Climategate reaches the British House of Lords

The House of Lords meets in a lavishly decorated chamber, in the Gothic style, in the Palace of Westminster (see below). Image from Wikipedia

There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people’s faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. – Lord Turnbull Dec 8th 2009

House of Lords, 8 December 2009: Lord Turnbull: My Lords, on first reading the Committee on Climate Change’s latest progress report, I found it an impressive document. It was broad in scope and very detailed. But the more I dug into it the more troubled I became. Below the surface there are serious questions about the foundations on which it has been constructed. There are questions in four areas-the framework created by the Climate Change Act 2008, the policy responses at EU and UK level, the estimate of costs and finally the scientific basis on which the whole scheme of things rests. I will consider each in turn.

Unlike many of those involved in the climate change field, I have no pecuniary interest to declare, but I am a founder trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to bring rationality, objectivity and, above all, tolerance to the debate.

I have long been in the camp of what might be called the semi-sceptics. I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint. First, let us look at the Climate Change Act, which has been highly praised, even today, as the most comprehensive and ambitious framework anywhere in the world-a real pioneering first for the UK. However, it has serious flaws. It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even though many of the actions required lie outside his control. It would have been better, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and I argued, for the duty to be connected to what the Secretary of State can control, such as his own actions and policies, and not the outcome, which he cannot.

In the Act’s passage through Parliament, the target was raised from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, with little discussion of its costs or feasibility. It is a simple arithmetic calculation to show that if the UK economy continues to grow at its historic trend rate, we will need, only 40 years from now, to produce each £1,000 of GDP with only 8 per cent of the carbon we use today. That is a cut of [92] per cent. Many observers think that this is implausible. A recent report by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers reported that the rate of improvement in carbon intensity/productivity would need to quadruple from the 1.3 per cent achieved in the five years up to the recession to around 5.5 per cent. It would need to be even higher at the end of the period to make up for what the noble Lord, Lord May, calls falling behind the run rate.

Professor Dieter Helm has pointed out that the measurement system used in the Kyoto framework and in the UK’s carbon accounts is a misleading guide to what is really being achieved. The carbon accounts use the territorial method-that is, the emissions from UK territory. In this way, the UK is able to claim that CO2 emissions have been reduced, but that is a misleading way of measuring a nation’s carbon footprint and its impact on the world. It should include the carbon in its imports. If this was done it would show that we are going backwards, since we would be forced to take responsibility for the manufacturing that we have outsourced to such countries as China but are still consuming. The current method is, of course, politically very convenient as it allows us to label China as the world’s largest emitter. The embedded carbon calculation is, I accept, far more complicated, but it is far more honest.

Benches in the House of Lords Chamber are coloured red. In contrast, the House of Commons is decorated in green. Image from Wikipedia.

Another flaw in the framework is that the targets are unconditional. It is a legal duty, irrespective of what other countries achieve. Some, including me, argue that there should be two targets: one of which is a commitment, and a higher one which we will argue for internationally but only undertake as part of an agreement. Ironically, this is precisely the approach that the EU is taking with its 20 per cent reduction target by 2020, which would be raised to 30 per cent as part of an international agreement. The danger is that by going it alone we could face a double whammy, paying for decarbonising our own economy, yet still having to pay for the costs of raising our sea defences if others do not follow suit.

Secondly, let us consider the specific policies that have been adopted. Current EU policy follows two inconsistent paths. On the one hand, the ETS seeks to establish a common price for CO2, against which various competing technologies can be measured. The market share of each is determined by the relative costs. This is attractive to economists, since it allows the cost per tonne of CO2 abated to be equalised at the margin, thereby ensuring that the cost of achieving any CO2 target is minimised. The problem is that, despite its theoretical attractions, the ETS is failing. It provides no clear signal on the price of carbon on which investors can base their decisions. The committee, in this report, estimates that the ETS CO2 price in 2020 will be around €22 per tonne. The committee has rightly identified the central contradiction in its own report: the carbon price will be too low and too uncertain to stimulate the low-carbon investments needed to validate the committee’s projections.

At the same time, the EU is following a different approach under its 20:20:20 plan-to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020, with 20 per cent of energy coming from renewables. In this way, it predetermines a market share for a technology-renewables-rather than letting the merit order decide. The danger is that in pressing to achieve this target, which implies that over 30 per cent of electricity generation will come from renewables, some renewables capacity will be created which will be more expensive than other responses.

There is also a lack of clarity about the true cost of wind power, once we factor in the cost of retaining a large amount of underutilised conventional capacity, and the extension of the grid. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has said more than enough on that so I do not need to follow that line of argument.

There is illogicality in the treatment of nuclear energy in the climate change levy. It is ridiculous that nuclear power, as a low-carbon source, is still in the taxable box. For 50 years, a major experiment has been conducted just 20 miles off our coast. France has generated three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power. The French believe that it has been a huge success, delivering electricity which is secure, cheap and stable in price. France’s carbon intensity is 0.3 of a tonne per $1,000 of GDP, compared to 0.42 in the UK, 0.51 in Germany-so much for it being a market leader-and 0.63 in the US. However, the French option has barely been considered in this country.

As part of the EU plan, 10 per cent of road fuel is mandated to come from biofuels, but by the time this was enacted the credibility of first-generation biofuels had collapsed. Finally, our policy framework lacks balance. It is almost exclusively focused on mitigation through CO2 reduction, The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has argued for what it calls a MAG approach, with effort being committed not just to mitigation but to adaptation and geo-engineering.

Thirdly, there is the issue of cost. All we had to go on at the time when the target was set more ambitiously was the estimate by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of 1 per cent of GDP. Many people were sceptical at the time and probably even more are now, including, it seems, the noble Lord, Lord Stern, himself. It was reported in the press last week that he now thinks that it might be 2 per cent, but could rise to 5 per cent. I hope he will clarify this when he speaks to us shortly.

In the document that we have before us, the committee says that it previously estimated that costs in 2020 would be about 1 per cent of GDP. That is consistent with its view that it might get to 2 per cent by 2050. In the new report it simply reaffirms the 1 per cent figure in just one paragraph in 250 pages. That is it. I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, that I do not think that that is adequate. It is difficult to relate these figures to what we are observing on the ground about the difficulties and costs of bringing on stream different technologies such as offshore wind and CCS.

