Including the ones that have been removed, I hope. I didn’t think I’d said anything that rude or controversial!

http://articles.boston.com/2012–06-04/opinion/31988309_1_powerful-women-opinion-columns-women-writers

“For every 100 opinion columns published about security issues, only 15 were written by women”

May I just ask you to clarify one of your comments above and twitter comments

I do not believe I have ever been personally critical of you, or tried to make you lose credibility! Perhaps I’m over sensitive to being accused of uncivil behaviour, etc
(you need to read the realclimategate link to understand why (Peter Gleick publically calling me ‘incredibly offensive’), it took three climate scientists to get him to publically apologise.

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

The photo that was linked is publically available, (in a political party publically newsletter) and is another example of why people are sceptical, a photo that would give the perception of an ‘activist’ scientist. I could have also posted an example of James Hansen in Handcuffs!! to make the point.

In fact this is almost exactly similar to when Dr Tamsin Edwards first made a comment at Bishop Hill, Andrew Montford had been chatting, tweeting elsewhere for quite a while allready, the regular commentors were interested(and did not know her), then someone found a publically available article where she was talking casually about climate ‘denier’s

http://highheelsinthelab.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/real-deal-tamsin-edwards-climate_17.html

and shall we say the tone changed towards her a bit..

Tamsin, tweeted to Andrew and myself to come to her rescue in the comments!!

(Tamsin went and clarified that comment in the URL above)

Andrew and I came to her defence in the comments of Andrews OWN blog here,
Andrew whilst trying to allow all voices was having to intervene rather more than usual:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/11/whats-all-this-then.html?currentPage=3#comments

So I have asked a few people if that was fair to publish a photo here (they said yes), that was allready published photo on twitter, which was then added at B Hill and had been discussed widely at Bishop Hill and the reactions of people did harden to you because of it — ie perceived ‘sins of ommission’

I’m sure you will understand in a public audience — perceptions can be critical in a debate.

It is very important to, Do you accept my intent was not to personally criticise you!

I have no doubt you recieved some abrubt, frank, critical, even rude, etc comments from indiviuals (just because anyone in the world can read a blog, does not make an blog owner responsible for the commenst, this equally appliies to this blog) .

please don’t lump all those people together into one amorphous group. Judith Curry described different blogs as having various different signal to noise ratios in the comments and to concentrate on the above the line stuff.

ie please don’t ignore Bishop hill because of a few people, focus on the signal. I would include people like Paul Matthews, Jonathan Jones, Don Keiller, Ricahrd Betts who all comment there. ALL UK professors (only one on the ‘consensus’ side)

As a comparison, As an example of rudeness, I have all sorts of comments,made about me, rude critical, and t told to stfu a number of times or to hang out with my environmentalist friends, in the comments at both WUWT and Bishop Hill. (there are of course rather rude emails to me from Peter Gleick)

And I’m a Guest Author at BOTH!

so please don’t get hung up on individuals. (even the lady that said bigot, I think meant in a physcological sense, much like denial used in a strict definition.. but wise to avoid phrases like thes because of other implications, interpretations of intent.

As I mentioned, seen a cambridge professor in a Deniars disinformation databse, would make many people quite concerend about it..

———————–
So please allow this comment up to this point.

And cut the following if you wish — I hope you don’t (you can delete this bit as well if you want, but keep the next bit.
————————–

I genuinely wanted to chat with you, as I have with Mark Lynas, Roger Harrabin, I chat far to much with Leo. this doesn’t mean that we are not critical of each other ideas (but not the person) I have interviewed BOTH JAmes Delinpole AND Leo Hickman for articles at WUWT, I disagree with both of them on a number of issues, but I’m sure you will realise it takes trust and goodwill and respect for this to have happened, and that only comes by getting to know each other personally.

As this whole article came about because of the panel debate with Peter Lilley, Tim Yeo, Damian Carrington, etc, which was analysed by Ben PIle at Climate Resistance, where he says you nearly get it.

Days ago, I could also have quite fairly bought some other public information into these comments (and at Bishop Hill) . ie like someone who had looked up Tamsin on google..

The dust has settled how would it have gone.

If I tweeted a picture of you from the Friends of theEarth website, and your write up of a climate march at the House of commons, with links to activist marching, and their banners, this would have had an impact.

I also could have ‘selectively’ quoted anything form your public blog (which you state in the Guardain,is where you blog at!) thus VERY publically allowable.

And Finally, I could have pointed out on twitter and at Bishop Hill, in that debate, you were introduced just as Dr Adam Corner, Cardiff Uni. (ie audence perception — scientist)

And you state, to the public and Peter Lilley (on the opposing side of the debate), with Lord Lawson, Benny Peiser GWPF in the audience and it sounded like one or 2 sceptics as well

you started with:(my caps)

“I’m a researcher, I’m NOT a Campaigner, I study public attitudes of climate change”

Now I very nearly went to that debate, and I would just have just looked everybody up on google on my tablet, and then asked the panel a questionin the Q/A session

“For Peter Lilley, Dr adam Corner says that he is not a campaigner… … ”

and introduced all of the above.

It would have annoyed me then. Fortuanately, Ben wrote those artciles, Geof tried to enage with you, and this article came about. I’m still probably going to write an article, but it will be in a very different tone, than If I had been there, and just googled at the time.

“Adam Corner” climate

and found all the publically available information above..

one potential problem is the blog owner (‘either side’), also being party to the discussion.

I have asked neither , but why not ask someone like Dr Tamsin Edwards to host the the next discussion.. http://www.allmodelsarewrong.com

As this would resolve the potential problem of one of the parties of the discussion being percieved as controlling the discussion/moderation.

I would be completely happy for Tamsin for example to moderate (and also some agreed framework, before it starts), or as extra reinsurrance for some, perhaps Tamsin and Andrew Montford could co-moderate (not taking part themselves in the debate) and discussing any really contentious comments amongst themselves and making a joint decision.

For my part, I would more than happy to just let Tamsin moderate.

Or another person, could be Mark Lynas, who is obvioulsy on the consensus agw side of the debate. I’d be happy commenting there.

Need to ask them first though!

I don’t tknow if you are aware of this, but Tamsin had a little problem with Dr Peter Gleick with just the name of the blog, because he thought ‘sceptics’ might use it.

http://allmodelsarewrong.com/all-blog-names-are-wrong/

Tamsin ending up writing to Peter, giving him a ticking off, about how to communicate science. As a phsycologist I’m sure you will find Peter Gleick ‘s actions/behaviour interesting.

http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to-communicate-science/

Dr Tamsin Edwards adressing Peter Gleick:

“I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them.

If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were”.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! – Tamsin Edwards

(this did NOT go down well)

Tamsin and I were both quite concerned about this event (see email exchanges in the second url (PeterGleick, myself, Tamsin, Katie Hayhoe) because less than 24 hours later, Peter sent his first phising email to the Heartland Institute.

If you read both url’s bruised ego may have been a factor. ie a junior ‘relatively’ scientist telling a senior scientist what to think. The fact that other UK senior scientist supported Tamsin (see her link) I think really annoyed him.

Barry I have read Doran & Zimmerman not the entire masters thesis you link to

Excellent. I think you’re completely right that we need to agree on terms and conditions. What rules did you and Geoff follow? If they were reasonable (and I’m sure they were) why not just adopt those for the follow-up?

I mean this Zimmermann? Y/N

http://www.lulu.com/shop/m-r-k-zimmerman/the-consensus-on-the-consensus/paperback/product-4281091.html;jsessionid=4CA072593C13D8BB62016B3FA023A569

I’m not refering to Doran/Zimmerman
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf