Discussion > Pub meet with Donna Laframboise in London 28 Jan
Looking forward to meeting you again.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
I shall not be there which is probably a blessing for all those who will.
But will someone who is there impress upon the good lady Donna my concern that she does not allow casual mentions of the 97%, dicta by that impartial body - the IPCC, and the like, pass unopposed, even if only by a subsequent one or two word dismissal when her turn to speak comes. We don't want so eminent a witness to seem to accept these canards.
You would not want me in the pub going on and on about that, would you?
Ecclesiastical Uncle,
The pub meeting will be held after Donna's testimony, and so will not provide an effective opportunity for passing on hints and tips for this time.
Look forward to meeting at least 90% of you Maurizio!
I plan to be there
I hope to be there. Not a regular commentator but have enjoyed all the posts here. 95% sure.
Ecclesiastical Uncle:
In view of my written submission to the Select Committee (see especially section 3), it would be very disappointing (at least for me) if there were any "casual mentions of the 97%".
I'm 90% certain to be there. For those of us not "on the inside track" and who won't necessarily recognise those who are, (and who certainly won't be recognised ourselves) should we wear name tags? (sticky labels would do).
I hope to make it.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Robin Guenier,
Well, we can hope that the committee will want to investigate how widely the scientific community endorses CAGW but they may choose to investigate its nuts and bolts rather than the support the idea receives. If they take the 'investigate' course the 97% might not even get a casual mention.
I am pretty sure that very few committee member will have the patience to read through written submissions like yours and that they will base their questions on what they perceive to be pressing political concerns explicable in words of one or two syllables - "Is the world getting warmer? Does it matter? How much will it cost to stop it?"
Best of luck, though! But if they do go along these lines, casual mentions have to be enough to provoke an indignant but equally brief rebuttal. Acquiescence will not do.
Eccles Uncle:
But if they do go along these lines, casual mentions have to be enough to provoke an indignant but equally brief rebuttal. Acquiescence will not do.
Totally agree. How about "The 97% is utter nonsense" as opener?
Of course Laframboise, Lewis and Lindzen can say whatever they please tomorrow morning. But I think the 'snort and retort' should be common to all of us, at any level of conversation.
Ecclesiastical Uncle:
I'm more hopeful. When announcing the inquiry, the Committee invited responses to some very specific questions: LINK. As you see, the second question was this: "To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?" That (the question I answered) sounds to me like an intention "to investigate its nuts and bolts". Otherwise, why ask it?
There in spirit (SORREE...!) - but can't wait to see the video of her evidence....
Ok. Have got my train ticket and am coming down from Leeds. Will not have had a chance to review what Donna and co.have said and how it went down.......and what is its importance? A little, a bit, nothing? Any chance of a summary being produced and printed?- willing to pay!
Anyway, having come back from China just for a few days am looking forward too this!
Now 99% sure of being there- barring British Rail or personal accidents!
Bob MacLean:
Good idea re sticky labels. I'll bring a sheet in case others agree.
Looking forward to tomorrow!
Ruth and I should be there "on time" and we both have photos freely available on the web for ease of recognition. All being well I'll tweet our arrival (@nmrqip).
Robin: It definitely sounds likely to be at a size where labels will come in handy, especially perhaps for the guest of honour!
I'm perhaps getting a bit bureaucratic now but perhaps a sign in sheet "for the record"?
Take some pictures, guys.
For the record, I have not met a single climate sceptic in person, to date.
I have donated, but I'm in the sister expedition of rhoda's investigating the temperatures in the Gulf of Siam - actually been cold, but you get that with global warming I'm told.
Actually Richard, I've said elsewhere we could have Maxwell-Einstein-Pauli speaking for the sceptical side but the committee (chairman on £166000/annum from renewable energy companies) will find that AR5 as been too cautious with its prognostications. It's a slam dunk.
I think people are getting a little over-excited here.
It's a pub meet. There is no agenda, no sign-in sheet, etc. The only rules are that people are expected to be polite to each other and to the pub. You are, of course, free to wear badges, but nobody is required to do so. Some people may prefer to remain anonymous, and that is of course fine.
I thankfully left behind all aspects of corporate/academic bureaucracy a few years back, and actively resist anybody trying to make me join it again.
Looking forward to seeing some old chums and making some new ones tonight....but you can whistle for any signing-in sheets.
Cry 'Freedom' from The Bureaucrats!
I agree about signing-in sheets. But stickers with names (voluntary of course) might help re new chums. Especially for anyone, like me, who is a bit deaf : (
Donna, as I said above, I sadly won't be able to make the pub meet. But can I apologise in advance on behalf of our UK
Government for you as a fellow Commonwealth citizen having to queue with the 'aliens' as you go through customs (unlike our fellow EU citizens), hopefully the queues will not be too long. Best wishes for the Parliamentary appearance - I am sure you (and Dick & Nic) will have all the angles covered.