One of the problems bedevilling the debate is the lack of transparency over the huge cross-subsidies that are being created by the renewables obligation and the regime for feed-in tariffs. There is no assurance that their extent is commensurate with the benefits in CO2 abated. My electricity costs me 11p per kilowatt hour. If I erected a wind turbine, I could sell the power I produced to the grid for a whopping 23p. I think I would go out and buy a gizmo which linked my inward meter to my outward meter. That excess cost is averaged over the bills of consumers as a whole, but how much is it in total, or for individual consumers? Here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord May. The whole issue of cost must be given far more attention. The Government cannot ask people to make radical changes to their lifestyle without being more open about the costs that they are being asked to bear.

I accept that “do nothing” is not the right option. Some measures, such as energy efficiency, heat recovery from waste and biomass, and stopping deforestation are probably justified on their own merits. More nuclear power which, in turn, would open the way for electrification of our transport fleet would enhance security of supply. Other measures may be justified as pure insurance, given the uncertainty that we face. But what is badly needed is a consistent metric that allows us to judge whether any given objective is being achieved at minimum cost. The recent book by Professor MacKay, the newly appointed scientific adviser at DECC, provides an excellent starting point. I also very much welcome the intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, debunking the waste hierarchy and the act of faith that that embodies.

There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people’s faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. There are major controversies not just about the contribution of CO2, on which most of the debate is focused, but about the influence of other factors such as water vapour, or clouds-the most powerful greenhouse gas-ocean currents and the sun, together with feedback effects which can be negative as well as positive.

Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic. They are not direct observations but are melded together from proxies such as ice cores, ocean sediments and tree rings.

Given the extent to which the outcome is affected by the statistical techniques and the weightings applied by individual researchers, it is essential that the work is done as transparently as possible, with the greatest scope for challenge. That is why the disclosure of documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit is so disturbing. Instead of an open debate, a picture is emerging of selective use of data, efforts to silence critics, and particularly a refusal to share data and methodologies.

It is essential that these allegations are independently and rigorously investigated. Naturally, I welcome the appointment of my old colleague, Sir Muir Russell, to lead this investigation; a civil servant with a physics degree is a rare beast indeed. He needs to establish what the documents really mean and recommend changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data. This is not just an academic feud in the English department from a Malcolm Bradbury novel. The CRU is a major contributor to the IPCC process. The Government should not see this as a purely university matter. They are the funders of much of this research and their climate change policies are based on it.

We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear, for example, the quite disgraceful government advertisement which tried to frighten young children-the final image being the family dog being drowned-and of claims about having “10 days to save the world”. Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help.

The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord May, and their eminent colleagues on the CCC have a choice. They can take the policy framework as given, the policy responses as given, the costs as given, and the science as given, and then proceed to churn out more and more sophisticated projections, or-as I hope-they can apply the formidable intellectual firepower they command and start to find answers to many of the unsolved questions.

Share

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Climategate reaches the British House of Lords

  1. PhilW says:

    BBC Radio Four
    Simon Cox on the row after emails were taken from a major climate research center.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jkr1q/episodes/player

  2. Tony B (another one) says:

    Excellent – at last some sanity begins to appear in the UK debate on AGW. Lets hope they manage to make progress on the CRU question….

  3. Doug says:

    Why can’t someone in our US Congress write like this? It’s awesome – a fine reflection of intelectual honesty & fundamental truth.

  4. twawki says:

    The climate dominos continue to fall. One wonders what sort of worldview we will have by the end of Copenhagen!

  5. tallbloke says:

    My Noble Lord Turnbull isn’t such a daft old duffer as many of his peers it seems.
    He seems to have a better grip of the clue bat than 99% of the MP’s in the lower house too. Pity he was probably giving this speech to ten people, eight of whom were asleep, and one of whom was fiddling with his blackberry.

    So well done Anthony for getting this out to a wider audience than his Lordshipful Worthiness.

  6. SandyInDerby says:

    Looks like the noble Lord has been visiting this site amongst others. Hopefully more will join him (and Peter Lilley in the commons).

  7. Bulldust says:

    Hear hear!

    Wonderfully lucid and eloquent.

  8. Ray says:

    The British really love to talk. He should have skipped to the last 6 paragraphs and dismiss the whole thing. Done.

  9. Bulldust says:

    BTW the Hansard (record of debates in the House of Lords and House of Commons in the UK) can be found here:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm

  10. A beautifully balanced piece of oratory.

    With powerful speeches such as this you can understand why Mr Bean and his Labour cronies have been trying to abolish the Upper House for 30 years!

    Thank you Lord Turnbull for standing up and speaking for the majority.

  11. Skeptic Tank says:

    Doug (15:08:34) :

    Why can’t someone in our US Congress write like this? It’s awesome – a fine reflection of intelectual honesty & fundamental truth.

    There are adults and there are children.

    Watch and listen to US Senators and Representatives and ask yourself, in what other environment are people permitted to act and speak the way they do?

    Perhaps grade school.

  12. Todd says:

    I’m impressed. Maybe these guys have enough political pull to actually influence decision makers in the UK? At least this guys was offended by the contents of the emails instead of glossing over them like Al Gore did.

  13. Rathtyen says:

    Well said, and very sensible, Of course this is poison to the Warm-monger movement, as it cannot survive a truly even handed review of its workings by the government (not that the British Government is likely to do that).

    BTW, I liked the term Warm-mongers as the name to describe the Warmest movement. The term was coined by Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_the_search_for_a_proper_noun), and I think it might take-off.

  14. Mapou says:

    Lord Turnbull is the man.

  15. Clive says:

    First rate.

    Considering that the UK has been extreme in political acceptance of AGW, and a leader in adopting radical controls and laws, this is most refreshing.

    As others have noted, we can only wish for similar presentations in our parliaments and senates.

    One thinks that none of this could have been possible mere weeks ago. Climategate and the exposure of problems is running very deep.

    Maybe there is hope that this global AGW insanity will wane.

    Clive

  16. Denbo says:

    I much appreciated the statement “Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help”.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Ray (15:18:54) :

    The British really love to talk. He should have skipped to the last 6 paragraphs and dismiss the whole thing. Done.

    Heh, I’ve come across a fair few bloviatory yanks too. But you won’t divide this blog along nationalistic or party lines. 48% of visitors here are from outside the states.

