Chatham House Rule | Chatham House Home About Chatham House Rule Chatham House Rule The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. The Chatham House Rule reads as follows: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. The world-famous Chatham House Rule may be invoked at meetings to encourage openness and the sharing of information. View text version and translations. Explanation of the Rule Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule. Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted 'on the record' with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker's request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held 'off the record'. Frequently Asked Questions Q. When was the Rule devised? A.

In 1927 and refined in 1992 and 2002. Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules? A. There is only one Rule. Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule? A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted. Q. How is the Rule enforced? A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue. For events held under the Chatham House Rule that are not organized by Chatham House, any actions taken because of a violation of the Rule are entirely at the discretion of the organizer. Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House? A.

Not often for Members Events ; more frequently for smaller research meetings, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive. Most Chatham House conference s are under the Rule. Q. Who uses the Rule these days? A. It is widely used by local government and commercial organizations as well as research organizations. Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed? A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event - nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what. Q. Can you say within a report what you yourself said at a meeting under the Chatham House Rule? A. Yes if you wish to do so. Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published? A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting. Q. Can I 'tweet' while at an event under the Chatham House Rule? A.

The Rule can be used effectively on social media sites such as Twitter as long as the person tweeting or messaging reports only what was said at an event and does not identify - directly or indirectly - the speaker or another participant. This consideration should always guide the way in which event information is disseminated - online as well as offline. If you have a question about the Chatham House Rule that is not answered by the above please contact us . About us Organization: Who uses the Chatham House Rule? - Quora Quora Organization Organization: Who uses the Chatham House Rule? When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Written Dec 9, 2015 Aitzaz Hasan Shaheed. It was an ordinary January morning in Hangu district and around 2000 students were attending morning assembly in Ibrahimzai High School, Hangu, Pakistan when a blast occurred outside the school. But luckily everyone was saved by the courage of a 17 year old boy Aitzaz Hasan.

According to the sources he was on his way to school along with his two other class fellows when he s... Updated Jan 11, 2013 I had a fun interview at McKinsey & Co. We were 8 interviewees in a conference room, with pizzas in front of us. There were two interviewers in isolated rooms, who were calling us one at a time. One of the interviewers arrived an hour late, so effectively there were going to be 7 interviews before lunch, and 9 after. We interviewees did not know this -- and everyone, except me, got interviewed ... Updated Jan 17, 2016 It was probably a time when my father had to get me out of jail. Four of us were playing basketball on an outdoor court. I was 16 and my companions were between 17 and 18. Two were acquaintances and one I didn't know, who was reputed to be a very tough gang member. On the next court over was a group of 8 kids. They were about 13 to 15 years old. Our ball got away from me and rolled into the... Early reports from the Lisbon conference | Watts Up With That?

Watts Up With That? The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change Menu Anthony Watts / January 26, 2011 Dr. Judith Curry added a couple of comments on her blog while attending the Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Change Debate. For those wondering why I’m not there even though invited, and to see a rationale for the report, please see my previous post: The hope of Lisbon I’m sure there will be more coming. I’m looking forward to hearing from Steven Mosher on the event. Dr. Curry’s comments follow. | January 26, 2011 at 7:30 am The morning session is in progress, with each participant making a 5 minute statement. There are genuinely a diversity of perspectives here, about a third of the participants are physical scientists with some knowledge of climate science, whereas the majority are social scientists (with a few journalists). The meeting is being run under Chatham House rules.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility. • disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics). One person attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability. Rate this: 99 thoughts on “Early reports from the Lisbon conference” Jeremy January 26, 2011 at 6:44 am The violence in the debate comes from the presumed moral super-high-ground that the believers think they occupy. They are wholly convinced that their point of view will save the world if enough people agree with them. This situation with climate science is nearly identical to a religion in this regard.

Some people have placed too much importance on their own view of the universe and they regard those who disagree as heathens, and those who “spread disagreement” as the devil himself. kim My favourite pedantry; “Chatam House Rule”, singular. wws The only “reconciliation” I want to see is when the warmists have to “reconcile” themselves to seeing all their funding cut off and knowing that their movement has become a laughingstock for the next several generations. there is no such thing as “honest disagreement” with those who are not honest. John S. January 26, 2011 at 6:54 am The meeting is being run under Chatham House rules I admit I had to Google that one. Apparently, there is only one Chatham House Rule, and it is: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Doug in Seattle Power without accountability is only one of the problems, but a big one that will not be solved in a short time.

Jacob I herby propose reconciliation resolution item #1: Close down the IPCC. The IPCC is the embodyment of post-normal science. johanna January 26, 2011 at 7:05 am Chatham House Rule? “The Chatham House Rule is a principle that governs the confidentiality of the source of information received at a meeting. Since its refinement in 2002, the rule states:[1] “ When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. ” Well, that, combined with the preponderance of social scientists and journalists, makes me think that choosing your son’s Scout event over attending this anonymous talkfest was a good call, Anthony. Martin C January 26, 2011 at 7:11 am ” . . . attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability . . ” Ya think?

