Saturday, February 05, 2011

Gavingate



In the smaller ring, we have Gavingate, Gavin Schmidt's refusal to attend the Lisboa Baccalau Bunnyfest, which sought reconciliation between the tutt-tutters, cherry pickers and post normal ADD types (ok, James Risby and Nick Stokes were there to represent the reality based community, but they were fleeing Cyclone Yasi). As this is a fast moving story, Eli thinks that a place where all the documents are available might be useful. So to begin, from Tallbloke, Fred Pearce's Deep Something or Other, we have the original documents

The invitation

Dear Dr. Gavin Schmidt,

We have been following your activities with regards to the science of climate change, the controversies and the challenges, etc.

We are writing to you now about a proposed workshop on the issue, which we are hoping to organise for next January, the 26th to 28th. It will be sponsored and financially supported by the Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen of the European Commission’s DG Joint Research Centre, and will take place at the C. Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon.

We have been trying to find a way to begin to overcome the polarisation on this issue, which as you know has already done great damage to the cause of coping with climate change, as well as to the reputation of science itself. At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.

The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ‘ice’, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion.

Since the topics are so sensitive we would have Chatham House rules unless the consensus desires otherwise; and there would be some public report of the proceedings.

We are just now finalising the invitation list. I do hope that you find this a useful activity to engage on.

With very best wishes

Sincerely-the organising team

The response
I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No ‘conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
And (thnx Andreas, Eli is not keeping up), it appears that Tallbloke left something off, like the final paragraph, which Gavin provides on Judith Curry

You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’.

But Gavin was nice

(The last line may not have been seen by ‘tallbloke’). I am at a complete loss to see how this email could be interpreted as implying that ‘the science was settled and there was nothing to discuss’.

The game of telephone (or ‘chinese whispers’ in the UK) is lots of fun at parties, but it’s a dumb game to be playing in the politicised sandpit of the climate change ‘debate’.



Continued below the fold

Which was mangled by Fred Pearce in the Nude Scientist (just putting in the paragraphs which dealt with Gavingate

Avowed non-sceptics included Hans von Storch, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and James Risbey of CSIRO. But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA's Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.

Across the spectrum, participants were mostly united in disagreeing with Schmidt. Climate science, they said, is much less certain than the IPCC mainstreamers say, and peace can be found only if all accept what they dubbed "the uncertainty monster".
To which Gavin responded at several blogs including Rabett Run
My decision not to accept the invitation to this meeting was based entirely on the organiser's initial diagnosis of the cause of the 'conflict' in the climate change debate. I quote from their introductory letter: At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments. The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion. Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate sensitivity or 'ice', dismissing this from any discussion did not seem likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.
And sent a letter to the Nude Scientist which appeared only after a delay of a day or more

Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.

"But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA's Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss."

This is completely made up. My decision not to accept the invitation to this meeting was based entirely on the organiser's initial diagnosis of the cause of the 'conflict' in the climate change debate. I quote from their introductory letter (6/Oct/2010):

"At this stage we are planning to have a workshop where the main scientific issues can be discussed, so that some clarity on points of agreement and disagreement might be reached. We would try to stay off the policy issues, and will also exclude personal arguments.

The issues we have in mind are Medieval Warm Period, ice, climate sensitivity, and temperature data. We would hope to have smaller groups discussing these in some detail, hopefully with scientists who are very familiar with the technical issues to lead the discussion."

Since, in my opinion, the causes of conflict in the climate change debate relate almost entirely to politics and not the MWP, climate sensitivity or 'ice', dismissing this from any discussion did not seem likely to be to help foster any reconciliation.

At no point have I ever declared that the 'science was settled' and that there was nothing to discuss. Indeed, I am on record as saying the exact opposite:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/

Pearce might well note that even I am included in the "spectrum" that "disagree[s] with Schmidt"!

Fred Pearce did not interview me for this piece. In future, if my views are of interest, he (or anyone else) should actually ask me directly what they are. I am not hard to track down.

This, of course, lead to several hundred harumphs over at places where good bunnies only go in bunny suits to keep clean with lots trying to pin the settled science on Gavin, who has responded in more detail at Kloor's
Why do people spend time trying to torture some implication out of what I said in a single email, when I have written thousands of words and dozens of papers on exactly the issue they are questioning?