  18. Steve says:

    Dear UK,

    Your Lords sound like pretty smart dudes. Can we borrow some for our congress?

    Sincerely,

    The Colonies

  19. u.k.(us) says:

    this i’m sure is rather redundant, but here’s a link to the business side of “climate change”.
    are they talking about starting a “carbon currency”, where the currency only has value in their world i.e. financial market/hedge fund/imf/un program???
    here’s the link:
    http://news.morningstar.com/newsnet/ViewNews.aspx?article=/DJ/200912101457DOWJONESDJONLINE000648_univ.xml

  20. Michael says:

    My Christmas present this year is Climategate. I don’t need or want anything else. I want to give as a present a DVD titled “ClimateGate: Everything They Didn’t Want You to Know” to everyone I know. When they ask, who are they? I’ll say, watch the movie.

    I need you to help me with this. Can we put together a Climategate video we can burn to DVD from a torrent file of the information we have so far? The movie can always be revised in the future. Lots of snow blizzard scenes and stuff about the Solar Minimum in it. I need your feedback on this. Please address this comment directly with your feedback. Can we do this?

    Thank You
    MJN

  21. MikeE says:

    The worrying thing from a British perspective is that our unelected “upper house” (The Lords) is often much more democratic than our elected “lower house” (the Commons).

    This may perhaps be because, not having to worry about being re-elected, members may feel freer to speak their minds.

    Members of the Commons (MPs) mostly seem to act like sheep, obedient to their party whips. To borrow a phrase, it’s a “travesty” of democracy.

  22. timheyes says:

    What an excellent speech. House of Lords 1, House of Commons 0. Why is it necessary for unelected lawmakers to raise these matters? Why don’t our elected representatives raise them?

    I’ve never been particularly swayed by House of Lords reform arguments and after this speech I’d have to say that my opinion was correct.

    On a side note, is this the first use of the phrase “double whammy” in the House of Lords?

  23. Michael says:

    I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming
    British scientists sign a government loyalty oath.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587811671196406.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

  24. AdderW says:

    Finally some rationality. Excellent speech!

  25. TanGeng says:

    This is the House of Lords talking, right? Yeah, those nobles have good sense. I bet their House of Commons is a basketcase.

  26. Keith says:

    Good stuff but the Lords is only a revising chamber and anyway stuffed with life peers picked by the Goverment. We have an elected dictatorship, essentially, with fewer checks and balances than the USA. But, to quote from an advert used by a major UK supermarket “every little helps”
    I suppose we can take some comfort from the hopeless implementation of policy, except its our money they waste and the law of unintended consequences will kick in – candles anyone, for when the lights go out?
    Pity he hadn’t seen the recent ice core stuff which shows how trivial any warming we have actually is, looking back thousands of years, and how unlikely CO2 is as culprit…

  27. Rod says:

    Thank goodness for the upper chamber in democratic politics. As has happened on the climate issue in the Australian Senate, here we have the ill-considered excesses of the Government in power being held to account by some thoughtful common sense. Let us hope it has an impact. And similarly as soon as possible in the US Senate, where there are also at least some minds blessed with the necessary fair share of simple common sense, if not the political majority.

  28. Clive says:

    Skeptic Tank said, “.. ask yourself, in what other environment are people permitted to act and speak the way they do?”

    Well for one, the Canadian parliament during question period. ☺ ☺ ☺

  29. Michael says:

    I’m uploading a video titled;
    Stossel and Beck Analyze UN Copenhagen Video and Free Golf Carts
    So True and sad it will make you laugh and cry at the same time.
    Coming Soon.

  30. Methow Ken says:

    Outstanding speech by Lord Turnbull. Long live the House of Lords.
    I especially like this part towards the end:

    ”We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear”

    Exactly.

  31. Ray says:

    tallbloke (15:32:28) :

    I am not here to divide anything.

    It might be a good speech but in the same speech saying on one side that global warming is real and we must do something and later admitting that the science is doubtful… I can’t reconcile both of those sides and I don’t know how he could. From his speech, it’s not just the science that is corrupted but the politics too.

    I go with Lord Monckton when he said to have the courage to do nothing.

    I am part of those 48% that visit this blog.

  32. Mark.R says:

    Prime Minister John Key’s comments on climate change have come to the world’s attention, earning New Zealand a “fossil of the day” award at the Copenhagen climate change negotiations.
    New Zealand’s third place dishonour on Thursday, behind Poland and Germany, was awarded for Key’s comments in Parliament this week that he would not increase the country’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

    Our emission targets are low and that’s not supported by the New Zealand public.
    More than 180,000 New Zealanders have signed on to Greenpeace’s “Sign On” campaign calling for a 40 per cent cut in emissions, relative to 1990 levels.
    (NOTE THEIR ARE 4200000 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND.)
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3150804/New-Zealand-gets-climate-fossil-award

  33. TerryS says:

    The thing a lot people dislike about the House of Lords is the fact they they are unelected and can not easy be kicked out once appointed. This is also their strength. Once there they do not depend upon a political party for their “job” and they don’t have to pander to popular opinion. They can render decisions based on what is right and not what is politically expedient. The house of commons (the elected politicians) don’t have to enact what the Lords say, but they can not ignore them.

  34. Trev says:

    A discussion on ‘THIS WEEK’ on BBC where BBC man (well freelance) Andrew Neil and ex MP Michael Portillo put reasoned argument to warmist Nick Cohen – whose only response was to say that the alternative word for ‘deniers’ was ‘idiots’.

    Neil was polite otherwise he would I am sure pressed his point further – but Portillo was reasoned in his criticism and the egregious Cohen had no answer but to put blind faith not so much in in junk science (which it may be – he is in no position to say) but in secretive, colluding, self serving ‘science’..

  35. BernieL says:

    What a beautifully structured speech to leave in the Hansard.

    I am especially impressed by mention of the ‘controversy’ over ‘basic data’….and not just in paleo-climate, but recent temperature data of the last year or decade…THAT THESE ARE ALSO A CONSTRUCT.

    And from where does this controversy eminate?…nowhere else but here on the blogs. So, indeed, Anthony it is not just climategate that has reach the fogies in the house of lords, they are now hearing the broader message. Bravo! and yes GOOD MOVE with the adjusted Darwin story sticky right up there on the top.