The IPCC the ‘team’, and others pushing the C02 agenda for whatever reason (power/control/re-distribution of wealth, making money on cap and trade before it collapsed a la Al Gore, and so on . . . ), pushing models tuned to respond to CO2 as ‘evidence’, ignoring real world evidence of the recent and longer pasts of natural cycles. And claiming that those who aren’t knowledgable as them don’t understand and therefore are wrong . . . I thought it would change a lot after Climategate last year – it has some, but not as much as I would have expected. Not sure it will change – unless the latest lull in solar activity remains and temperature really do drop in the next few years . . . latitude “• violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility. • disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields ” I think the word violence is being mis-used. A vigorous and even rancorous debate is not violent. Also, I don’t think much can be accomplished if the majority of the attendees are social scientists.

BarryW January 26, 2011 at 7:28 am these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability. And that is the general problem with bureaucratic organizations: lack of accountability. When an organization’s members don’t have consequences to their actions they will become corrupt. Even if they are “accountable”. When the IPCC makes pronouncements that are proven false what happens? They continue on to make new ones. Fortune tellers have more accountability than our officials do. Ben U. How are they defining “violence”? It sounds more like they’re talking about vehemence or something like that. P.F. January 26, 2011 at 7:37 am I am surprised at the focus on “violence.” In watching the development of the climate debate for nearly 25 years now, I recall the violent rhetoric and action stemmed pretty much exclusively from promoters/believers of AGW, culminating in the 10-10 video ads. I never heard Sen. Inhofe speak of violence, but we got a lot of it from Gore.

Never heard violent speech from McIntyre or McKitrick, but did from Hansen and Holdren. Perhaps the social scientists that are the majority at this conference could have spread their feelings more widely with the AGW camp before now. stephan January 26, 2011 at 8:21 am I have not heard anything about Bjørn Lomborg. Before you can have reconciliation you have to apologize to him for the rotten treatment he has had. He was hauled in front of Danish committee on scientific dishonesty, a Web site was established to attack his ideas, and a book was written to prove that his two books were all wrong. The man is not even a denier and believes that global warming exists. As long as his ideas are denied and attacked by the warmist establishment there is no hope for that reconciliation that they are paying lip service to. bubbagyro January 26, 2011 at 8:25 am How did the flat earthers get reconciled with the deniers, who believed the earth was round, during the Middle Ages?

I guess the two ideas must have become reconciled somehow because we don’t hear any hostile debate about it anymore… The Flatheads (an unnecessary pejorative term, I admit), through their holds on the governmental purse strings, just would not allow the financing of any trading ships that would not promise to not get too close to the edge. They would also probably have called for huge taxes to put bell buoys all around the earth, near the edge. Poor countries would have the buoys subsidized by the taxes of the trading world, of course. The Flatties won the textbook debate back then, as we know, and children were properly and summarily educated. richcar 1225 January 26, 2011 at 8:26 am “dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas” I have an idea – lets simplfy the metrics. Let us all agree that if we can not find heat acculumulating in the oceans AGW is not occuring. Let us agree that to hide below 700 meters we need to observe it passing through the upper 700 meters of the ocean.

Secondly if we are acculmulating heat then we should see it with sea level rise acceleration as the steric (thermal component) increases. Forget the ice caps or atmospheric data. We have the tools (ARGO) to make a monthly report to the public that shows how many joules acculmulated the previous month vs what is predicted by the IPCC. Meanwhile UAH ch 5 should put January’s anomaly at about -.1 degrees C. below the thirty year trend. AJB John Phillips says: January 26, 2011 at 7:26 am “• violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility. • disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields ” I think the word violence is being mis-used. A vigorous and even rancorous debate is not violent. Also, I don’t think much can be accomplished if the majority of the attendees are social scientists. ======================================================= I agree, although I suppose one could stretch the use with the definition such as , fervor: intensity of feeling or expression “the violence of her response to our suggestion” But it causes me to pause at the use of the word.

Is “vigorous” disagreement being equated with “violence”? If it is, I would suggest that all participants remove themselves from the meeting. It would be an insidious perversion of word usage with legal implications. I would never consider entering a discussion with a person that would seek limit expressiveness under the pain of being called violent. Chris Riley January 26, 2011 at 8:46 am “violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.” I respectfully disagree. The climate debate is, at its heart, all about violence. The climate debate is a proxy war in the age old struggle between the power of Government and the natural rights of the individual. Governments rule by coercion, which is to say by the threat of violence. A threat of violence is violence. Armed robbery is classified as a violent crime, even if the gun used is unloaded. The climate debate will determine whether there is justification for governments to expropriate a portion of the decision making authority now held by free individuals, thus making them less free.

History is replete with examples of people who have surrendered freedom in exchange for perceived security, and later had reason to regret that transaction. Benjamin Franklin commented on this. “Those who exchange security for freedom deserve neither” We are being asked to give up some of our freedom, thus increasing the proportion of decisions we make under a threat of violence. In exchange we are promised an amount of”climate security”, the value of which is claimed to exceed the value of the freedom we are to give up for it. Skeptics want to know if the exchange is worth it. History tells us that we will not receive a refund of our freedom if it turns out that AGW is a myth, or that the programs to alleviate it fail to deliver as promised. Jeff January 26, 2011 at 8:50 am again how do you “reconcile” with a group that is willing to lie, hide date and make up data ?

this is a case where perfect is not the enemy of good … the CRU may do some good work … I don’t care … they are not scientists … Laurie January 26, 2011 at 9:16 am The social sciences have been totally corrupted – I guess they are experts for this kind of thing. This is the stupidest conference I have heard about. Don’t we already know what McIntyre, the journalists, the agw scientists think? Are we going to try to change this? I think attendance at this thing gives unwarranted legitimacy to the manipulators. Claude Harvey January 26, 2011 at 9:20 am One does not need attend high-minded conferences to get at the source of the vehemence; simply follow the history of money and fame lavished on the one side and derision heaped upon the other. Now that Mother Nature has begun to show her hand, the new losers, dressed in all their finery, seek “reconciliation” while the winners dance a jig in their bare feet and raise their tattered sleeves in victory.

