Last night found me at Glasgow's Science Centre to listen to Mark Walport talking about climate change.
In common with so many of these kinds of talks this had something of the air of a sermon. Almost everybody in the congregation was already convinced of the case for radical decarbonisation, right from the greenhouse effect, through the models, to the impacts, the economics and the wisdom of covering the country in windfarms. Walport said little that would have raised them from their stupor. The exceptions were when he pointed out to a questioner from gas-fields of Falkirk that natural gas was probably a good idea in current circumstances and when he spoke of the importance of having a conversation about climate change in a liberal society. Many in the liberal intelligentsia are of course deeply opposed to conversations on the subject of climate, or at least to those involving sceptics.
It was only when I stuck up my hand and introduced myself that people seemed to rouse themselves from their slumbers. One audience member asked if they couldn't ask me some questions too, and it looked as though things might liven up, but unfortunately we ran out of time. Walport revealed that he was an occasional reader of BH and said it was good that I had come.
My question was about his description of Matt Ridley as "irrational" given the evidence in Tol's paper and the fact that the IPCC was about to confirm it. I could have pointed out that his own slides noted the positive effects on crop yields. His response - that there were all sorts of judgements involved in economic models - seemed to me to avoid the point and I pressed him, but I could only get something rather vague about his having said that it was Matt's optimism that was irrational. Having reread the transcript, I'm not convinced this is this is the impression people would have taken away.
We had a brief chat afterwards and were joined by Muffy Calder, the Scottish Government's chief scientist, before the bigwigs were whisked away. I think it's better to treat such conversations as confidential, although I think it will be OK if I reveal that Walport thought that I could moderate the discussion threads at BH a bit harder. It's perhaps worthwhile for readers who like to vent their spleen in the comments to note this and to consider whether such remarks are helping or hindering.
I'll return to the specifics of Walport's talk in another post.