    Here is the quote:
    “Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic. They are not direct observations…”

  36. Kevin Kilty says:

    Doug (15:08:34) :

    Why can’t someone in our US Congress write like this? It’s awesome – a fine reflection of intelectual honesty & fundamental truth.

    Our own Senate may yet rise to the occasion this time, but when I watch Prime Minister’s Q&A on CSPAN, or read something like this, I can’t help but smile at the lofty title of our Senate as world’s greatest deliberative body. Indeed.

  37. timheyes says:

    u.k.(us) (15:36:10) :

    The whole basis of carbon credit trading is a defacto virtual fiat currency trade already – just call it a carbon dollar instead of a credit. The only difference is that conventional fiat currencies are buoyed up by the figurative hot air of central banks whereas carbon credits are buoyed up by literal hot air….er… or not if you see what i mean?

    No wonder Soros wants a carbon currency. There’s a guy who knows how to trade fiat instruments.

  38. APE says:

    OT
    Campbell Brown now has Patrick Michaels vs Bill Nye Science Guy?? on CNN
    Dr. Michaels just slaughters him (tastefully of course)
    http://campbellbrown.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/09/is-there-a-climate-conspiracy/

  39. tallbloke says:

    Keith (15:43:18) :

    Good stuff but the Lords is only a revising chamber and anyway stuffed with life peers picked by the Goverment.

    Yep, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
    Labour ,, Conservative ; the two cheeks of the same arse.

  40. tallbloke says:

    Keith (15:43:18) :

    Good stuff but the Lords is only a revising chamber and anyway stuffed with life peers picked by the Goverment.

    Yep, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
    Labour ,, Conservative ; the two cheeks of the same backside.

  41. astonerii says:

    They will never accept nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, as it does not accomplish the true goal, which is to reduce the population of the planet. Even if we turned a 100% effort into renewable energy, we would never get enough wind farms and solar farms built to meet our energy needs. That is a not a flaw in the thinking. They will force us to declare that we will cut carbon use by 80%, with the idea that we can use solar and wind to replace oil and coal, and then when we are bound by that agreement, they will tell us that there is not one place on earth that is not sacrosanct enough that we can build on it. Desert, nope, plains, nope, mountains, nope. Sorry, I guess what you will have to do is what the Chinese have said, population control and try to get down to 5B, not enough, 4B, not enough, 3B, nope, … 300M Bingo, And of course we will never get there by attrition and birth control alone, thus there will have to be some form of death machine to do it.

  42. jrshipley says:

    Emails not quoted by conspiracy theorists (sorta hard to spin/twist/distort these), which Lord Turnbull might look at:

    Michael Mann to Ed Cook re long-term temperature trends and how to resolve differences in research findings. “There are some substantial scientific differences here, lets let them play out the way they are supposed to, objectively, and in the peer reviewed literature.” April 12, 2002.

    Eric Steig explaining the goal for new paper to examine more closely the bearing that a particular line of evidence (icehole bores) has on the temperature record since the last ice age. “An example might be that the “thermal maximum” was actually warmer than present – a major issue of contention in the popular literature – and was more-or-less simultaneous in both polar regions. If this is correct, it will be a useful service to the paleoclimate community to demonstrate it. Alternatively, we may find after carefully looking at the data that we CANNOT reach such a conclusion. This would be an equally important result.” (emphasis added.) December 12, 2000.

    Michael Mann to Ed Cook in an exchange about the possibility of Cook’s research being used to attack Mann’s findings: “Lets figure this all out based on good, careful work and see what the data has to say in the end. We’re working towards this ourselves, using revised methods and including borehole data, etc. and will keep everyone posted on this.” May 2, 2001.

    Jonathan Overpeck to a team of scientists he coordinating to write a section of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, the goal of which is to make clear the most certain aspects of the science that policymakers need to understand in order to make policy decisions. “We have to make sure we stick to only the best science.” July 14, 2005.

    Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn to Tom Crowley, discussing how to best represent what’s known about the “Medeival Warming Period” for the upcoming 4th Assessment Report. “I **absolutely** agree that we must avoid any bias or perception of bias. My comment on “nailing” was made to mean that uninformed people keeping coming back to the mwp, and describing it for what I believe it wasn’t. Our job is to make it clear what it was within the limits of the data. If the data are not clear, then we have to be not clear.” July 20, 2005.

  43. TanGeng says:

    More like the House of Lords has no power so they aren’t constantly being bombarded by bribes by the vested interests at large.

    That’s why House of Lords will be reflect truth more than the House of Commons.

  44. Layne Blanchard says:

    Gotta love this guy. In the second paragraph he notes he is a founding trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (whatever that might be) yet, he isn’t a member of the church of green zealotry. I’m not familiar with British Government structure, but it’s great to see this balanced, non political view from someone with stature and (apparently) the trust of many others. This is desperately needed. And I for one am a fan of the flowery prose of the Brits. It IS their language, after all. :-)

  45. tallbloke says:

    Ray (15:58:42) :

    tallbloke (15:32:28) :

    I am not here to divide anything.

    It might be a good speech but in the same speech saying on one side that global warming is real and we must do something and later admitting that the science is doubtful… I can’t reconcile both of those sides and I don’t know how he could.

    Lord Turnbull:
    “I have taken the science on trust, while becoming increasingly critical of the policy responses being made to achieve a given CO2 or global warming constraint.”

    Subtext: and now I’m becoming increasingly critical of the science too and I want it properly investigated.

    Lord Turnbull six paragraphs further down:
    “It is essential that these allegations are independently and rigorously investigated. ”

    There you go. I didn’t see anywhere that he said he thought [man made] global warming was real, or not. He quite wisely says he’ll go with the scientists, providing they put in place

    “changes in governance and transparency which will restore confidence in the integrity of the data”

    In other words, he wants to see the scientific method being followed by climate scientists.

  46. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    But the real problem with any “climate change” regulations is of course that the basic assumption underlaying it all, the “central dogma” that CO2 is a climate driver (as opposed to something else, cloud cover for instance), is wrong. I often read in comments that it’s pure physics and that it’s settled, but actually I do know a bit or two about radiative energy transport in planetary atmospheres and the numbers just don’t add up. Any effect of CO2 is heavely overrated. And with that the whole edifice falls.

  47. Another Brit says:

    “Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help”.