After years of suffering abuse and public ridicule, I doubt that “the tattered ones” will be magnanimous in victory. Judith was very astute to begin hedging her bets some time ago. In so doing, she demonstrated a certain rationality sorely missing in many of her academic peers who, to date, show every intention of “going down with the ship”. mkelly Keep Post Modernism out of science! cms January 26, 2011 at 9:46 am Obviously some commenters have not read the title of the conference. It is not about climate change, but about reconciliation of the debate on Climate Change. It seems to me that the inability of the scientists to carry on a civil and productive debate about such issues demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the processes involved in productive intercourse. This willful blindness leads to the failure of science itself to take a balanced and productive place in the public conversation. So it is exactly appropriate that the majority of participants should be social scientists. In fact it could be argued that the dismissal by so many of these social scientists suggest exactly why their is such self satisfied ignorance in this area. And no I am not suggesting that scientists need to take PR lessons.

They need to turn to those scientists who are expert in the realm of social organization to understand what are productive forms of social organization and discourse so that they might formulate procedures and safeguards that keep the process open and civil. Kev-in-Uk January 26, 2011 at 9:50 am Lets just ask why such a ‘meeting’ requires such a rule? The skeptics and lukewarmers are unlikely to require identity protection, are they? So presumably, it is to protect the warmists?, especially if they have to ‘fess up’ to anything – questions like, is this paper realistic? or did you know this was wrong? etc etc…. DirkH Claude Harvey says: January 26, 2011 at 9:20 am “Judith was very astute to begin hedging her bets some time ago. In so doing, she demonstrated a certain rationality sorely missing in many of her academic peers who, to date, show every intention of “going down with the ship”.” They won’t go down.

All they have to do is find a flaw in their models, make them predict differently, publish it in a pal-reviewed journal, cash in a few Nobels and tell the world they always had their doubts about catastrophic warming. After all, they used the words “could” and “might” a lot, didn’t they? They have left all possibilities for themselves open. Joe Lalonde January 26, 2011 at 9:55 am Anthony, Climate Science scientists need an “OUT”. Room that they can change their finding without being ripped apart for their stance. If not careers and reputations are at stake. And they will fight too and nail no matter how much the science is not on their side. Grumpy Old Man January 26, 2011 at 10:01 am I simply don’t know social scientists are interested in this matter. (And yes I have a degree in social science). Unless they are called to speculate on what happens if Armaggeddon arrives. But first, they have to swallow the warmist prediction and right now in England, it’s cold and getting colder. Bring on global warming, the sooner the better and then see what social scientists have to say about it.

(Ignoring agriculturist specialists of course). bubbagyro But who is attending the meeting? I bet that the mainstream IPCC climate scientist cowards are all boycotting it! bubbagyro January 26, 2011 at 10:16 am It’s too bad that history does not record how ignominiously (or not) the terracentrists or flat earthers of ages past receded from the scene. I’m sure it took a long while, and they did not go “gently into that good night”. More like kicking and screaming with malice and violence. In this information age, though, I’m sure they can bolster the next hoax, like habitat destruction or seas acidifying. Whichever it is has to tie in with killing off redundant people to be compatible with their world view. Maybe they will wait a year or so, and then condemn the poisonous squiggly light bulbs, relying on the public’s amnesia. I wonder when the lawsuits over CFLs will begin? Chris Riley says: January 26, 2011 at 8:46 am The climate debate is, at its heart, all about violence.

The climate debate is a proxy war in the age old struggle between the power of Government and the natural rights of the individual. Benjamin Franklin commented on this. “Those who exchange security for freedom deserve neither” We are being asked to give up some of our freedom, thus increasing the proportion of decisions we make under a threat of violence. In exchange we are promised an amount of”climate security”, the value of which is claimed to exceed the value of the freedom we are to give up for it. Skeptics want to know if the exchange is worth it. History tells us that we will not receive a refund of our freedom if it turns out that AGW is a myth, or that the programs to alleviate it fail to deliver as promised. —————————————————————————– Chris Riley sums this up accurately in my opinion. This talkfest is a waste of time. The horse has long bolted. Already the governments of the world are taxing their citizens to death (because they will not be able to pay for the energy they need to keep warm) to replace cheap energy sources with expensive and inefficient alternatives – all on the basis of an unproven belief that co2 is going to cause catastrophic global warming unless it is reduced.

