obliged to make time? I thought it was a free country. What are they going to talk about? “Tell me Lord Monckton, (of Brenchley), all about the New World Order. It sounds absolutely fascinating.
bugs
I think they should have asked that. The request should have ended with a request to record the conversation. 🙂
It seems the lunch happened.
57899 Lucia. ‘It seems the lunch happened’. If it did Delingpole certainly wasn’t there. He was playing with cobras and spotting leopards in India.
Re: New World Order
Lucia,
Since you are a American Social Progressive, isn’t some kind of government-implemented New World Order what you guys are working towards? Isn’t the global regulation of carbon emissions part of that vision?
Andrew
Andrew_KY
huh?
lucia (Comment#57910)
November 1st, 2010 at 8:50 am
Andrew_KY
Since you are a American Social Progressive,
huh?”
Lemme try again. Since your political views correspond (more or less) with those of the Democratic Party, aren’t you guys working towards a global vision of government-instituted social and industrial progammes?
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
huh?
Lucia,
You have stated in the past that that you are a pro-abort and that you believe in Global Warming and “doing something about it”. These are two causes that that Democratic Party champions.
Or didn’t you realize that?
Andrew
Andrew_KY–
You must have a very narrow view of the range of political outlooks how the align with Dem, Republican or “other”.
I’m for lower taxes, limited government, federalism, protection of individual liberties relative to government intrusion. I’m not “pro-abortion”. Abortion is generally only considered in “lose-lose” situations. I’d like to see the need reduced through better education but I would also like the choice between two unattractive positions to remain with the individual women affected by the decision rather than made by the government or “Andrew_KY”.
I also don’t know why believing in a scientific theory makes one either a “democrat” or a “republican”, but I understand that some subscribe to this illogical notion.
As it happens, I will be voting for both Republican and Democratic candidates in the upcoming election. I’ll vote for more Republicans that Democrats this time around. I think this often happens– but I do avoid some of the more religious social conservative Republicans as they often advocate laws I find distasteful.
Lucia,
OK, OK… I was just wondering because you seemed to not take seriously the idea of a “New World Order”. Obviously, Global Warming Regulation is “New World Order” if there ever there ever could be such a thing.
Andrew
“Robert –
about that meme of “rich and famous scientists riding the gravy train of research grants†– being a scientist depending on grants myself, I can only confirm, that in the grant competition some are much more equal than others.”
I’ve been involved in that work myself, and like anything, some people are more successful than others. Nevertheless, the gravy train meme is factual nonsense. Notably, the denialosphere has yet to come up with a single example of a scientist who has enriched themselves via research grants.
” At the forthcoming UEA Literary Festival on 12th Nov, that intellectual colossus Prof Phil Jones will be one of the speakers. ”
Sarcasm aside, toad, have you accomplished anything in your life remotely comparable to Jones’ scientific work, or is your whining just a case of a loser’s sour grapes?
Please reply with papers published, patents awarded, books sold, or businesses founded.
Robert:
I know people who are millionaires as a result of researched funded by public dollars (products sold commercially, $$$ from proceeds earned).
Does that count?
Lucia,
“I think this often happens– but I do avoid some of the more religious social conservative Republicans as they often advocate laws I find distasteful.”
I think Lucia may be pretty close to a female version of SteveF! 😉
Carrick Comment #57934,
I know a couple of guys who did their PhD work at the same school/same time as my wife. They got some funding for post-doc work, left after about 2 years, and founded a company based on what the learned during their post-docs. They sold the company about 8 years later and pocketed upwards of $50 million. Yes, researches do sometimes make a lot of money off public funding.
Whether the scientist profit or not isn’t the most important issue. What is reprehensible is that data was misrepresented to advance a political agenda. It’s nothing more than an faked up political scheme to force industry to cough up unnecessarily, create absurd new regulations to tax and penalize, and drive up energy taxes. Climate Gate should have ended this discussion for anyone with any doubt whatsoever. Vive la free market— Open your eyes, end the corruption, and give up the ridiculous spin.
No. “I know people” does not count. Name some names, if you please. Any of them climate scientists? Not a lot of market-ready technology in tree rings, I should think.
Except for the tiny detail that the data was never misrepresented, no matter how many times psuedoskeptics chose to repeat the “Big Lie.”
Any number of “skeptics” have been caught red-handed in out-and-out lies. Wegman, Monckton, Bob Carter, and on and on. Serious scientists misrepresenting the data for political reasons? It could happen. But thousands of “skeptics” and millions in fossil fuel money have yet to uncover a single example.
The sheep-like braying of this discredited fiction does nothing to make you a credible voice in the climate debate.