    Crude insults from Milliband and Brown are the best that our elected politicians can do. They do not know or understand the science, but have taken a position, and the rest of us are “flat earthers”. Charmed I’m sure! I pay these peoples wages through my taxes, and the best they can do is throw insults.

    The House of Lords has always provided the checks and balances in our system, whether they were hereditary peers or life peers was immaterial. Blair saw this as an obstacle to his power, and tried to abolish it. Brown is trying this tack too. Fortunately so far it has only worked at the margins, and for the most part our peers are independent and courageous. Those who would do away with the Lords do not understand the damage that would do to our system. Thank God we have people like Lord Monckton and Lord Turnbull. This is not a case of Left or Right, it is a matter of common sense and honesty.

  48. Bob Doney says:

    Lord Turnbull, formerly Sir Andrew Turnbull, was made a life peer in 2005 when he retired as Secretary of the Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service. So he would remember a time when the British civil service purred as easily as a Rolls Royce along the highway. Those were the days, my friends!

  49. Harold Blue Tooth says:

    I accept that “do nothing” is not the right option.

    ————————————————

    But as another Lord has said, let’s “have the courage to do nothing”.

  50. ELF says:

    Speaking of Climategate (the subject of this post) and Wikipedia (the source of the photos), the Climategate article there is terribly unbalanced. It provides scads of apologia and sympathy for the victims of this terrible terrible crime with huge quotes about how the science is settled, but has very little in the way of quotes from the e-mails, nothing on the other files, and hardly anything pointing out how important this revelation is.

    Anyone is, of course, able to edit the article or offer their opinion on the Talk page, so if you see something out of place or out of line, by all means wade in.

    As a measure of how things are at Wikipedia, well known warmist William Connolley is actually running for the Arbitration Committee. But, relax. He said he MAY recuse himself if a global warming controvery comes before him.

  51. Harold Blue Tooth says:

    twawki (15:09:33) :

    The climate dominos continue to fall. One wonders what sort of worldview we will have by the end of Copenhagen!

    ——————————

    A lot of dominos have been stood in the last 20 years. Let’s give it more time. Have patience. Time is on our side.

  52. DennisA says:

    There are Lords and there are Lords. These days Lordships are in the gift of the party leaders and are given as rewards for service, or to make a favoured advisor a member of the government without having to be elected. Lord Turnbull mentions the changing climate costs from Lord Stern, of Stern Review fame. He became Lord Stern of Brentford in December 2007.

    Lord Stern is a former World Bank Chief Economist and became head of the UK Government Economic Service. The Stern Review was commissioned by Gordon Brown with major input from the Tyndall Centre and Phil Jones’ Climate Research Centre.

    It came out conveniently at the time of the US mid-term elections and was designed to embarrass Bush. In April last year, Lord Stern published a set of proposals for a global deal on climate change, at the London School of Economics.

    The document, was called Key Elements of a Global Deal.

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/granthamInstitute/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf

    “Developed countries will need to take on immediate and binding national emissions targets, demonstrate that they can achieve low carbon growth, and transfer resources and technologies to developing countries, before developing countries take on binding national targets of their own by 2020.”

    In producing his plan, Stern consulted with HSBC, IdeaCarbon, Judge Business School at Cambridge University, Lehman Brothers and McKinsey and Company and he was “inspired by a number of discussions with international policymakers, financiers and academics.”

    Judge Business School hosts the secretariat for Climate Strategies of which Professor Grubb of the UK Climate Change Committee, is Chairman. It was funded by a grant from the UK Carbon Trust, of which Professor Grubb is the Chief Economist.

    McKinsey and Company, Head of the UK Climate Change Committee, Lord Turner worked from 1982-1995 at the McKinsey management consultancy.

    Did global warming send Lehman Brothers broke?
    http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1438/did-global-warming-send-lehman-brothers-broke

    http://www.ideacarbon.com/strategic/index.html.

    “IDEAcarbon’s premier strategic advice service has been created to give senior decision makers tailored intelligence about key developments in climate change policy and the evolution of the carbon markets.”

    Included in a list of consultants is “Lord Stern, Advisor, IDEAGlobal and author of the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change” .

    Cross Atlantic influences:
    http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm

    The Stern team, based at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, work closely with Lord Stern to develop further analysis on the economics of climate change, disseminate the Review’s analysis and findings and provide advice to other countries and regions that are planning similar work.

    Stern Symposium – Washington 2009

    The Stern Team organised the US Symposium which was held in Washington DC on the 3rd March 2009. Academics, CEOs of large US corporations, cross party Senators, and staffers attended, with a view to gaining a global economic perspective on U.S climate change action.

    The event was sponsored by the World Resources Institute, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Centre for Global Development, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change & the Environment, and with assistance from CISCO and The Climate Group.(Tony Blair).

    Co-sponsorship was provided from four US Senators, and Mr Todd Stern (US Special Envoy for Climate Change, US Dept of State) attended as a keynote speaker. Lord Nicholas Stern chaired several sessions with other notable speakers including Tony Blair, who chaired the closed door session and press conference, Connie Hedegaard; Danish minister for climate and energy and Ed Milliband.

    Lords Turnbull, Lawson, Monckton and Pearson are still in a minority but there is more chance of public exposure now we have an address like this from former senior civil servant Lord Turnbull.

  53. NickB. says:

    “We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear”

    Amazingly eloquent – TY for posting this!

  54. Harold Blue Tooth says:

    Clive (15:28:41) :

    One thinks that none of this could have been possible mere weeks ago. Climategate and the exposure of problems is running very deep.

    ————————————-

    Just a few weeks ago who could have imagined ClimateGate could have happened! I’m still wondering what the story of the leak is!

    As some have said, pass the popcorn!

  55. Mac says:

    Doug (15:08:34) :

    Why can’t someone in our US Congress write like this? It’s awesome – a fine reflection of intelectual honesty & fundamental truth.

    Mostly because they can’t get past the talking points to actually read and understand any of the reports/papers that are either for or against AGW. They just listen to fat albert and repeat what ever he says or what they think their constituents want to hear.

  56. Tom Birkert says:

    Lord Turnbull;

    I salute you. I pray that the same questions are asked in Parliament.

    The silence of those in the House who believe but can’t respond in any meaningful fashion will be deafening.