On medieval climate: here, here – interesting

On Climate Sensitivity: here, here – interesting

etc. etc.

The issue is not that there isn’t interesting science yet to be done on all of these issues – there is, but rather the *perceived* conflicts (cf. WUWT ad nauseum) have nothing whatsoever to do with the real scientific issues. Accusations of fraud or ‘manipulation’ in GISTEMP is a made-up non-issue, whether the medieval period is or is not warmer than the 1990s is not relevant to anything much, whether a tree ring series is or is not online is not salient.

If I wanted to learn more about medieval climate, I would organise a workshop of people who know stuff about medieval climate. If I wanted to learn more about climate sensitivity, I would organise a session including scientists who have worked on climate sensitivity. This would be completely different to what was organised in Lisbon.

Can it really be that people are incapable of having serious conversations that acknowledge this? Please prove me wrong.
Eli predicts: Nah

Now we have Steve McIntyre at RankExploits asserting that Pearce was actually shown Gavin's letter.

Lucia, you say:

Of course, Fred’s praphrase also kinda-sorta is unfair for a number of reasons. First it appears that Fred Pierce never read what Gavin actually wrote. If I understand correctly, he wrote based on someone else’s paraphrase; this is always dangerous.

Your surmise here is incorrect. I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email because I was sitting with both Pearce and tallbloke at dinner (we set out as part of a larger group and got separated) when tallbloke showed Pearce the email in question, which Pearce read carefully.

and Tallbloke thanks Steve for the tree limb

Thanks Steve. I’ve been trying to take the heat for the whole thing, but truth will out. :o )

Oh well, round two…

**Eli was pointed to the video by somebunny, but forgets whom. Step up and win your prize.


70 comments:

Nick Barnes said...

Gavin has nekkid laydeez on his office wall. Case closed.

Anonymous said...

Just for historical record:

Gavin states in Curry's Blog (Lisbon workshop part IV, comment Feb 4, 2011, 3:59 pm) that Tallblokes publication of Gavin's response is incomplete. The last sentence is missing:

"You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’."

Andreas

BTW said...

jrwakefield's reply to Gavin on JC:

>>code talk for “the science is settled”

See - no conspiracies, you just have to understand the secret code. What I want to know is who let the code book fall into hostile hands?

Deech56 said...

The lady on the right is from Botticelli's "Birth of Venus", but not sure about the other pic.

Anonymous said...

On some blog I was looking at, the contrarians were busy persuading each other that "we know enough about climate change to suggest that we should reduce emissions" is equivalent to "the science is settled".


Of course, on WUWT they run around screaming "ha ha! the science is settled" every time Watts links to some publication that suggests that someone has determined that redwoods have a different rate of carbon uptake than had been previously estimated.


It is a conveniently flexible phrase in the hands of a contrarian, apparently.

-M

Anonymous said...

It's all Gavins fault (of course);
"It’s beyond me how Gavin could have been so naive as to imagine that statement could not possibly be misconstrued as suggesting that there’s nothing left to discuss in the science." - Peter317

I'm not 100% sure but I think Peter317 is Peter Webster.

Anonymous Etc.

Gavin said...

The second post card is a Modigliani - not sure from where. But far more relevant there is an extra prize for the what the map depicts...

Deech56 said...

Mississippi River delta?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear.

A fragment of "Birth of Venus"? What would that be code talk for?

And why only a fragment? What is being hidden?? Data corruption indeed!

IceMouse

J Bowers said...

"**Eli was pointed to the video by somebunny, but forgets whom."

Possibly this nobunny in The Ol' Devil thread. Similarly, I can't remember where I saw it posted (RC perhaps?).

@ Deech56 - Good catch :)

Sloop said...

Yes, that's the "birds-foot" delta of the Mississippi.

Well-said Gavin.

Ocean/atmospheric/climate change without question belongs in the set of problems that has given rise to contemporary environmental management. An enormous problem set that we grapple with daily, and will for decades and centuries to come.

Gavin's characterization of an incremental or cyclic mode of addressing 'wicked' policy challenges corresponds I believe with how many policy analysts and env. managers view the solution pathways they're trying to build.

