Just a quick update:The event will be moderated by David Shukman of the BBC.
I have just learned that also joining the debate will be Robert Muir-Woods, of RMS, where he was a colleague of Bob Ward, prior to Ward joining LSE and Nicholas Stern. Robert was also a "contributing author" to the IPCC report chapter that I have been critical of for its inclusion of a "mystery graph." Robert is a disaster expert and was a valued participant in our 2006 Hohenkammer Workshop on this subject.
Get your tickets here before the sell out!
11 comments:
I envision Mr. Shukman playing the part of Monty Python's, Black Knight. He may impede your attempt to seek the climate grail.
David Shukman and other BBC employees' pensions are tied to investments based on climate change policy.
The BBC pension scheme is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) that has a stated objective to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors.
Further the person who chairs the IIGCC, Peter Dunscombe, is also BBC's head of pensions investment. Peter Dunscombe has stated, "the credibility of emissions trading schemes would be greatly improved with a robust price signal as well as clear and frequent communication from the regulator on trading data and improved transparency over direct government participation in schemes."
Roger you have talked of in the past about emission trading schemes and also conflicts of interest. How are BBC employees going to enjoy a fully provisioned retirement if there are less storms and disasters than the IPCC predicted?
No one objective available to moderate then?
Does that make it two to one?
"David Shukman is Environment and Science correspondent, principally for the Six and Ten O'Clock News bulletins on BBC ONE and has reported from more than 70 countries and regions including both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Recent assignments include revealing the plight of the polar bears in the far north of Canada..."
If by plight he means thriving success...
Shukman is a committed believer and alarmist. I turn the sound down whenever he appears on my screen.
Roger:
Be prepared. I can't but think that you are (potentially) being set up. I trust you have reviewed the basis on which the "debate" will take place - make sure that you understand that well and that they can't (as happened with the Field interview) simply talk over you.
I hope you do well - you add a much needed element of considered analysis to this debate, which is often lacking from "scientists", who either operate in a vacuum or simply have their eye on the next grant application and are prepared to toe the (politically correct) line to maintain access to those funds.
Even if I don't always agree with your views, I do agree with your insistence on rigour and am impressed with your commitment to critical analysis. I also applaud your willingness to stand forth and make your views known, regardless of their (un)popularity.
Cheers,
I have just got back from the debate - Roger was excellent - as indeed were the other panellists. In the event it was chaired by James Randerson of the Guardian, not David Shukman. It was well attended by a knowledgable audience (including Piers Corbyn).
The audience was asked to vote before and after the debate on 'Does global warming increase the toll of disasters?' but gave the chair a hard time in defining exactly what he meant by each word in that question. Nevertheless, approximately equal shares of 'yes', 'no' and 'don't know' before the debate, turned into far more 'no's afterwards, so I think Roger can be said to have 'won' though none of the panel was saying that the climate signal in disaster losses was strong and, on the science, no-one was trying to defend the indefensible, I thought.
Audience questions led to debate about 'what to do about the IPCC'. Roger put across clearly how his study (and his views) had been misrepresented and how the review process had (not) worked in that case.
There may be an audio recording on the RI's website soon as there has been for past lectures and debates.
Thanks for the review, Ruth!
The audio archive is here (pretty efficient for the RI):
www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000
The MP3 of the debate is at this link (there's even me asking a question between 55:08 and 55:29)
My twitter notes written live during the debate have been sorted at this link
Post a Comment