  57. AdderW says:

    If anyone is to put together a dvd-video, make one where some graphs are shown and what have been done to cook them, like a “this is what is being presented to you, but this is what it should really look like and here is how they did it and how they fooled you all, and then post it on YouTube or wherever.

    Put it all in perspectiv.

  58. Harold Blue Tooth says:

    Steve (15:36:08) :

    Dear UK,

    Your Lords sound like pretty smart dudes. Can we borrow some for our congress?

    Sincerely,

    The Colonies

    ————————————–

    We’ve got them. They are the succsesful business men, economists, military leaders, the good lawyers, the best of the clergymen, and others who are truly successful. They are the ones who are supposed to be our politicians; the Ben Franklins, the John Adams, the John Jays, the George Washingtons.

    It was never intended to be that politics be a lifelong profession in the United States.

  59. AdderW says:

    Brown should make a public apology to the people he insulted.

  60. TonyB says:

    I wrote extensively here of the political machinations of the UK govt in promoting AGW, including minutes from various committees mentioned in the House of Lords thread, as the UK seeks to promote the idea of a personal carbon ration card.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/20/revealed-the-uk-government-strategy-for-personal-carbon-rations/#more-11896

    This all departed the realms of science in 2005 when the UK govt decided to use AGW, in their own words, to ‘change behaviour’ and create ‘one world’ thinking.

    tonyb

  61. Rosemary Meling says:

    I’m thinking their House of Commons (worrying about elections) is rather more like our House and Senate… which is not a compliment.

    This was an excellent speech. Obama should take lessons from this gentleman.

  62. Harold Blue Tooth says:

    Michael (15:41:31) :

    I Pledge Allegiance to Global Warming
    British scientists sign a government loyalty oath.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574587811671196406.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    ————————————

    This move by The Met is truly sickening

  63. AdderW says:

    My new mantra:
    Refuter is the word – I am a refuter

    refute means to prove to be false, wrong, or incorrect
    to refute a statement is to prove it wrong
    refute means ‘to show conclusively to be false or illogical’ and applies primarily to assertions or arguments

  64. PaulH says:

    “We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research?

    I have this belief that once the flow of money to global warming “research” is terminated, the alleged threat of AGW will vanish as well.

  65. Pete of Perth says:

    Alas – no such debate like this in the Australia media; the Labor party just continues on with the AGW train as if no doubt has been cast.

  66. Robert of Ottawa says:

    a major experiment has been conducted just 20 miles off our coast.

    I just love the humour in that phrase :-)

  67. Lazarus Long says:

    So the aim is to reduce carbon usage by 80%.

    Will flint hand axes be allowed?

  68. Michael says:

    AdderW (17:10:36) : Wrote

    “My new mantra:
    Refuter is the word – I am a refuter

    refute means to prove to be false, wrong, or incorrect
    to refute a statement is to prove it wrong
    refute means ‘to show conclusively to be false or illogical’ and applies primarily to assertions or arguments”

    I Refute Man-Made Global Warming.
    I Refute Man-Made Climate Change.

    This is how you take back control of the Hegelian Dialectic.
    Don’t let them ingrain derogatory terms to their benefit like skeptic and denier. They love to change the definitional of words to confuse people. The moment they do it you must jump all over them to use the correct dictionary definition of words and find the best words to use to describe your position.

    AdderW
    +1000

  69. Henry chance says:

    More from Minnesota

  70. Michael says:

    Stossel and Beck Analyze UN Copenhagen Video and Free Golf Carts

  71. Fred Harwood says:

    A substantial post.

  72. AnonyMoose says:

    Perhaps we’ll see whether tampering with the peer review system is frowned upon by the Peers.

  73. Robert of Ottawa says:

    When I was in the UK, The Morning Star was a communist newspaper. Have they graduated to the web?

  74. Imran says:

    As a Brit, I feel a real sense of pride when I read such a balanced piece of oratory. These institutions, which have been in place for centuries, function so well at providing the checks and balances that are required to prevent is being lead down a route of self destruction.

    It is not without reason that those same people who would dictate to us how we should live our lives are also so vehemently opposed to the whole concept of the House of Lords.

  75. Indiana Bones says:

    “I…hope-they can apply the formidable intellectual firepower they command and start to find answers to many of the unsolved questions.”

    Here here!

    PaulH (17:19:32) :

    “I have this belief that once the flow of money to global warming “research” is terminated, the alleged threat of AGW will vanish as well.”

    Suggesting an experiment: If we were to announce tomorrow a fund of $78B to investigate the imminent end of the Holocene and the likely advent of the next ice age… What results from eminent scientists would arrive? Any theories?

  76. Peter B says:

    I very much doubt that words of wisdom in the House of Lords will have much effect on the House of Commons. Lord Nigel Lawson has been a high-profile outspoken critic of the AGW “orthodoxy” for some time, and the reaction of the Conservative (his party) leadership has been to distance themselves from his views. All of the three main parties have voted with huge majorities in the Commons to make the absurd target of 80% CO2 reductions by 2050 into law. The Conservative leader (and very likely next prime minister) David Cameron has long embraced AGW as a tactic to out-flank Labour politically – and Labour wasn’t inclined to argue against AGW in any case. The result is the near-absence of any dissent on this matter in the House of Commons, by anyone. It is a dire state of affairs and it illustrates how far the UK has fallen in terms of rationaility in its political discourse. Predictably, The Economist has consolidated its intellectual decline by dismissing Climategate as of little importance after mentioning it only once.

  77. Robert of Ottawa says:

    AdderW (17:23:08) :

    Oh, an actual prediction…

    Next year to be the world’s warmest on record, Met Office predicts

    AdderW, they make the same prediction every year. One day, they might be right. They haven’t been so far. And, of course, they didn’t predict the El Nino year 1998.

  78. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I liked the dig at the arrogant Stern:

    Unlike many of those involved in the climate change field, I have no pecuniary interest to declare

  79. Hmmm says:

    Wow that was well spoken and even eloquent. I didn’t know it could be stated so clearly! It sounds like he may have some confidence in Sir Muir Russell’s review unless that was just a buttered-up prod.

    Exactly to the point, we can’t skew the statistics to tell one side of the story. Show both sides and the uncertainty using generally acceptable statistical techniques. This can only be done through complete transparency and that is exactly what the people in the CRU scandal torpedoed.