The frontier is figuring out how to work incrementally toward the implementation of viable ecosystem-based management paradigms quickly enough, as nations and as the community of nations, to avoid triggering high-risk tipping points at global, regional, and local scales.

Lars Karlsson said...

I was going to write something about "Venus Gate", but then I discovered that Louis Hissink already has coined that phrase....

Deech56 said...

I got the map right? - that was sort of a guess. I guess being an art lover and map geek can pay off sometimes.

dhogaza said...

"Gavin has nekkid laydeez on his office wall. Case closed."

The climate science community just can't keep up with the deniers ... Oliver Manuel, the iron sun guy and frequent poster over at curry's blog ... is a convicted sex offender.

Climate science ... beaten again!

(Here's one of many press reports of his arrest, he was eventually convicted of the most minor of the charges

Neven said...

Dhogaza, is that really one and the same guy?

Now I understand why Watts threw him under the bus!

dhogaza said...

"Now I understand why Watts threw him under the bus!"

My understanding is that Watts threw him under the bus earlier, due to the "iron sun" notion being too stupid even for WUWT. But I've seen a later post in which Watts said that the item referenced above made him very glad he had thrown him under the bus.

(someone hinted at this stuff up on The Policy Lass's blog, along with some google hints, which I tracked down via google to verify the story ...)

Deech56 said...

Neven, same guy. Watts actually banned him for repeated posting of his scientific ideas (iron sun). The sex offense was brought up a couple of months ago (caution, WUWT). People there were pretty taken aback. Watts write, "It is an ugly situation, and had I known about it I would have banned Dr. Manuel long before I did."

Anonymous said...

Hi Eli,

I try my very best keeping you up.

A common saying is: "When you are in a hole stop digging"
Steven MacIntyre doesn't know, see here

If true, is it normal or postnormal to provide participants of a conference with private emails of absent scientists?

Andreas

Anonymous said...

Oh,f**k, I should learn to write important names: Steve McIntyre ;-)
Andreas

Anonymous said...

Where's my post, did I messed it up?

Eli,

I try hard to keep you up.

A common saying is: If you are in a hole stop digging.
Not so Steve McIntyre. Did you notice this?

Is it normal or postnormal to provide participants of a conference with private emails of absent scientists?

Andreas

Anonymous said...

Good bunnies can't stop digging. See for example tallbloke:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/not-a-misquote-a-nonquote/#comment-48008
Must buy some new popcorn...
Andreas

Neven said...

There are a lot of people on WUWT claiming all sorts of nutty things. Watts doesn't ban them. He only bans people when they become a liability. Steve Goddard got removed at the moment it became clear the melting season wasn't going their way and Goddard had said a lot of silly things way before the Venus-pressure thing. That was just a lame excuse.

I stopped trusting Watts a while back. I wouldn't in the least be surprised to hear he kicked Manuel off because he found out about his conduct. Doesn't sound like Watts at all to ban someone for claiming the Sun is made of iron. The nuttier, the merrier, the better it spreads confusion and delays AGW policy.

---

On-topic: over at the Blackboard Steve McIntyre is a first commenter on the Gavin-said-gate post reporting that he witnessed how Tallbloke showed Pearce the mail during the dinner. I said:

Am I the only one here who finds it weird that Tallbloke pulls out Gavin’s e-mail at a dinner to show it to Pearce? Did he have it on him? What is he doing walking around with an e-mail from Gavin Schmidt? Or did he pull out his laptop to specifically show Fred Pearce the content of Gavin’s e-mail? Why? Did Tallbloke say: ‘Lookee here, Fred, that’s saying the same as “the science is settled”, innit?’ The e-mail wasn’t even addressed at him. Couldn’t he have forwarded it to Pearce?

chek said...

"post normal ADD types".

The best curryscience phrase EVER, Professor Rabett.

I salute you.

John Mashey said...

Did people notice the mention of Chatham House Rule?.

"Since the topics are so sensitive we would have Chatham House rules unless the consensus desires otherwise"

Perhaps the consensus desired otherwise and such extended to Gavin's email.

Deech56 said...

John, John, John, you know the rules. Any e-mail written by Gavin and sent from his NASA address is the property of the Ameican taxpayers and can be shared at any time by, um, British subjects 'cuz we're like allies and we speak the same language - even in Portugal.

