oh dear.. rather a misrepresentation as far as I'm concerned.

I rang Bridgette Nerlich at Nottingham Uni, because she was a co-(public funds) funder of Talking Climate.. I didn't bother with Nick Pidegon, (other funder) as he was Adam co-author and had worked with George Marshall before.

I rang because I was concerned that Nottingham Uni (and Cardiff) was providing PUBLIC funds and working with people and organisations that are both activists and lobbying organisation.

I asked, whether Nottingham was aware of these activist organisations.

I also tried to explain, that public funded universities trying to communicate climate change would be best not to get involved with COIN and PIRC (partners in Talking Climate) because the public (and sceptics) would most probably percieve these as activist organisations and I explained why?

Very early on in the Talking Climate debate I offered to have a private chat with Adam Corner and he follwed me and I dm'd him my phone number

Perhaps you can imagine my concern when I find out LATER, that I had emailed my personal details to someone closey involved with people (socially and professionally) that take DIRECT action, who are no friends of sceptics. I gave my details in good faith, and I had introduced myself to Corner as a WUWT guest author.

So I was horrified to find that Corner was a placard waving green party activist at Copenhagen (tweeting about deniers, also marching on the Houses of Commons with the FOE, for climate justice.

My bigger concern was finding out that Coner was now a director of the PIRC, a co-director being Christian Hunt, (Carbon Brief editor - I wrote about the Carbon Brief at WUWT) Christian is ex-greenpeace and has taken direct action, being arrested at Kingsnorth and the Houses of Commons, also at PIRC is Richard Hawkins (greenpeace, climate camp etc), also arrested alongside George Monbiot at another coal protest. Alongside Adam at COIN is Alex Randall (former Kiribati's climate rep at Copenhagen, mate of Christians, and Alex is Adams co-author on one of his papers)

Richard Hawkins I also find being part of the Talking Climate blog, alongside George Marshall - founder of Rising Tide, founder of COIN and a veteran Greenpeace/Rainforest Foundation campaigner.

George Marshall being the activist that Michae Mann got George Monbiot's email address from(see climate gate emails), George Marshall's blog www.climatedenial being included on Realclimate blog roll from it's very early days (2006)

and both Adam Corner, Richard Hawkins were part of the PIRC funded Climate Safety blog, absolutely no friends to anybody sceptical

What made me ring Nottingham was the video of Adam Corner taking part in a public debate, stating he was a reseacher, NOT a campaigner. I tried to explainto Bridgett and Adam Corner in a phone converstion, how on earth would he think he would be perceived, by the MP Peter Lilley on the panel or Lord Lawson / Benny Peiser in the audience or the public, if all the above had been mentioned at the public debate.

I did say anyone in the audience could have googled or seen tweets on smartphone and asked Peter LIlley in the Q/A session.. "question for Peter Lilley MP, Dr Adam Corner says he is a researcher, not a campaigner.... " and then introduced the above.

Adam is policy advisor to COIN (behind Talking Climate) whose founder George Marshall, is reponsible for Deniers - Halls of Shame, including one with Lord Lawson in it.

I contacted both Peter Lilley and Benny Peiser/Lord Lawson, and asked if they were aware of Adam's background/COINS/PIRC activisim, they said not, just took him at face value as a resercher. I did consider it quite naughty for Damian Carrington at the debate, not to mention that Adam cCorner also wrote for the Guardian.

I tried very hard to explain that I not seeking to attack anybody (which I could have easily written a sensationist piece for WUWT) but to genuinely try to talk across the huge gulf of misunderstanding.

Adam choose to think that this was a 'threat'. I went at pains to point out that this was not the case,as an example I have written frequently to Marc Morano to try and get him to stop publishing scientist (and Leo Hckman's) email addreses, because of the resulting abuse they recieve. And that I especially wrote again at the time of Heartland, beacuse Peter Gleick and Katie Hayhoe email addresses were being published, and I was VERY concerned rthat Peter's professional tradegy did not to into a personal tradegy. I also wrote to Heartland itself, asking if they cold use any influence they might have to tone down the rhetoric, because I was concerned about Peter's welfare.