  80. yonason says:

    Michael (15:41:31) :

    From your reference:

    “More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research.”

    Because there’s really no need to wait for any silly old investigation, now is there?

  81. Zeke the Sneak says:

    This is a demolition! My favorite zingers:

    “It starts by imposing a completely unworkable duty on the Secretary of State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, even though many of the actions required lie outside his control.”

    “All we had to go on at the time when the target was set more ambitiously was the estimate by the noble Lord, Lord Stern, of 1 per cent of GDP…It was reported in the press last week that he now thinks that it might be 2 per cent, but could rise to 5 per cent.”

    “Worse still, there are even controversies about the basic data on temperature. The series going back one, 10 or 100,000 years are, in the genuine sense of the word, synthetic.”

    We have a saying here in the States, reserved for the most serious of moments and meant with utmost respect:

    “I love ya man!”

  82. Eric Smith says:

    Sorry, o/t, but I recorded a BBC climategate radio programme featuring Bishop Hill and McIntyre, and uploaded it to a friend’s web space for non UK residents. Only listened to part of it myself. Will get time later.

    10mb, volume maximised

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tlr.chalmers/bbcclimategate.mp3

  83. Gary Hladik says:

    jrshipley (16:12:08) : “Emails not quoted by conspiracy theorists (sorta hard to spin/twist/distort these), which Lord Turnbull might look at:”

    Thanks for showing us that these fine climate scientists were faithful to the ideals of their profession except when they weren’t.

    And this just in: It turns out Tiger Woods was completely faithful to his wife between trysts with his girlfriends.

  84. timheyes says:

    I have a recurring thought which pops into my mind every so often and it’s this:

    If all of these carbon reduction objectives which are being haggled about in Copenhagen are based on such settled science. If the “teh end of the world” is so certain, why doesn’t the goverment just invoke the high carbon taxes needed to cut our carbon use? Why don’t they convert 50% of our farmland to biofuels and double food prices? Why don’t they double or treble road tax? Why don’t they tax aviation fuel?

    Since the future is so certain, any country which is an early adopter will steal a march on other countries in converting to a low carbon economy by reorganising its economic infrastructure and advancing its low carbon technology. This will give it a competitive advantage over other countries in a low carbon world. So why not just do it?

    I’m calling the governments bluff. Do it and see how long you’re in office when people have to actually pay for this. So we’ll be in recession for a decade instead of a few months. Surely it worth it to save the world?

    There is no need for Copenhagen. The future is certain. Why wait for everyone else to “get with the program”?

    Failure to do enact rigourous carbon reduction programs indicates that the government are deferring their political responsibilites to scientists who promote the IPCC hypothesis on AGW. They’ve been told that this problem is THE most serious problem facing the world, therefore not acting is criminally negligent.

    Go on. Just get on with it. I dare you.

  85. Alan says:

    It has been reported in some of the “warm mongering” media that the Russian FSB is responsible for the hacking of the CRU computers. It’s not true, but if it had been, then finally, after the demise of the Soviet Union the heirs of the Checka/GRU/NKVD/Smerch, KGB, i.e. the Russian intelligence establishment, would have done some good for the common man.

    P.s. I used the term “warm mongering” because I would like to see it spread too.

  86. Alan says:

    I posted this in the Daily Telegraph a few days ago:

    I appreciate that most people are appalled with the content of the emails etc. exposed in this scandal. For me, however, the willingness of these scientists to load peer review committees with fellow travellers so as to suppress dissenting opinion is the worst crime of all. It brings the entire edifice of science into question, whilst requiring everyone to accept their pronouncements on faith.

    I wonder when we will be reading the first IPCC Bull or fatwa.

  87. Michael says:

    Now this is going to hit them warming zealots where it really hurts. All state legislators should follow suit.

    ‘Climategate’ Accusations Could Affect Penn State Funding
    http://www.wjactv.com/news/21924623/detail.html

  88. AdderW says:

    It seems to me, and it is all becoming very clear to me now, here is how the scam was going to work:

    1. Mann scares the world about global warming “caused by CO2″.
    2. Mann is a real hero.
    3. The UN jumps on the bandwagon and IPCC is created
    4. Massive taxes are being enforced, resulting in cuts in the production of CO2 the main cause of global warming, as we all “know”.
    5. The earth’s atmosphere starts to cool, (has nothing to do with CO2 and Mann knows that) -”yey, we managed to do it in time, we saved the world, thank you Mann” chants his followers
    6. Mann is a real hero again
    7. Mann counts his money and laughs together with his peers.

    so he gains on both the “warming” and the cooling

  89. steve says:

    To Jpshipley…yes, Mann, Briffa, WIgley, Jones, et all wrote some non-incriminating emails that spoke of higher standards…

    Perhaps you would like to have them all honored for not robbing a bank, as well?

  90. hysteria says:

    again – another Brit here to support the other posts about the stability of the upper chamber. We throw this away at our peril. Great speech.

    I thouight the CNN clip above was good too – reasonably balanced and one of the major broadcasters (CNN) now realising there is an issue to be discussed.

    Oh – agreed – it is going to be fascinating to discover the story of the leak….

  91. AndrewG says:

    restores my faith in peerage

  92. Michael says:

    I missed this one yesterday. CBS News shows some of Mann’s Hide the Decline youtube video, oh my.

    “Climate-Gate” a Hot Debate
    http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5955742n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

  93. CalGrad says:

    Good meaty sanity. Refreshing.

  94. Michael says:

    Sorry, Wrong link to “Midwest Storm Leaves Bitter Cold”. See their link in the player. Global Warming? Where is it?

  95. DaveE says:

    I think Lord Turnbull is one of the few hereditary peers left. I mentioned on an earlier thread that they provided a moderating influence on the excesses on both sides of the political divide, I think this shows that.

    DaveE.

  96. EdB says:

    Re BBC radio commentary:

    It discussed e-mails, and left the listener that it was nothing serious..

    The producer surely knows the real truth lies in the computer code. To NOT have mentioned that fact, makes him guilty of “tricking” the listener. Was it deliberate? I would say the evidence for that is “robust”.