Taxing people to death – That is violence. And President Obama intones in his State of the Union address ‘We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people’ Business as usual ‘clean energy technology’ = Windmills. Countless new jobs = building windmills. Protect our planet. Utter hubris. I know he is the president of the US – but – those words are the words of God! The horse has truly bolted. And Obama is a babe compared to the Euro demigods. If he is going to protect the planet we have to acquiesce – game set and match. And these people are indulging themselves in a talkfest about violent argument? Douglas I like Floor Anthoni’s idea of all scientific papers published woithout any named authors. Then each would stand on its merits rather than being supported or denounced by partisan reviewers/readers.

jorgekafkazar January 26, 2011 at 10:57 am bubbagyro says: “How did the flat earthers get reconciled with the deniers, who believed the earth was round, during the Middle Ages?” Oh, yeah, right. The deniers tell you about the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, the ones that made it home. But they DON’T tell you about the San Gorgonio, Columbus’s fourth ship. The history books have completely covered up the fact that one of the ships fell off the edge! Talk about cherry picking… /sarc² off The shape of the Earth was well known to people of the Middle Ages. It’s been known, in fact, since the ancient Greeks. Re: bubbagyro says: January 26, 2011 at 10:16 am “It’s too bad that history does not record how ignominiously (or not) the terracentrists or flat earthers of ages past…” Actually, we don’t need to go back more than 10 years in history to see what will most likely happen.

“Everyone knew” that Y2K would be catastrophic unless we spent hundreds of $ billions on “Y2K” compliance measures. While a fundamental fix of the obvious computerized date problem would have been relatively straightforward, we were led to demand that all sectors “prove a negative” and the cost of that exercise was horrendous. A number of countries did virtually nothing to prepare for Y2K and the news media eagerly awaited their collapse. Those countries took the position that, “We’ll just get up on the morning of January 1, 2000 and fix whatever no longer works. The Armageddon date came and went with nothing really newsworthy happening anywhere in the world. Then humanity merely shrugged and moved on to “the next big thing”; no investigations, no outrage; not even a simple acknowledgment that a monumental boo-boo had occurred. A C Osborn Ditto what Chris Riley wrote. James H January 26, 2011 at 11:16 am “• violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.” This sounds to me like just an excuse for all the violent rhetoric coming from the fanatics.

Usually, the side spouting off with so much vitriol will then raise a fuss that the debate needs to be more civilized, which just means that if the parties that disagree would just change their mind or shut up the violence could stop. This pattern is obviously repeated all over the place, as with recent events. FrankK Reconcilliation has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. 1927 Heisenberg publishes on the uncertainty principle. Albert Einstein vigourously disagrees with him. 1928 Einstein nominates Heisenberg for the Nobel Prize 1932 Heisenberg awarded the Nobel Prize. That’s in my view is how scientists should behave. roberto January 26, 2011 at 11:40 am Violence due to power without accountability. I would have suggested that the violence is due to frustration, and much of the frustration is due to many insiders’ continued insistence that anybody who isn’t a climate science insider has no legitimate place making any comments about anything. Any such comments deserve nothing but being ignored or attacked. That will never fly. Stakeholders in other areas will make sure of it.

Curiousgeorge January 26, 2011 at 11:44 am This fad that has come about in the past couple weeks as a result of the AZ shooting, that seeks to equate any disagreement or name calling to violence, is ridiculous. It’s like calling everything a “first priority” – something which certain unnamed politicians are adept at. I and other current and former members of the armed forces, police forces, gang members, and so on, of any country, can attest to the difference between real violence, and mere name calling and other forms of verbal communication. Sticks and stones and all that. People in this debate and other contentious areas need to grow up, and quit whining like 4 year olds pleading for intervention by parents; “Mommy, he’s making faces at me”! Douglas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement I’m afraid this is only more postmodern multi-cultural, probably even “sociologically-approved”, manipulative p.c. nonsense.

Why devise a different system or approach, “an arena where we can have honest disagreement” via “nonviolent communication”, when all that has to be done is for people wanting to do real science to obey the rules of the Scientific Method and its principles? And who in the first place wants to include people such as the ipcc Climate Scientists in a scientific debate when they are not doing real science? Conference over, problem solved! Oliver Ramsay January 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm I venture that the view that the villification or vituperation of the vagaries and verbiage of one’s adversaries is violence, rather than vehemence, is vested with a vague verisimilitude but is not validated when one views veritable violent villains. That is to say that if you start with the hyperbole ” taxing me to death” it’s not hard to get entrenched in exaggeration. A positive feedback, maybe. Nuremberg trial, no less. What reconciliation? Stephen Brown January 26, 2011 at 1:05 pm Cross-posted from the original Lisbon article, sorry but I put it in the wrong place!

The term ‘reconciliation’ immediately brought to my mind the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. This Commission forced all concerned to face what they did during the apartheid era in that country, including those who had political power and those who were seeking political power. This forum is not the place to discuss the events brought before the Commission but I thought that the methodology and the underlying tenets of that Commission might have a degree of applicability with regard to the Lisbon Forum. I have read and re-read the terms of the Commission and I have studied some of the events brought before it. My original thoughts that such a Commission could work in the context of the Lisbon Forum were dashed very early on by one single word, Truth. For something like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to function in the context of climate change and the science involved, the truth would be required from all participants. From I quote the following, “Justice is achieved not by retribution, but by the restoration of community. Healing communities requires truth-telling, forgiveness, acceptance and trust.” Such ‘truth-telling’ is, I regret to say, apparently anathema to one side of the non-debate insofar as ‘climate change’ is concerned.