Anonymous said...

From Tamino's:

"So when was Tallbloke telling the truth First he claimed that he told Pearce about the email. Now it comes to light that Tallbloke gave Pearce the email and Pearce then (allegedly) read the email to McKitrick and McIntyre (and others?).

This revelation, IMHO, makes tallkbloke a liar, and irresponsible to boot; and second reflects even more poorly on Pearce than before– he (allegedly) read the email and still completely misrepresented what he said and then made a generalization about the science being “settled” applying to mainstream climate scientists. Pearce has a lot to answer for and should be hauled before a press counsel or similar professional association.

And Lucia (and Curry it seems) thinks this is normal behaviour? Well maybe in the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness and a land which is morally bankrupt, but not in the real world.

How much did this farce cost the organizers?"

ML

JCH said...

I took him to say the email was in that clutter one accumulates with multiple replies. Somebody failed to clean out the junk.

I don't know the official term for it, but if you don't clean out the junk below your reply, you might send somebody something they should not see. Now, if I receive something I should not see, I don't look at it. But each to his own.

Steven Mosher informed me TallBloke could not produce the email because he would be accused of publicly revealing a private email, which I agree with, but, as we would learn, he had already revealed it to a blogger, which sounds publicly to me.

Anonymous said...

Did Tallbloke provide Pearce with a hard copy of the email or did Pearce read it form an electronic device? If the former, did Pearce keep it? We want to know.

Didn't McIntyre say early on that he saw tallbloke *show* Pearce the email? Now they are saying that Pearce read the email to McIntyre and McKitrick.

The sh1t has really hit the fan now-- but it is not stopping Curry and tallbloke and others from trying to weasel their way out of it. Who to believe? I think that they are all lying/distorting to create so much confusion in the hopes that people throw up their arms and walk away.

Keep you eye on the ball guys, don't let them get away with it.

Eli please add the relevant posts by tallbloke and McIntyre about what supposedly transpired in sequential order, it makes for interesting reading.

Holly Stick said...

I think Neven had a good point, though it is believable that if Tallbloke helped organize the thing he might have his laptop handy for reference. But the late addition of more details to the story does not necessarily add versimilitude.

Jim Bouldin said...

"Eli please add the relevant posts by tallbloke and McIntyre about what supposedly transpired in sequential order, it makes for interesting reading."
_________________________

No, please do not. I could care less about what "tallbloke" (whoever he or she is) or McIntyre said about this that or the other. These types of people have gotten FAR too much publicity as it is, and yet there is a whole set of people who want to give them more? People need to pay attention to Gavin's last statement of the interview. The attention being given to these people is a MAJOR strategic error being committed in this battle. It does not nothing but promote the circus. Nothing.

Anonymous said...

@ML
And Lucia (and Curry it seems) thinks this is normal behaviour? Well maybe in the land of denial and conspiracy and nuttiness and a land which is morally bankrupt, but not in the real world.

How much did this farce cost the organizers?"


How much has it cost Curry? She has done a great deal of whinging about people (mostly imagined) calling her dotty and a pariah. Then she goes and prominently associates herself with the pointless goon show in Lisbon. Quite a self-inflicted professional wound for the good Dr. C.

-Adam R.

David B. Benson said...

Smoke & mirrors.

Sou said...

Can the bunnies let me know if any other invited scientist replied? Was Dr Schmidt the only one invited? Did any climate scientist actually attend this denier talk fest?

Anonymous said...

Curry has finally tried (a little) to quell the angry mob re: Gavins email........but in the process desribes Gavins 'style' at RC as "arrogant and authoritarian".

Nice bridge building.

JCH said...

Well, today, for the first time that I know of, she became both authoritarian and arrogant and said she deleted a comment. May have been more than one as Willard said one went bye bye on another thread.

There was bridge building in Portugal. Steven Mosher and TallBloke reconciled. Sweet story.

Anonymous said...

There was bridge building in Portugal. Steven Mosher and TallBloke reconciled. Sweet story.

Indeed, hardly of "Molotov-Ribbentrop pact proportions", I think.

Maybe more of a Grand Alliance perhaps? An alliance against...

Cymraeg llygoden

Martin Vermeer said...