Robert,
the gravy train isn’t nonsense, but it’s not about becoming millionaires.
Once these climatologists established themselves as the “cream of the cream”, able to push their papers quickly through the reviewing process despite errors, influence who can publish and who cannot, then they can be sure that their projects won’t be rejected, the funding comes smoothly, no fear of concurrent teams with other hypotheses and perhaps also different results.
And this nice comfy idylle is now disturbed by one nosy Steve McI…
That’s shocking — you’re telling me that these evil liberal elites actually used what they learned in school to become successful in life?
This just in: studying and getting good grades are like stealing from the taxpayer!
Robert–
I think SteveF probably means they founded for profit companies whose business was based on discoveries arising as a direct result of the government funded research.
This is a bit different from creating a business based on what you learned as a result of coursework.
I don’t know what the legalities are with respect to getting patents based on ideas and processes arising from government funded research are. It may differ at national labs vs. univerisities. It may differ from graduate students vs. the PI. But obvious, discoveries are sometimes made during government funded research.
I’ve known of students and faculty members getting into arguments over IP in codes written by students. I don’t know what the legality of that is either– but often, if the student wrote it, he’s the one who has the source. 🙂 (Heck, I knew of a grad student supported as a Teaching Assistant doing work that wasn’t funded who got into a snit with his adviser over ownership. Seems the advisor wanted to set up a company that used the code as an integral part of the business and the advisor thought he owned it by virtue of being the advisor. I don’t know how this finally worked out. )
Nope, it’s nonsense. But thanks for playing!
Again we see a return to this strange idea that working hard, being smart, and succeeding as a result is somehow a sinister elitist scheme.
But then, your delusional fantasy of a comfortable “idylle” is unfortunately shattered by the fact that science is a ruthless meritocracy in which dissenting work (of far higher quality than the blogoemisis of Stevie M) is constantly published in numerous peer-reviewed journals . . . and the fact that our intrepid mining consultant has accomplished absolutely nothing in five long years of amateurish whining . . .
I prefer to go based on what he said. It accurate captures the seething resentment many psuedoskeptics feel for those who work hard and achieve success and recognition for their accomplishments. After all, the system MUST be corrupt and evil, if they haven’t been successful in it!
Lucia,
“I think SteveF probably means they founded for profit companies whose business was based on discoveries arising as a direct result of the government funded research.”
.
Yes that is exactly what I meant.
I draw the line at responding to idiots; thank you for responding.
Robert–
So why don’t you go by what he said? Post doc’s ordinarily don’t involve coursework. They involve the sort of learning that arises as a result of discovery springing from research. And what’s with all the rest of the malarkey you are tagging on?
Some researchers end up with large private gains arising from discovering (i.e. “learning”) springing from their research. Not all do.
I doubt climate scientists gain much converting their discoveries into businesses because climate science discoveries aren’t very commercial.
I’m not sure that this weakens the force of accusations that these scientists might want to skew science to maintain funding. Even if the living is not lavish, it’s still better than being out on the street trying to hawk your skills as a climate scientist to some commercial employees. In contrast, a chemist might be able to get a job after exiting academia.
Lucia 57973:
Federally funded research at universities is governed by the The Bayh–Dole Act (35 USC 200), which states:
It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development; to encourage maximum participation of small business firms in federally supported research and development efforts; to promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations, including universities; to ensure that inventions made by nonprofit organizations and small business firms are used in a manner to promote free competition and enterprise without unduly encumbering future research and discovery; to promote the commercialization and public availability of inventions made in the United States by United States industry and labor; to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions; and to minimize the costs of administering policies in this area.
Because this law switched the presumption of ownership of inventions funded by Federal money from the Government to the Universities, Universities have really tightened up their policies, requiring all Professors, Grad students (and at some schools, even undergrads), who make an invention working on Federal grants, to assign their inventions to the universities, so they can then control the licensing to the private sector.
Bottom line: if you make an invention while working under a research grant at a University, you probably signed an agreement saying that you would assign your invention to the University.
Thank RickA.
Possibly, the scientists SteveF knows bought the patents or took a license. Familiarity would make them ideally suited to commercializing and spinning off new productss.
RickA (Comment#57985),
I think the reality is more complicated. Sure, if a patent were filed based on funded research, probably ownership would end up being with the university. The practical reality is that people learn important things as a result of their research, independent of declared intellectual property like patents, which lead to all sorts of discoveries/developments/technology over time. I do not begrudge these folks the fruits of their research, but it is naive to imagine that public funding is not often involved in the private gains of researchers.