(anybody here should know why I'm not exactly on Peter Gleick's Christmas card list, but I was concerned at the time, as Peter disappeared of Twitter and Revkin was writing about professional tradegy)

I did considered writing about Adam and that debate - WUWT headline could have been-
"I'm NOT a campiagner - but what about the placard at Copenhagen !'

and about COIN/PIRC, I took advice form 2-3 people both on the consensus side and sceptical side of the debate, because I was concerned about reaction if I published ( they all said stick to facts, fair enough topic) I choose NOT to because it would just fill pre-conceptions of sceptics if some dumb americans sent Cardiff/Nottingham/Adam ugly emails.

Adam clearly things his 'personal activities' are seperate from his work.

I clearly tried to explain very patiently Ithought, that is ridiculously naive, as he has a public face, especially alongside an apparent conflict of interest with PIRC and COIN (director and policy advisor) both activist and lobbying organisations.

Adam Corner is not just a researcher, he has a public profile writing for the Guardian, New Statesmen, etc. He appears at debates (including the Royal Institution alongside Myles Allen - post climategate defending the scientists) - His involvement, and Cradiff/Nottingham's with these groups is materially relevant, as would the situation be if roles were reversed.

The fact that the subject of eco-phsycology at the moment is motivated reasoning and idealogy amongst sceptics, is utterly ironic in the inability for those involved to look in the mirror.

I tried to explain (privately) that the public perception of him amongst the public and those sceptics involved in that debate, would be that he was a 'liar' - I'm NOT a campaigner, he said.. to the public and to Members of Parliament. and it did not need an a phsycologist to understand why.

If any of the above is 'embarrsing' to Adam or his colleagues, well it is all factual, so may I ask why it is embarrasing.

How would anybody not get the perception that Talking Climate was just another activist blog that had got hold of some public funds to push their activist agenda. Again, this is how I think it would be percieved amongst the public and those MP's, perhaps it needs phsycologist to explain to the public why this perception is wrong?

I am increasingly (sadly) inclined to consider Marc Morano correct, it is a political battle against activists and that facts need to be shown the light of day and that Geof is probably wasting his time.

Additionally. I have found absoultely no problems at all talking with any actual climate scientists! and count some as very good personal and family friends.(nobody you lot would know, but one of them edited IPCC TAR)

It is all about trust and goodwill. I have interviewed BOTH James Delingpole and Leo Hickman for WUWT, and both have trusted me not to misrepresent them

and for example, Mark Lynas might be considered by many to be a total activist (ie he wrote about sceptics being on a par with holocaust deniers, 2006) he is intellectually honest, we've corresponded, met, had lunch, and I even know where he lives!! - he had a bad back so I gave hime a lift into Oxford to meet Jonathan Jones for lunch. So I utterly refute any allegations of 'sceptics' (ie ME) smearing Adam or anybody.

Trust and mutual respect is essential.

I have gone out of my way to try and engage debate, corresponded with Roger Harrabin, Peter Gleick, Katie Hayhoe, Leo, Mark Lynas, and many others. I even have a thank you email from Richard Black, when I defended him being attacked by Joe Romm's Think Progress!

and I did point out to Adam and other that I get abuse from commentators at WUWT and even Bishop Hill, and I have written for both these blogs! (Guest logon at WUWT)

Anyway it's summer holidays now, three young children off school for 7 weeks.

I'm taking a break.

I'm NOT a campaigner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLPpOS2BpH0&feature=player_embedded#t=819s
http://talkingclimate.org/a-greener-shade-of-blue-communicating-climate-change-on-the-right/

I'm in two minds. On the one hand, there's the impulse to prosecute the war, regardless. On the other, well, there's curiosity. What on earth makes these people tick? When even climatologists are often circumspect and not given to alarmism, what is it that automatically predisposes many social scientists to assume the worst-case scenarios, when it comes to climate change and the environment? The promise of a two-way dialogue is fascinating indeed, even though my internal cynic suspects that it won't quite be "on the level" as far as Dr Corner is concerned (and, in turn, Dr Corner might see that as a good example of a sceptic's "bunker mentality".)