Sou, there were several people that would be fairly described as professional climate scientists, like von Storch and two folks from CSIRO. Have any more declined? Good question.

Lionel A said...

Isn't it about time that Curry was addressed as 'she who must not be named' (sorry JK) as I happen to like curry and repeatedly seeing this name up in this context is putting me off my food?

dhogaza said...

"There was bridge building in Portugal. Steven Mosher and TallBloke reconciled. Sweet story."

And Stevens Mosher and Goddard, too.

Great use of EU funds. Well, the Portuguese economy needs all the help it can get.

Hank Roberts said...

"wheelchairs" a few days above is a botspamming robot post. Excise or break linkthingy please.

These blogguys can't even agree on what they said and read while having dinner together last week, and JC expects them to agree on basic physics.

Hank Roberts said...

It's not Gavin, but:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2364/2437949947_645c44cc94.jpg?v=0

A t-shirt for the conference guys:
http://www.zazzle.com/the_details_are_unimportant_tshirt-235743436859229291

Anonymous said...

Andreas, I don't know whether to thank you or splash my OJ in your face after giving us that link.
Judith Curry said: Schmidt, Joe Romm and William Connolley are all tripping over each other to claim the science isn’t settled, and of course Gavin didn’t say that.
...
Well the punchline seems to be this. Mainstream climate scientists seem to want to loudly proclaim that the science isn’t settled. And prefer not to be labeled as a “leader of mainstream climate science.” A very good thing.

Note to “deniers:” looks like you are currently denying unsettled science :)


Argh, my head! This person says she wants to engender reasonable discussion? Ri-frickin-diculous. If she wants to play at appointing herself some kind of debate moderator, she should keep from fanning the flames with this inane crap.

-WheelsOC

dhogaza said...

John Mashey:

"Perhaps the consensus desired otherwise and such extended to Gavin's email."

Judith Curry said that since the e-mail arrived before the meeting began, and since the public reading took place during after-hours beer drinking (don't these people know where port comes from???), Chatham House rules don't apply. Nor commonly accepted standards of privacy regarding personal e-mail, but we already knew that, due to Climategate, right?

Hank Roberts said...

> rules don't apply. Nor commonly accepted standards of privacy ...

Actually, if you inquire of any company with which you've shared your personal information, they only promise you confidentiality as long as you remain a customer (however defined -- usually purchases every so often, accepting their advertising junkmail, paying annual fees). Once you are no longer "a customer" they will use your personal information for every nickel they can squeeze by leasing it to every crap artist who wants at you.

Ask the people who have your personal info, if you're not sure what they will do once you terminate your 'business relationship' with them.

And no, it's not illegal. You're only protected _while_ they're able to extract money from you without selling your info. After that, you gave them a gift.

Anonymous said...

From Deltoid:

"This new "information" actually makes Pearce look even worse. Pearce read a private email, passed that information on to McIntyre who has a blog and could have shared it with his rabid followers to twist and distort at will (to his credit he didn't).
And even after reading the email Fred still managed to misrepresent Gavin's position. Fred wrote that "who [referring to Schmidt] said....". What Fred wrote is not what Gavin said at all....
Journalistic misconduct much? And of course we have not even begun to highlight the other mistakes in Fred's diatribe.
And for the record, it seems that Pearce long ago went to the dark side, as far back as late 2009 in fact.
The Lisbon farce was a huge fail for the contrarians and wannabe skeptics. So sad that they cannot see that. Instead they have to fabricate claims that the people who value facts and science are fighting amongst themselves, when in fact it was McIntyre who threw tallbloke under the bus, and Curry is trying to calm her rabid and foaming at the mouth band of acolytes. Not to mention the "skeptics" fighting amongst themselves about the greenhouse effect at Curry's place and at Spencer's place, Watts "firing" Goddard and Spencer's scathing critique of L&C09 :)
No, rather it seems the rabid denialists and contrarians and "skeptics" are turning on each other. Delightful.
Maybe someone should file a complaint to the EC for a possible misappropriation of funds by the workshop organizers. After all, I'm sure EC funds are surely not permitted to be used to sponsor the circus that was Lisbon...;)"

ML

Anonymous said...

"No, rather it seems the rabid denialists and contrarians and "skeptics" are turning on each other. Delightful."