Heck, it is naive to imagine people who work for private companies doing research do not profit from their(funded) research if they leave and do other things.
SteveF (Comment #57988):
SteveF says:
Heck, it is naive to imagine people who work for private companies doing research do not profit from their(funded) research if they leave and do other things.
I agree. Although, if you make an invention while you work at a company, and then leave the company, you better believe that your employment agreement requires you to assign it to the company.
However, I take your point. There is lots of knowledge and skills that a person learns at a University or corporation that you can take with you, and help you make new inventions in the future.
RickA,
I have found that the process of invention is quite complicated. There have been a few times in my professional life where “the lighting bolt struck” and there was a clearly defined moment of understanding, which could accurately be described as ‘discovery’. More often than not, the process is more gradual, and people reach a point where they ‘understand’ what they did not understand before; this point may arrive long after their work was funded.
I have worked in my mind on problems for years after they were ‘officially funded’. When I have an insight about such a problem, I do not go back to every source of funding trying to sort out who paid for what. The final insight belongs to me.
bugs sez: “Even if it is bad science, and I don’t agree that it is, one of the fundamental principles of science is that you don’t ‘attack’ each other. All it does is breed disrespect for science, inhibits research, and reduces scientific discourse to the pathetic level we have now. “Attacksâ€, or other displays of emotion, are prohibited from scientific papers. If you think someone is wrong, then you publish what is right. Over time, it is the ‘right’ research that persists and progresses science. The idea that you ‘attack’ science, good or bad, is antithetical to the spirit of science.”
Climatologist: All odd numbers are prime. 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is experimental error and should be disregarded, 11 is prime, 13 is prime…
Mathematician: 1 is prime, 3 is prime, 5 is prime, 7 is prime, 9 is… the hypothesis is false.
Climatologist: 9 is experimental error and should be disregarded.
Mathematician: No, you’re wrong.
bugs: Stop attacking science!
SteveF (Comment#57995):
The final insight belongs to me.
I hear what you are saying.
If you write up an invention disclosure and submit it while working under a Federally funded grant – you will have to assign the inventions disclosed in that disclosure to the University.
However, if you keep thinking about it long after you are no longer working on that particular grant, and have a new insight, you do not need to assign that new idea.
So you are right – it depends on the facts.
As most things in life do.
Which is exactly what I did. He said learning, and I took him to mean learning. Pretty simple.
Are you under the impression learning only happens in a classroom?
Oh, I think it weakens the accusations considerably, indeed fatally, because when asked to produce evidence to back up the fantasy of corruption in which:
1. Climate scientists . . .
2. . . . take grant money
3. . . .and become rich
They offer anecdotes in which:
1. People who are not climate scientists . . .
2. . . . by starting businesses (not by taking grant money)
3. . . . become rich.
An example that so totally fails to even resemble the substance of the allegation is basically a public confession of dishonesty.
But you haven’t made an argument that connects “research that calls into question current thinking” with “out on the street.” Indeed, there’s evidence of the opposite — plenty of people who could not find employment in academia (because they lack any formal training in the science and have not done any useful research) are employed by right-wing foundations to shill for the fossil fuel lobby. If you lack integrity but prefer to be your own boss, you can be an anti-science blogger and support yourself with page hits, like Watts. Bottom line, your hypothetical scientist lacking integrity can make far more money on the “skeptical” side . . . which I suppose is why all the clear-cut examples of flat-out lying about the science come from “skeptics,” not climate scientists.
S Basinger (Comment#57997) November 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
That was a waste of a post. It uses an analogy that doesn’t work at all. Read Wearts history of the greenhouse effect to understand what I am saying. Arrhenius was not wrong, but he did not understand the behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere completely either. No one publishes a revisionist history now, attacking him because his understanding was incomplete. They praise him for being someone who advanced science and made an important contribution to it. So it will be today with the current climate scientists.
I am watching the movie now Bugs. I do agree with him that there are people who want a global government and I think it is stupid. I think the events starting with the James Hansen testimony surrounding global warming have been highly suspicious. Here are my 4 strikes. First, they open all the windows in the congress so it makes the hearing room warmer. Next, Al Gore fires William Happer from his government post when he becomes Vice President. Meanwhile, Enron is working on a carbon market scheme, which BP buys into heavily. Finally, we have the Michael Mann fake graph. I think this last point is where we have a big disagreement. You continue to frame the issue around McIntyre’s conduct…scientists like Richard Lindzen have been saying that data was being manipulated. Therefore, I conclude that the entire theory of global warming has been heavily politically motivated and can’t understand your refusal to acknowledge that Michael Mann cheated.