On balance - it's a good idea. Whatever happens, we'll learn something. Maybe we'll learn that such dialogues are unlikely to get us anywhere. Maybe we'll learn that our suspicions are, by and large, correct. Or maybe we'll learn that non-sceptics have excellent reasons to believe what they believe (NLP has some interesting notions about belief systems and how they can be consistent and logical, however bizarre they may appear to an outsider.) Whatever happens, though, one way or another, it will give us useful data.

And if he is concerned as he says he is about the widening communication "gap", Adam Corner will be just as curious about what makes CAGW sceptics tick. I would be, if I were in his position.

By the way, re the business of the phone calls to his colleagues, like Martin A and Hilary I find this very odd. If anyone had negative feelings about Corner's engaging with commentators on Bishop Hill strong enough to motivate him/her to intervene via his colleagues, surely the likelihood is that he/she would be an outraged warmist rather than a sceptic?

Barry
Excellent post.

Trust and mutual respect is essential

The main problem, the way I see it, starts when you have a group who start thinking they can sweep the opinions of a bunch of people completely off the board and not deal with them (at all). For the climate activist, such a notion brings comfort that they do not have to expend effort trying to come to terms with the other players in the debate.

So, while I can see Geoff's point that even PhD holders can be subjects in a study, what is objectionable is the implication that skeptical opinion is worth only as an object of study, and will not hold its own in the circle that studies it from above.

The fact that the subject of eco-psychology at the moment is motivated reasoning and ideology amongst sceptics, is utterly ironic in the inability for those involved to look in the mirror.

@ Barry, very well said - this is key.

"This is what I’d like to discuss with Corner, in public if possible. Does anyone find that interesting, and will you promise to be good and not frighten him away?"

Well I'd find it interesting, and posters here should remember the old Southern USA saying, "You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." (Film, "Gone With the Wind" I believe is my source).

Another interesting point for me is that both Dr. Corner and Dr. Bain appear to have made no contact with sceptics, and in Dr. Bain's case he appears to have not had any contact with anyone who could explain science to him, he believes the only people who can discuss the technical aspects of climate science are climate scientists. They both might benefit from having contact with the many physicists, scientists, mathematicians and engineers who haunt the internet trying to get a word in edgeways on the issue.

They would benefit. But they are not interested. The science is settled is their starting point and rock.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

geoffchambers

Sir,

In your introduction, you write: There are sceptics who don’t like this research, who don’t like government funding for this research …. , who don’t like … social science.. Count me in. I will try to elucidate.

In a later contribution, you applaud the absence of cheap sniping at the soft social sciences, but I fear it is difficult to avoid the thought that these sciences are necessarily shallow and cheap criticisms may be sufficient. The impossibility of establishing causal links between input stimuli and resulting beliefs in the brain of the individual, and by summation of the crowd, seems to condemn the science to impotence. 42 comes to mind. On the other hand, I recall being told that while it was impossible to predict individual reactions, crowd behaviour in the face of an advertising campaign could readily be forecast. Precisely. In the soft social sciences observations may be made and conclusions, frequently of significance to unrelated objectives drawn in the absence of proper understanding of the processes involved.

Further, governments and organizations with funds at their disposal generally have things to do or objectives to achieve – a mission, these days, now typically described in a statement.. It would be unusual for science or religion to be significant to those organizations in comparison to matters that bear upon the mission.

The shallowness of the science and the irrelevance of science to those disbursing funds, coupled with the undoubted importance of empirical observations to a wide range of objectives seems to indicate, rather strongly, that the funding of the soft social sciences is usually intended to advance unrelated objectives. Particularizing, it seems abundantly clear that Adam Corner’s funding ( or that part of it that is the issue at the moment) is intended to advance the warmist cause. Is this cheap? Below the belt?

Two points arise.

Firsly, as government policy advocates the warmist cause, it is perfectly logical that Adam Corner receive funding from the government. Those who object should widen their attack to include the government’s espousal of that cause.

Next, contributions to the blog have brought me to understand that large numbers of people are funded to pursue social science of one sort or another.