I have this dream that one day there will be a major defection. This denialist debacle is just the sort of thing that might produce an epiphany.

-Adam R.

Anonymous said...

Forget the deniers. New Scientist needs some serious consciousness raising. Where do they get the idea that it is acceptable to print a very unlikely quote (or non-quote in a sense) from a known unreliable source (Fred Pearce)? Why didn't they pick up the phone and check with the designated victim? Their website still has the false claim. What action can be taken?

Pete Dunkelberg

Anonymous said...

I agree completely Pete.

Anyone filed a complaint against NewScientist other than Gavin?

ML

dhogaza said...

Hank:

"And no, it's not illegal. You're only protected _while_ they're able to extract money from you without selling your info. After that, you gave them a gift."

I never claimed that businesses necessarily follow commonly accepted standards of privacy regarding personal e-mail, and know it's not a legal constraint.

But among honorable people, you simply don't pass around private e-mail the way Tallbloke did.

Even Tom Fuller made that claim just moments before he began writing his "climategate" book with Mosher ...

EliRabett said...

Privacy rules are different in the EU than in the US, usually stricter.

Sou said...

@ Martin, Thanks for the info. I've since looked at the list. (Is Nick Stokes a climate scientist?).

I've also deduced from a post on Curry's forum (via JM on DeepClimate) that because the prominent invitees refused, Tallbloke hooked up with a group to try to think up other 'prominent' people they could invite.

Tallbloke wrote: "Because I was an ad hoc member of the invite committee I got an email asking my advice on who to invite in lieu of Gavin Schmidt and some other prominent people who had declined."

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-37569

(JC's innuendo-packed post can be read on this page, as well as lots of other comments - for those who have the stomach for it.)

It looks as if the prominent people who were invited, very sensibly did not bother to attend.

EliRabett said...

FWIW nick is a talented amateur and a pleasure to follow

Gavin said...

The map region is correct - lower Mississippi delta - but the relevance is that it shows the amount of wetland loss since the 1930s. Something like an area the size of Rhode Island has disappeared because of reduced sediment flow from the mississippi, subsidence, channel building, oil gas exploration, increased erosion and rising sea level. All of which was a big contributor to the damage related to Katrina. It's a stunning map.

Sou said...

Thanks, Eli. That's what I thought.

Putting names against employers seems a bit unusual when people are there in a private capacity (at least I hope the CSIRO did not fund anyone to go to the event. Might just ask them about that.)

Sou said...

And more - according to Nick Stokes his attendance was independent of the CSIRO. He said on his blog: "I don't think James Risbey was involved as a CSIRO representative. I made it clear to the organisers that I wasn't (my status with CSIRO is now emeritus anyway). I think the attribution of affiliation on the doc I posted was just background info for other participants. Incidentally, we didn't know who else was invited until just a few days before the meeting.

http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/01/lisbon-meeting.html?showComment=1297038005117#c3526174492830871464

So that clear that up! (Hope Nick doesn't mind my quoting him on that, but having raised the issue I think it important to round it off.)

John Mashey said...

But it looks good to have 2 people from CSIRO and one from Leeds University.

John Mashey said...

As for the map, I recommend this ATCHAFALAYA article by John McPhee, 1/2 of his fine book "Control of Nature."

New Orleans:
1) The Mississippi floods on occasion.
2) The Mississippi really, really wants to jump to the Atchafalaya channel.
3) The land is sinking.
4) Sea level is rising.
5) Hurricanes come on occasion.

It is sad, but it may be just as well that New Orleans' population has been shrinking.

John Mashey said...

Meanwhile, back to the Lisbon/pearce thing:
DC has found some good info on the backstory.

Anonymous said...

So this is how NewScientist decides to address an egregious error and defaming of a well-respected and prominent NASA scientist:

"But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA's Gavin Schmidt. [begin strikeout]who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss[end strikeout]. [Gavin Schmidt has asked us to clarify his reasons for not attending: see the bottom of this post.]"


ML
That is not a correction, nor a retraction, nor an apology. They are still biasing the reader, because one can read the text below the strikethrough. Although one could argue that to reasonable readers who read Gavin's email, NewScientist and Fred Pearce are once again demonstrating their bias.

