I ground to a halt on my live blogging yesterday - a combination of IT issues and frustrations with the conference itself being the cause.
The Howard Trust did a huge public service in getting together the group of people they did, but there were real issues with the format of the event. With the programme already packed, the fact that chairmen had also been asked to make short presentations meant there was almost no time for meaningful questioning of the presenters. On the rare occasions that the Q&A did spark into life the need to move on would bring things to a halt. This was a big issue in terms of developing an understanding of where the differences lie and how readily they might be resolved. There were video cameras in evidence, so you will get the chance to see what I mean. As Vaclav Klaus said in the introduction to his talk, the impression you got was of two groups of people who were talking past each other rather than engaging in a meaningful way.
If it was me organising it, I think I would have asked for much more tightly focused presentations, looking at specific areas of disagreement, rather than each side setting out its catechism once again. At least we could have learned something from this.
Morner and Plimer were colourful characters, with Morner in particular verging on the comical. I think this is a defence mechanism. Svensmark on the other hand was soberness personified and I sensed he was held in much higher esteem by the AGW subcribers as a result. I wondered if a certain degree of eccentricity is a requirement for those who choose to sit outside the climate science mainstream.
The subscribers were much blander - I don't mean this as a criticism though. Jones looked pretty drawn to me. I was interested to see the reactions to the sceptic talks from AGW subscribers. Andrew Watson was clearly very unimpressed, particularly with Plimer. I think Plimer probably felt the same way about Watson though. Their brief exchange wasn't enough for anyone to work out who was right. I was struck by the stony faces from the AGW subscriber side when Vaclav Klaus made some jokes in his talk. I think that, despite what they say, they are very much of the left. Perhaps they just don't realise it.
All of the presentations were pitched at a level that was relatively superficial - what else could they be given the time constraints? I would have found it more useful to assume a certain level of background knowledge but to tell us about where the differences of opinion lay. Then we could listen to the debate and learn something.
The post-conference reception was much more useful, and I was able to engage with a number of people from the other side of the debate and I learned a great deal. A lot of ice was broken - it's amazing what a glass of champagne will do to people operating in separate trenches. I think this is going to lead to some meaningful engagement in the coming weeks, so watch this space.