I might come to watch - Pub?

Like Foxgoose, I am also half an hour away and was already thinking about attending. A pub meet after would be fine.

Too far away for me but, having read the abstract, I hope some BH correspondents do attend and report back.
//
Event Details

BIG Green Week Festival talk by Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology at Bristol University, in partnership with Bristol Festival of Ideas.

At least one U.S. Senator thinks that climate change is ‘the greatest hoax ever perpetrated’. When this senator writes that ‘the global warming conspiracy threatens your future’, he is not talking about the risks from extreme heat, drought, or flooding. He probably thinks that corrupt scientists are out to install a World Government. Throughout history, the rejection of science has often involved a conspiratorial component. Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky reviews the evidence and explains why scientific reasoning and conspiratorial thinking are polar opposites.

Professor Lewandowsky is the Chair of Cognitive Psychology at Bristol University researching how the human mind works, with a particular interest in how people rationalise a denial of scientific facts.
//

As far as questions go, I'd like to ask:

"In the light of the correspondence detailed in Stephen McIntyre's expose of the fabricated investigation into your research misconduct and the blatant disregard for the truth that it displays, will you be rewriting your Shaping Tomorrow's Future Personal Values Statement? If so, how? If not, why?"

//
Authors at Shapingtomorrowsworld have the option of making their values explicit on this page, to place their work and their discourse into context.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Personal values statement

Part of my research is considered controversial by some people because I examine why individuals choose to reject well-established scientific findings, such as the fact that the Earth is warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.

I believe that science has served us well during the last century or so. For example, the number of lives that were saved through research into HIV/AIDS is staggering—a fact tragically highlighted by the unnecessary death toll in South Africa when the government of then-President Mbeki rejected scientific medicine and preferred to treat AIDS with beetroot and garlic.

Nonetheless, science takes place in a social context and is not value neutral. For example, I do not share the values of the late Dr. Edward Teller, an advocate of using nuclear devices to build harbours in Alaska (among other things), who possibly inspired the movie character Dr. Strangelove.

My research and approach to science are based on the following values:

I value freedom of speech. In most instances, "bad" speech should be countered by good or better speech rather than being suppressed. It is for this reason that I have not taken action, thus far, against the clearly defamatory content of various internet blogs.
I value academic freedom. This entails the freedom to publish research that some people find controversial or inconvenient. It is the responsibility of scientists to be rigorous in publishing and attempt to eliminate all errors and identify weaknesses in their work. Where these persist in published articles, it is the job of peer-review to correct those via published rejoinders.
Science is debate, and I have been participating in this debate for 30 years. I therefore welcome any critique of my work that survives peer review or is cogent in other ways or addressed through proper channels.
Because I value freedom of speech and academic freedom, I oppose and resist the bullying and intimidation employed by some opponents who refuse to engage in scientific debate by avoiding peer review. My thoughts and experiences are summarized in an article on the Subterranean War on Science.
Inspired by some philosophers of ethics, I consider the rejection of climate science to be at least morally negligent and sometimes actively immoral. There is a crucial distinction between skepticism, which expresses itself in the peer-reviewed literature, and active rejection of scientific facts, which expresses itself in other fora and which does not seek peer review. People are entitled to question everything in good faith, but I do not believe they are entitled to spread disinformation or mislead the public, whether by intention or reckless disregard for the truth. Opinions have ethical consequences.
I therefore perceive a moral obligation to conduct research into why people reject well-established scientific facts, be it climate change or the utility of vaccinations. This is my personal conviction, which other scholars are free to share or disagree with. To illustrate my position, Dr. Lawrence Torcello, a philosopher at the Rochester Institute of Technology, put it succinctly: “… Some issues are of such ethical magnitude that being on the correct side of history becomes a cipher of moral character for generations to come. Global warming is such an issue. History inevitably recognizes the moral astuteness of those loudly intolerant of ignorance and corruption. Those who offer polite hospitality to injustice must learn from history that they are complicit to the harms they enable.‎”
In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

V1.01 2/3/14
//

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/values4stw.htm

Just ordered my ticket. Is there any suggestion about meeting up before as well as after?

I shall. The thing about a before meeting is maybe coming up with a good question etc, if I (or anyone else) is courageous enough, and then even if you get picked, you know the way these things go. ig.woolley at yahoo dot com

I went down to the waterfront to do a recce this morning; the nearest pub to the Arnolfini (where the talk is to be held) is the River Grille, practically next door. It looked quite reasonable. on the other side of the water (over the little pedestrian bridge) are Bordeaux Quays, Pitcher and Piano, and Mackenzies. They all seem ok, but River Grille is the nearest.

I am not at all scientifically qualified, but would very much like to meet all you scientific people, and be present at a pub meet, either before or after - or both, if you are doing that.

So, with the retraction, what are the odds this talk gets cancelled? Does Lewandowsky have the front to go ahead? Will the organisers quietly change the title of the talk? I'll be disappointed if it doesn't go ahead as planned.

Lew, the nomadic academic, is nothing if not malleable to pressure. He likely to morph his next talk into a very dramatic presentation on his grand experiment with reality proving that skeptics are so crazy they are conspiring against him personally. It is interesting how rapidly this great light of academia job hopping around the world: US > Australia> UK> ?

So, is there any further update on whether Lewandowski's talk is still on - I got my big glossy brochure from Bristol's Big Green Week, and it's still scheduled in there. are we meeting up before the talk, (I'll bring my BBGW brochure, plus a Josh calendar for identification), and if so, does the River Grille suit people? and should we book a table?

just for fun, take it at face value.

Less than 1% of people 'believed' the moon hoax conspiracy in the moon paper...

10 people, 6 warmists, 4 'sceptics' - and I'm guessing all of those were people messing with the survey for 'fun'

So 99% of people surveyed on 'climate blogs' (yes I know they all hated sceptics) believed in the moon conspiracy, making the title offensively provocative ammunition and soundbite in the climate wars.

his follow up paper that surveyed the general public. ~ 5% believed in the moon conspiracies....

making those that read the climate blogs, LESS likely to believe in that particular conspiracy than the general USA public. another soundbite, general public 5 times more likely to believe the 'moon conspiracy'..

tiny numbers believed in the conspiracy theories, but that is not how it was spun in the media....

oops - ,meant to say

99% people did NOT believe in moon survey -

well, it looks as though it is still on. here is the current biggreenweek bumf on it, so it doesn't seem to have been cancelled. i hope to go and check out that the River Grille is still operating tomorrow (Tue 10th), and will report back after that.

http://biggreenweek.com/session/nasa-faked-the-moon-landing-therefore-climate-science-is-a-hoax/

can somebody record audio - take pictures of the slides.
I can't go, work/family commitments

here is a photo and google map of the River Grille. The restaurant only opens at 12, but apparently there is a bar in the lounge above (go in through the restaurant and ask directions). It is all part of the Bristol Hotel (which I as a pedestrian hadn't realized until today having only approached it from the waterfront.)

https://plus.google.com/101355897042280193337/photos

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/The+Bristol+Hotel/@51.450523,-2.597066,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xd55da34a3bd15049

I shall endeavour to be in the lounge bar at about 11 - 11.15, and will bring my Josh calendar from last year (with Lew on September 2013 page). I hope some of you may be able to join me - not fond of drinking alone - even coffee! and then we can go just up the road a few paces to the Arnolfini for the 12.30 talk. and maybe a drink/lunch afterwards?

see you all then, i hope!

Yep, I'm up for meeting at the lounge bar of the River Grille at 11.15. Hope at least to see you two there, Richard and Caroline.