I can foresee nothing of any value emerging from Lisbon; the foremost prerequisite for any form of ‘reconciliation’ is a full and frank admission of previous wrong-doings. That is not going to happen in Lisbon or anywhere else. The conflict will continue. Bruce Cobb January 26, 2011 at 1:14 pm After all the nastiness and all the lies and deceit coming from the Alarmists, the continued use of the “denier” label, a deliberate, and reprehensible reference to holocaust deniers, sickening videos like “No Pressure” showing kids being blown to smithereens, and the list could go on ad infinitum, now – NOW they want to play nice? Yeah, right. The jig is up, they know it, and there will be consequences.

Douglas January 26, 2011 at 1:29 pm Oliver Ramsay says: January 26, 2011 at 12:41 pm I venture that the view that the villification or vituperation of the vagaries and verbiage of one’s adversaries is violence, rather than vehemence, is vested with a vague verisimilitude but is not validated when one views veritable violent villains. —————————————————————— Oliver – Verily, very funny – and ‘taxing to death’ undoubtedly hyperbolic but none the less the runaway taxation of energy is having a measurably deleterious effect upon the masses in most western countries smart retorts not withstanding and whether you like it or not. Douglas What, please, is a “social scientist”? xyzlatin January 26, 2011 at 1:38 pm Variations of the word violence are used four times in J. Curry’s note. This cannot be coincidence. This is supporting and setting up another strawman, that of the skeptic who is threatening violence to the poor downtrodden and misunderstood AGW scientist, another well known meme in AGW folklore.

Again, it has been another successful diversion, as can be seen by the number of people on this blog now discussing violence with regard to the global warming debate. I just cannot understand how people are hoodwinked by this AGW scientist who is intent on neutering critics of AGW and cleverly putting herself above the fray while all the while pushing the AGW agenda. I also cannot understand why any skeptic has agreed to go to this meeting, probably many at their own expense, while its a fair bet that all the AGW people are paid for by their Universities or grant monies. Are they (the skeptics) so insecure that they actually want the approval of the AGW crowd? This is bizarre. Hey we love you guys, you don’t need to run to “them” for a little love and approval. And there are more and more of “us” supporting you. You are no longer alone. I read a lot of blogs on the skeptic side, and I have never seen anyone advocating or threatening violence. By the way, I agree with those above objecting to the term violence used to describe disagreement. Violence is a physical act actually done to a person, not a verbal argument.

It's always Marcia, Marcia January 26, 2011 at 2:01 pm At least Mosher and Stokes know enough math to buy a plane ticket. Maybe the price wasn’t a lower high amount so not to make it so confusing for them. If weighting had been added to the price they wouldn’t have made it. (this is a reference to their poor work on weighting of station locations) xyzlatin January 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm I think that Richard North, at his EU Referendum blog, has a priceless comment which I think applies to this conference and the attendance of skeptics. His comment is about the BBC documentary which set up James Delingpole to be humiliated, and I quote “Delingpole’s mistake was in trying to play a bent game straight.” geo January 26, 2011 at 2:26 pm “disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics).

One person attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability.” Great deal of truth in that. If there was a “world-wide official truth giver” organization for “truth” in economics, you bet there’d be hell to pay on how rude the disagreements would get. But that’s not all of it. Economics is a soft science that has been inching its way for centuries towards a legitimate status as a hard science (and still it isn’t there). It knows this about itself. Climate science is a relatively new science, that has not come to terms with how much of a “soft” science it still is. It *thinks* it is a very hard science, with immutable truths, and this leads to intolerance when those “truths” are challenged. RichieP January 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm Civility and being civil is much in the news lately, especially after the shootings in Arizona. The President had as a theme, “civility” in his State of the Union Address.

I have read this thread and Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog and I decided to copy what I had written there, here: Civility can not be imposed. Civility is also defenseless in the face of violence. Civility and non-violent actions occur in an community which values civility and shames violence and violent behavior. Therefore it is altogether fitting and proper that a meeting, whose objective is reconciliation, is predominately attended by the social and political scientists who embrace civility, and will carry that conciliatory mind-set back to their community. A community is larger than the perpretators of violent speach and violent actions. So, reconciliation will blossom in a community where violence is shamed; and the violent perpretator is left unheard no matter how clairvoyant their message, and relegated to the dustbin of history. Climate science is no more or less vulnerable to such community influences or potential outcomes. The arguement for the righteousness of a radiative transfer model cannot nor will not be sustained by an angry or violent delivery. It really doesn’t matter what the “Truth” is in Reconciliation at least at this point as there is no way to know for certain what the truth looks like.

What matters is having a dialogue, in this case a civil dialogue. If the community shames those who speak violently or act violently, the eventual truth will become known. Let the data catch up with the rhetoric, and, as my mother said “..keep a civil tongue in your head!” xyzlatin RichieP says: January 26, 2011 at 2:39 pm Re the video. This is a poorly executed ratbag film made by warmists depicting fake not actual violence. It is a lefty come warmy fantasy, right? When I first saw it I thought it was a spoof by skeptics and was astounded to find it was actually seriously made by warmists! What has this got to do with the allegations AGW climate scientists that they have received real violence and are under threat of real violence (ie actual physical assault, not movie depictions of fantasy) by skeptics? The topic was put on the agenda by warmists remember, in particular AGW scientist J Curry. See my comments above, re this being a straw man set up and it is working. Everyone is now discussing the supposed violence, instead of the science.

ie, skeptics skilfully diverted off topic by AGW scientist Judith Curry and are now discussing the fantasies of warmists. People, one thing the warmists have consistently shown, is that they are great at PR and promoting themselves and their ideas. They know what the skeptics are only now waking up to. This is a huge PR exercise and has been for 20 years. So any conference put on by warmists to supposedly confer with skeptics, is another PR exercise to promote themselves. They regard us as the enemy. They have not apologised. They have not retracted. They are continuing rorting the system. They are continuing their PR with governments. They are continuing scare campaigns in the media. The war is ongoing from them towards us. James Allison “One person attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability.” Incisive indeed. And the societies had better start/continue moving away from their positions for damage control.