So, is anyone aware of any social scientist whose work is funded by government and advances climate scepticism? Maybe it is just my bias, but I would imagine there are but few. A minority would indicate (a) the bias of those providing funds, or (b) that the social sciences are predominately practiced by those who are the more easily persuaded to the warmist cause. This would be because it is not too much of a stretch to find a connection between, on the one hand, those who choose to separate themselves from the public and invest themselves with the power to observe and maybe manipulate it and, on the other, ancient far left governments and their exploitation of their proles together with the green ‘church’ and the exploitation of the current public that they have replaced it with on the moral high ground.

I confess I find social scientists discomforting and recall a social scientist remarking that the feeling was commonplace. It is not difficult to guess why. The social scientist examines behaviour (generally without permission) and attempts to establish causal linkages that the subject cannot himself know. At the individual level this is forced intimacy; at the level of the crowd the observer is seen to invest himself with superior abilities. Thus, social scientists inevitably seem somewhat supercilious, certainly to me and possibly to most.

From the foregoing critique of the content of the soft social sciences, I expect you will appreciate that I find your interest in pursuing discussions with Adam Corner somewhat uncharacteristic. However, of far more importance, I regret I doubt that the discussions will help the sceptic cause. If you expect your discussions to help you advance the cause and the need for secrecy does not prevent it, I would be most grateful if you would explain.

I also deplore the manners you report. We must proceed by making friends and influencing people

BBD

I would be extremely pleased of you would be good enough to peruse the above and let me know if you think my views are extreme.

Barry Wood: "They would benefit. But they are not interested. The science is settled is their starting point and rock."

Of course you're rigtht, but I've been an engineer for all my working life, and always take on board the latest scientific fad with a pinch of salt, as most scientific, engineering and mathematical people do. For instance the latest CERN experiment that's shown the possibility that they've found the Higgs Boson is very interesting, but for me I'd need a lot more than the one experiment to prove it. For psychologists it seems to be the opposite, once scientists have said they've found it, then it's true. I believe there's a study into the gullibility gene in there somewhere.

My point is Adam Corner stood up in front of the public and opponents in a debate and said I'm a researcher, I'm NOT a campaigner.

Advocacy is a lesser issue if people are upfront about it. Ie my point being like James Hansen

My other point is pubically unded organisations working with activist/lobbying organisations COIN/PIRC that wish to push their own agendas, especially problematic when these organisations and members have been instrummental in causing a polarised debate and demonising sceptics. Ie Deniers Halls of Shame. GEORGE Marshall Rising Tide.

GEORGE Marshall also being Talking Climate, who had the blog post how to talk to a denier,by George. Who deleted my comment that his own blog linking to the Deniers Hall of Shame.really makes me feel that he is less than sincere.

Don't worry. We knew what you meant.

From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

Dung

In tmy piece, logic was not complicated by facts born of experience. There should have been a IMHO somewhere.
The matters that confront the politicians that make up governments range across the full range of human activities and in the vast majority of case will be totally foreign to their experience. But we surely should expect them to have the skill to proceed – effectively – without the benefit of the understanding of a practitioner. The issue is how they are to be motivated. Politicians are not free of pressure –they are beholden to the electorate both nationally and locally and can be stirred into action by the prospect of voter reaction. Blinding them with science will not achieve that. The trick is, I think, for the expert, scientist, whatever, to cast off that role and find some angle of his speciality that will affect the man-in-the-street (which, also being one, he will fully understand) and influence his vote, and regale the politician with that.
The tale told does not have to be correct, relevant, or anything else but persuasive. After all, government’s espousal of the warmist cause must have come about from the promotion of some extremely distorted interpretations of climate science. There seems to be no reason why equally fallacious arguments should not persuade governments to reverse course.

Rhoda

You tread the same path as I but with far greater eloquence.

geoffchambers

May I still hope for an answer to the questions about what motivated you to enter the discourse with Adam Corner? That you did so suggests tactical intent and I am interested in learning where you expected the exercise to go. To me, it seems unlikely that anybody would wish to investigate public perceptions, etc, as pure science without conceivable use. But I do accept that you may think differently. I would just like to know.

BBD

Come on – I need to know.