Prev: Scientific American and Science censorship...
Next: Researchers are puzzling over a sharper-than-expected collapse ofEarth's upper atmosphere
From: Eric Gisin on 15 Jul 2010 15:07
To all the alarmists who say "the debate is over", here is the first debate of any importance.
Will the MSM ignore this story? Trivia: Corbyn is a skeptic, but was a radical activist in 70s.
See web page for 98min audio of debate. Dunno if video is available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jul/15/climategate-public-debate

Polemical and partisan characterises the climate debate online - but at last night's Guardian
debate there was courteousness and a distinct warmth in the air

Something remarkable happened last night in the polarised world of "warmists" versus "sceptics": a
candid but not rancorous public debate. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but, to my
knowledge, never before have all sides of this frequently poisonous debate shared a stage. The
outcome was illuminating.

With no little effort, I had persuaded a star panel to convene to discuss the fall out from the
"Climategate" affair which followed the exposure of 1,000 private emails between climate scientists
at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and their international colleagues. Three
inquiries had emphasised that the science of global warming remained clear and that the scientists
had not fiddled their data but also that there had been serious shortcomings in the transparency
with which they worked and in how they dealt with freedom of information requests.

So almost 300 people squeezed into Riba in London last night, ready to witness a fight. Instead,
they were treated to a heated argument, in the best sense of that word, with my colleague George
Monbiot, who chaired magnificently, only having to threaten one heckler with ejection (yes, Piers
Corbyn, it was you).

There's a news story here, but here's my take on the panellists and the debate:

.. Professor Trevor Davies, ex-head of CRU and now pro-vice chancellor for research at UEA: Davies
had the toughest brief, given the lurid nature of some of the emails, which he said had initially
"shocked" him, as well as the pounding UEA has taken in the media. But he was clear and calm, if a
little stiff, backing the researchers' science while fully acknowledging the need to work more
openly and be more helpful in responding to FOI requests. Inevitably, he failed to woo a sceptical
chunk of the audience, who jeered when he failed to recall the exact date when the last inquiry
panel was set up, but all were glad he was there.

.. Steve McIntyre, editor of ClimateAudit: It was hard to reconcile the much-demonised McIntyre with
the open and avuncular Canadian on the stage. Despite being the highest-profile critic of CRU, he
pointed out none of the three enquires had asked him to give evidence. He ducked a question on how
much the Earth was warming - "I don't know" - he was convincing in saying his motive had always
been wanting the temperature data only because he felt it was important and should be available. He
noted that if he was running a government, he would be taking action on climate change. Hardly a
classic sceptic.

.. Professor Bob Watson, chief scientific advisor at Defra, visiting professor at the University of
East Anglia and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Watson took a
twin-track approach: bluntly unequivocal that human activities are warming the planet but also
genuine and insistent that sceptical views must be reflected in reports such as that by the IPCC:
"We must not hide minority views", when based on "evidence, not ideology". But he added, reflecting
on his work in the Clinton White House and the current UK government, that: "Evidence is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for good policymaking."

.. Fred Pearce, environmental journalist and author of The Climate Files: Pearce was passionate in
arguing that 'Climategate' was a very human tragedy, in respect of scientists feeling under siege
and becoming fiercely defensive - which only spurred on the sceptics, who thought there must be
something to hide. But he thought many CRU critics were not sceptics at all: "They are actually
data libertarians, rather than climate sceptics, still less climate deniers. It turned into data
wars." Pearce's conclusion was that at this turning point for climate science, more "candour" was
needed from all.

.. Doug Keenan, independent researcher and blogger, was focused and feisty, and did not hold back
from his central theme that scientists of all stripes remain unacceptably unaccountable for the
probity of their work: "Scientists are human and the prerequisite for integrity in human affairs is
transparency." He made allegations of fraud in climate science but revealed his true interests were
not in climate change at all, but in the founding of early civilisations, archeo-astronomy and
carbon dating.

The audience played a big part too, and was mixed with both warmist and sceptic points getting
loudly cheered and booed. More than one suggested the media had hyped the "Climategate" tale beyond
all reason, though none of the panel fully endorsed this view.

In the bar later, the extraordinary events continued, with Bob Watson and Doug Keenan swapping
contact details and promising to stay in touch. Will the friendliness that broke out at the
Guardian debate prove a mere holiday romance? Or will it be the start of a new way of conducting
and communicating the science, especially online, that will shape how the world lives for
centuries, as demanded by many?

I'm cautiously optimistic.

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Scientific American and Science censorship...
Next: Researchers are puzzling over a sharper-than-expected collapse ofEarth's upper atmosphere