John Whitman January 26, 2011 at 5:13 pm The lead in post quotes Judith Curry, ” The meeting is being run under Chatham House rules. A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • Reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility. • disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics). One person attributed the violence of the disagreement in climate science to the propensity of scientific societies to publish position statements, and the IPCC itself; these create animosity and hostility through the exercise of power without sufficient accountability.” ================= More simply to the point, perhaps just a simple reference to a rational standard for intellectual discourse would have been more meaningful and concise. That standard is simply intellectual integrity.

Having the climate science discourse termed ‘violent’ seems to be some indirect pejorative insinuation. Why waste precious mental energy on trivial sideshows like that? Reconciliation? I take the intended meaning to be ‘ the reestablishing of cordial relations’ [ ]. This is simple and means no name calling or ad hominem; it means addressing each other directly in civil discourse. It does not mean changing ones ideas just because there is energetic debate in an open venue. See intellectual integrity suggestion above. John geo says: January 26, 2011 at 2:26 pm “But that’s not all of it. Economics is a soft science that has been inching its way for centuries towards a legitimate status as a hard science (and still it isn’t there). It knows this about itself. Climate science is a relatively new science, that has not come to terms with how much of a “soft” science it still is. It *thinks* it is a very hard science, with immutable truths, and this leads to intolerance when those “truths” are challenged.” Well put.

Moreover, its a “science” that has grown up with a dependency on the computer, and almost infantile belief in the power of that computer to provide highly accurate results modeling complex systems. Warming science believes that because it operates the computers, it is modeling reality. Maintaining this belief requires a cultivated ignorance of the real world which can only be induced in people who have gone through the ritual of a PhD dissertation (that’s not a knock at PhDs- I happen to have one). Its a “social science” observation about the ritual dimension of higher education. Roger Carr As scientists they should agree to simply state their findings, leave it to others to prove or disprove their thesis but above all…Stop telling us how to lead our lives! Ben U. January 26, 2011 at 9:22 pm The reference to “violence” may be a trivial sideshow and maybe the conference will make some progress, but, given the US left’s ongoing and intensified effort to pin some violence on the right (despite leftist intimidation and violence by Casey Brezik, SEIU, etc.), I’d keep my guard up.

And suddenly, this, which I just read in the last half hour: “ Shout at your spouse and risk losing your home: It’s just the same as domestic violence, warns woman judge ” – the Mail Online (UK), January 27, 2011. The judge argued that the meaning of the word “violence” has changed since the relevant law was enacted, so it’s up to the courts alone to decide (and decide that the new meaning shall govern), and so on. Now, I dislike folks who shout and berate, but vehemence is not violence; their being equated seems a leftist rhetorical imperative rippling through everything at the moment. tonyb says : …I emailed Dr Trenberth to complain about the use of the word ‘Deniers’… I had a reasonably civil reply back from him… However, it was obvious that he had been innundated with numerous abusive emails which I think had only served to harden his position.

I am aware of the existence of brownshirts (pretending to be?) ON BOTH SIDES whose main activity seems to be to send threats direct to people without posting on blogs to say what they are doing; so blogs are not aware and don’t feel the need to take any responsibility for policing or at least clearly disown such people. I believe this includes death threats to people on both sides. This simply cements divisions into place and makes dialogue harder if not impossible. We don’t know the content of what was emailed to Trenberth, and I doubt if he will tell. But I think it might help a lot, to have some kind of public disclaimer sent to any appropriate people on occasions like this, disowning any abusive language or threats. I hope this message reaches Lisbon. It might also help if the skeptics’ community could agree key issues where there is genuine concern and evidence against the “consensus” orthodoxy, and have statements up that not just Smokey but everyone here can point to. A set of counter-statements to those of John Cook – and with the science backup. It would be a creative alternative to saying lots here, which can become little more than an echo-chamber if good statements are not distilled out.

Graham Stringer’s statement is classic in this sense. Jessie Jessie “Hypatia and her dismissal of empiricism did not do too well.” Didn’t work out well for Socrates, Galileo, Copernicus and many others . . . . It’s almost as if it is a crime to think rationally. Lady Life Grows January 27, 2011 at 10:54 am Every relevant scientific field to be there except those whose expertise relates to the POINT of the whole debate: agriculturalists and biologists. Not that they would do much good if they remain as easily bamboozled as much of what I have seen in peer-reviewed print recently. Wild speculation as to how something might be harmed by global warming, with 5 to 10% of the material being derived from actual scientific collection and evaluation of evidence. Tonight: It’s time for Legally Social Delhi: Wednesday 27 January, Backyard, Hauz Khas. RSVPs requested Tonight: It’s time for Legally Social Delhi: Wednesday 27 January, Backyard, Hauz Khas.