IMHO, this “correction” does not go far enough, and I’m sure that it won’t satisfy Dr. Schmidt. Then again, at this point he may not care anymore.

Anonymous said...

So, has anyone suggested that Her Majesty's Constabu-bunnies have a word with this email-flashing tallberk? After all, the trail for the original hack can't be completely dead... ;)

willard said...

Neven,

For what it's worth, I have been implicated in at least three deletions by Judith.

A first was when Richard S. Courtney went overboard against me. She deleted both Divine and mine, which was alright, since it made Divine looks not really good.

A second was when Oliver K. Manuel ran the full libertarian gamut. She deleted only Oliver K.'s and kept my comment dangling. That is a shame, since Oliver K. was really violating all the principles of intellectual integrity there. It was a thing of juvenile beauty, as is Manuel's wont.

A third one was today, but I am not sure who between RobB or Rob Starkey. I do not know exactly why she deleted either one, presumably to end what could be seen as a food fight. That left me with some unfinished business.

In two cases, one could surmise that these deletions were there to protect me from childish abuse. Interestingly, the third case was Oliver K. Manuel's.

When Judith removes a comment, the related comment hierarchy breaks down. When a comment thread gets flattened (as it should be, anyway), chances are that a comment got deleted.

I do not mind moderation much. I keep a copy of my comments. I believe it's important to enforce some decorum.

In any case, tacit discipline between commenters can replace moderation quite effectively, as at Jeff Id's place.

Think **Eyes Wide Shut**.

PS: Ouncepoo is the capcha.

willard said...

Of note:

> Judith, As someone present at the Lisbon meeting the claim that Gavin Schmidt was not attending on the grounds that the “Science was settled” was already circulating on the first day of the conference. One of the other attendees asserted the “science is settled” statement to me as fact. I questioned this, since it seemed completely out of keeping with what the articles of Gavin that I have read. My interlocuteur then found another attendee to back up this claim. It is clear to me that rumours about Gavin’s email were being disseminated from the beginning of the conference if not earlier. The fact that my fellow attendees were so eager to believe the rumours rather undermined my hopes for the meeting at a very early stage. (Chatham House Rules prevent me from identifying the two attendees in question on this blog).

Best wishes, Bill Hartree

Source: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-39499

willard said...

Sorry, my first comment was meant for JCH.

J Bowers said...

Re. Willard 7/2/11 4:23 PM

LMAO @ paragraph 5.

Hank Roberts said...

http://synd.imgsrv.uclick.com/comics/nq/2011/nq110207.gif

J Bowers said...

http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/04/education-versus-indoctrination/#comment-18468

diogenes said...

the paraphrase "the science is settled" does not to mke sound very different from Dr S's lack of willingness to discuss the science on the grounds that there was nothing to discuss. It reminds me of the "historian" David Irving and his claim that Hitler was unaware of the Final Solution because he had never foundin any of the archivbes in germany and the occupied territories that he was able to search a piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it referrring to the "Final Solution".

Stephen said...

"Oh dear.
A fragment of "Birth of Venus"? What would that be code talk for?
And why only a fragment? What is being hidden?? Data corruption indeed!"

I think this has the makings for a Dan Brown novel involving a secret cabal of climate scientists with Steven McIntyre and/or Anthony Watts deciphering their hidden symbols to save the world.

Douglas Watts said...

"The map region is correct - lower Mississippi delta - but the relevance is that it shows the amount of wetland loss since the 1930s. Something like an area the size of Rhode Island has disappeared because of reduced sediment flow from the mississippi, subsidence, channel building, oil gas exploration, increased erosion and rising sea level. All of which was a big contributor to the damage related to Katrina. It's a stunning map."

Thanks, Gavin. I was wondering about the map behind your head. It looked like the Mississippi Delta. And it has been totally destroyed, mostly by damming and locking on the Miss. and Missouri since 1900, just like the Nile Delta due to construction of the Aswan High Dam.

Anonymous said...

Just in case anyone is interested. Found this when I was searching for news on Oliver Manuel arrest. Could not find much of anything except broken link. At first I thought it was one of those planted stories. Anyway, here is story of all charges being dropped except for one attempted sodomy. Still haven't found anything on the actual trial. Sad story. http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/feb/20080204News013.asp