RSVPs requested Email Facebook Tweet Linked-in Comment WhatsApp Legally Social: Suits and dancing shoes optional Are you a lawyer? Will you be in Delhi on Wednesday, 27 January? Do you have a pulse? Then you’re cordially invited to the return of Legally Social, hosted by the lawyers-doing-good-things NGO iProBono and Legally India. Where? Backyard, A/2A, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Near Sartaj Hotels, Hauz Khas, Delhi [ Google Map link ] When? From 7pm till late What? A free welcome cocktail and 20 per cent discount on food and drinks at the bar. Why? Because it’s fun to see each other, plus there’ll be a chance to learn about a legal movement to end inequality. iProbono will briefly present a riveting case study of the law in action in Madhya Pradesh. Who? Advocates, law firm partners and associates, NGO lawyers, in-house counsel and anyone else who’s practising. Sorry, qualified lawyers only (though non-law friends and significant others are welcome if they can take it). How?

The Legally Social rules, in case you’ve forgotten, are very simple: The first rule of Legally Social is: Everyone is equal at Legally Social. Please address each other by first names if possible. Second rule: Leave allegiances and competition at the door. Third rule: What happens at Legally Social stays at Legally Social - Chatham House Rule applies for all. Please send us a line at to book your place, numbers are limited. community planning | glossary a - z Community Planning: Glossary A - Z Glossary A - Z criteria suggestion form Common and not so common terms and concepts used in community planning simply explained. Also terms and concepts from the worlds of planning, regeneration and environmental sustainability. If you know of a term or concept that should be listed here, or want to suggest changes to the annotations, please open suggestion form and submit details on the template provided. Key to links: Low carbon commnuities Criteria for inclusion: In compiling this information we have had to make many decisions on terminology. Different people have used the same term to mean different things and different terms to mean the same thing. We have tried to use the simplest and most explanatory term wherever possible and avoid jargon. But do not get hung up on terminology.

If your ï¿½design workshopï¿½ is more likely to be successful if you call it an ï¿½interactive planning meetingï¿½, that is what you should call it. Generally, though, using simple and direct language is likely to be most successful in sustaining interest and enthusiasm The planning terminology is mostly based on the system in England. In compiling it in 2011 we would like to acknowledge inspiration from the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Community Energy Online, Planning Advisory Service and Planning Aid. your name your email Please add me to the mailing list Please give a short description below of the item that you would like to be included in Glossary A-Z Term or Concept Type the text from the image above Thank you for your contribution. The site editor will contact you to let you know whether the material can be used. view complete List Glossary A-Z (To print out a selection from the list click the chosen entries checkbox and then click on any of the printer icons or click here to print all) 21st century town meeting Method involving very large numbers of community, industry and government representatives (100 to 5000 or more) in a forum of one or two days.

Participants engage in formed deliberation in small groups, connected through networked computers. They work from pre-designed questions, entering their individual team consensus, as well as priority ratings and rankings. The goal is to find common ground and priorities on broad and complex issues. This is a multi-step process with intensive facilitation and includes trained facilitators and theme teams, as well as volunteer scribes. Appeal The process through which an applicant can challenge a planning decision by the planning authority. Appeals can be made against a refusal to grant permission, the failure to issue a decision within a given time, against conditions attached to permission, against the issue of an enforcement notice and against refusals of listed building and conservation area consent. In England and Wales, appeals are processed by the Planning Inspectorate. Area forum Body designed to improve relations between local authorities, public service providers and local residents. Provides an opportunity for residents to raise matters of local concern, give feedback on how services are being delivered and influence decisions being made about where they live. Also gives local authorities and service providers the chance to improve their knowledge and understanding of local issues. Area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) Statutory designation aiming to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the best landscape.

In England, powers created by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949. AONBs are designated by Natural England. There are 36 in all, covering about 15% of the Country. Article 4 direction Allows the secretary of state or local planning authority to require a planning application for a development that would normally not need one because it would be covered by permitted development rights. Power comes from Article 4 of the The Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Business planning for real Computer-based simulation which helps new or existing organisations 'play through' the choices they will face in developing a business plan. Groups assemble a list of projects they would like to undertake. These are fed into a computer and the cost implications printed out. Chatham House Rule When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. May be invoked at meetings and workshops to encourage openness and the sharing of information. Visioning process based on four steps: 1.

Meetings throughout the community to brainstorm ideas for making life better. 2. Consolidation of ideas into goals and vision statements. 3. A vision fair where people vote on which visions they would like to pursue and make personal commitment pledges. 4. Setting up of action groups to carry out chosen ideas. Co-operative An enterprise conducted for the mutual benefit of its members. This might be a business that is democratic, each member having one vote irrespective of capital or labour input. Any economic surplus belongs to the members – after providing for reserves for the development of the business. Code for sustainable homes National UK standard for sustainable design and construction of new homes. Expressed in terms of Levels. In 2006 most houses were built at the equivalent of Level 1. By 2016, new homes will have to be built to Zero Carbon – Level 5 or 6. The increasing standards are being achieved by ramping up the compulsory Building Regulations requirements. By 2011 all housing development built with public subsidy – mainly by housing associations – had to meet Code Level 4 requirements. Community Used in many ways. Usually refers to those living within a small, loosely defined geographical area.

Yet any group of individuals who share interests may also be described as a community. Also sometimes used to describe a physical area rather than a group of people Community anchor Independent community-run and led organisation, rooted in a sense of place (whether an inner city neighbourhood or a rural district), and with a mission to improve things for the whole community. Likely to own or manage assets and use income from these to provide services. Community infrastructure levy (CIL) A charge which local authorities can levy on any new building or extension (with a floor area of 100 square metres or more) to pay for the local infrastructure needed for new development – schools, community and health facilities, green space, roads. The charge is levied according to a tariff (£x per building) which is set by the local planning authority in consultation with local communities. The Localism Act requires charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of revenues to the neighbourhood where they were raised. Community plan Plan for the future of a community devised by the local community. Sets out proposals for the way in which a community wants to develop and respond to changes in the future. No set format. Will usually contain statements of principle, physical design proposals and targets.

Community planning weekend Term most commonly used in the UK for a community planning event spanning a weekend. First used in 1989 at Bishopsgate, London. The term planning weekend is also used. Terms planning week and community planning week have also been used for slightly longer events. Also community planning day. Community technical aid Multi-disciplinary expert assistance to community groups enabling them to play an active role in the development of land and buildings. The term 'technical aid' is used to cover the diverse range of skills likely to be needed including architecture, planning, landscaping, engineering, surveying, ecology, environmental education, financial planning, management, administration and graphics. Community technical aid centre Place staffed by multidisciplinary group of experts who work for voluntary groups, helping them to undertake any project involving the development of buildings and land. Will provide whatever assistance is needed – design, planning, organisation, decision-making, management – from conception to completion. Similar to a community design centre. Community visioning Thinking collectively about what the future could be. Term used to describe group working processes which help a community to develop imaginative shared visions for the future of a site, area or organisation. Approach often adopted by local authorities at an early stage in the plan-making process.

Consensus forum Where a large number of stakeholders deliberate for between one and three days with the goal of reaching common ground on broad and complex issues and influencing decision making. Participants are selected to be representative of the community and are overseen by a Guidance Team. Trained table facilitators assist and a forum report is prepared for comment. (Sarkissian 2009) Conservation area Area of special architectural or historic interest whose character and appearance it is desirable to preserve and enhance. There are special rules on some development in conservation areas. Planning authorities publish a map showing the boundaries and also produce a Conservation Area Proposals Statement. (Designated in the UK under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1991.) Coproduction Shared responsibility between citizens and public officials for producing services and managing development processes. Purpose: to work together constructively through inevitable tensions and conflicts, negotiating outcomes with recognized power and responsibility sharing. Term used widely in Europe to mean community engagement. (Sarkissian 2009) Critical mass event Umbrella term for organisation development techniques involving large-scale events often lasting several days and often involving hundreds of people. Mostly used for organisational change but may also be appropriate for community planning.

Labels given to specific types of event - structured in different ways and promoted by different people - include future search conference, large-scale interactive process, conference model, real-time strategic change, participative work redesign and open space workshops. De minimis From the Latin de minimis non curat lex (the law does not deal with trivial matters). Term for activities or changes too minor to fall within the legal definition of development and which would make no difference to the outward appearance of a building. Used to deal with such things as installation of television aerials or small antennas. Density The quantity of people or things in a given area or space. Residential development is normally measured by the number of habitable rooms or dwellings per hectare. Commercial development is normally expressed in terms of plot ratio: site coverage plus the number of floors. Design assistance team (DAT) Multidisciplinary team which visits an area and produces recommendations for action, usually after facilitating a community planning event. Term used by the American Institute of Architects to describe state-level events which evolved from its national level Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) programme. Similar terms in use include Urban design assistance team (UDAT) and Housing assistance team (HAT) (where only housing involved).

Local DAT programmes have a wide variety of names; for example Ontario’s Community Assist/Urban Study Effort (CAUSE) and Mississippi’s Small Town Action Team (STAT). First UK event was called a Community/Urban Design Assistance Team (CUDAT). Design charrette Intensive design session, often including "all-nighter", originally just for architecture students but more recently including the public and professionals. Term originated at the Paris Ecole des Beaux-Arts at the turn of the century. Projects were collected at designated times on a cart ("charrette") where students would be found putting finishing touches to their schemes. Term now widely used in the USA to describe any intensive, group brainstorming effort. Charrette often used without the "Design" in front. Similar to design workshop Development The carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under the land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land and some categories of demolition and rebuilding (Town and Country Planning Act, UK, 1990, section 55). Note that the two part definition covers both new development and changes of use. Development brief Outlines the nature of development preferred on a site.

Often used to encourage development. On large sites it may set out general development principles; on smaller sites it may specify uses, massing of buildings and any particular uses essential to securing planning permission. Green corridor Area of nature linking housing areas to cycle networks, town and city centres, places of employment and community facilities. They help to promote sustainable forms of transport such as walking and cycling within urban areas and can also act as vital linkages for wildlife. Green sheet Feedback form (usually printed on green paper) for SpeakOut workshop participants to fill in if they wish further information, want to be contacted after the event or feel that issues they wish to raise were not addressed fully during the workshop. The workshop Chair or other representative of the client should respond to all green sheets in writing or by telephone as soon as possible after the workshop.

Question: When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under 'C H' Rules, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Can you expand 'C H'?
Answer: Chatham House