  97. Nigel S says:

    ‘Falling behind the run rate…’

    V. good, although it suggests that the Noble Lords have taken up the limited overs game.

    There’s a breathless hush in the Close to-night
    Ten to make and the match to win
    A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
    An hour to play and the last man in.
    And it’s not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
    Or the selfish hope of a season’s fame,
    But his Captain’s hand on his shoulder smote
    “Play up! play up! and play the game!”
    The sand of the desert is sodden red,
    Red with the wreck of a square that broke;
    The Gatling’s jammed and the colonel dead,
    And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
    The river of death has brimmed his banks,
    And England’s far, and Honour a name,
    But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks,
    “Play up! play up! and play the game!”

  98. Graeme From Melbourne says:

    Does anyone know what has happened to the warmists that used to post here, i.e. Joel Shore, Mary Hinge, Flanagan, etc… that side of the conversation has gone awfully quite of late.

  99. Michael says:

    I could see the Rothschild’s, Rockefeller’s and Soros’s families spending their entire families fortunes to buy the one thing they want most in all the world; Global government with everybody on the planet RFID chipped.
    They will all go to their graves without getting what they wanted most of all.

  100. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Hmmmm… an Anachronism like the House of Lords manages to preserve democracy in England? Kind of like watching democracy return to Spain with the restoration of a Bourbon King.

    [REPLY - Hmmm. Consider the role pf the monarchy after the death of Franco. ~ Evan]

  101. Jeremy says:

    Apparently the Met Office is confident that 2010 to be the warmest on record All based on CRU data which will take another 3 years to revise before it can be released to the public – sounds like they already know the answer of that 3 year “revision” of 160 years of climate data. Of course, if you control your own data you can make 2010 whatever you want it to be…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm

    How would you like your 2010 climate served sir….baked, fried, steamy, or hottest ever….would you like toast with that, how about some ketchup?

  102. Robert E. Phelan says:

    REPLY – Hmmm. Consider the role pf the monarchy after the death of Franco. ~ Evan]

    Ahh.. I knew there would be someone who would appreciate the reference… of course, Evan, it HAD to be you.

    [REPLY - Well, I come into all this from the History/Demographics side of the academic aisle. ~ Evan]

    Reply 2: You belong to the Demographic Demographic? ~ ctm

  103. savethesharks says:

    Eloquently stated. I loved this quote:

    “We need to purge the debate of the unpleasant religiosity that surrounds it, of scientists acting like NGO activists, of propaganda based on fear, for example, the quite disgraceful government advertisement which tried to frighten young children-the final image being the family dog being drowned-and of claims about having “10 days to save the world”. Crude insults from the Prime Minister do not help.”

  104. theBuckWheat says:

    The single thing that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions is to source as much new electricity generation capacity from nuclear plants. It is downright silly to suggest that wind power has viable (er, “sustainable”) economics. At the very least, a utility must have other power plants on standby at all times so power needs can be met when the wind dies down, even briefly.

    We must, above all, be totally honest about how much these weak alternative power sources cost.

  105. Sean Peake says:

    The anti-AGW camp is now in a defensive stance. The rhetoric is reaching a fever pitch. The predictions have become more dire. But now the people have doubts about what is being spoon-fed to them and are willing to listen. Are you up to the task to defeat them? Calm, low-key, and quiet disagreement will not win the day. A concentrated offensive strategy is needed to keep up the momentum. Have no doubt, this is trench warfare and the AGW camp will resort to ANY callous and outrageous tactic to win. Fix bayonets, stand on the fire step and prepare to see and hear all kinds of barbarity as they try to beat you back.

  106. Robert E. Phelan says:

    Evan and Charles:

    One of my VERY minor interests is Demography. My lecture on demography starts:

    Small societies are at a disadvantage: Ancient Greece, Rome and 16th Century France were the super powers of their ages. They also had larger populations than their neighbors.

    300 million Americans, one half of one percent doing farming, fishing, mining and forestry…. the figures for China: 40%….. India 60%…

    The Chinese and the Indians are not stupid. As we did a century ago, so will they… mechanize agriculture… and a half billion workers will be turned loose for manufacturing.

  107. Michael says:

    ” It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.

    But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.” ”

    Climategate: Anatomy of
    a Public Relations Disaster
    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221

  108. The End says:

    Now is the time for Western free-thinkers to pause and reflect on what OTHER lies their leaders might have told them.

    They are willing to invent huge lies to get the public to go along with their plans. America probably wouldn’t have accepted an escalation in Afghanistan from John McCain, but so far we are accepting it from Obama.

    The elitists are wearing a Liberal mask, this season, to feed us Global Warming, just like they wore a Conservative mask last season to feed us 9/11.

  109. Anthony,

    What is your take on the non-partisan group FactCheck.org defending the CRU folks in that all this is vastly overblown, and that in full context first of all, all the data is still available and nothing was really “dumped” and also that the emails present little more than very human emotions and consternation over what the CRU researchers felt was substandard work in the deniers, etc.

    Also, regarding the “trick” stuff, that kind of talk and the “fixing” of data was explained by New Scientist as necessary and dumb NOT to do given that this is very common in certain kinds of measurements, like temperature data (adjusting to account for anomalies like heat island effect, etc)?

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

    Reply: Read This. ~ ctm

  110. Anthony, your site is getting linked to quite a bit also by conservative/libertarian types all over the Net, so I wanted also your input on the following: (OK, really to play the Devil’s Advocate here and pull out info, since I’m neither a climatologist nor computer expert) what is your response to THIS, from Sharon Begely.

    Seems her argument is that the emails in the first place contained nothing damning other than the very real and difficult/tedious work of REAL climate scientists, who got quite understandably frustrated with the dumbbunny denialist crowd, and some email correspondence detailing said frustration.

    Many of us would sooner not have some emails revealed and aired out in broad daylight, no?

    About the same line of thinking, it seems (though they no longer allow new registrations for comments) showed up on Little Green Footballs, which in turn references an article in New Scientist.

    Said LGF:

    Despite efforts by the climate change denial industry to promote this as the definitive proof that global warming is a “hoax” by evil scientists trying to get rich and dominate the world, the fact is that there is nothing in the emails that even comes close to this exaggerated, hysterical claim. It’s a phony scandal, based on stolen and cherry-picked emails, and pumped up like a Macy’s clown balloon by dishonest people.

    From another LGF post with more links, there is THIS regarding the allegation that CRU “dumped” or “destroyed” their climate-modeling temperature data.

    Apparently NOT:

    “Just one little problem with this latest tempest in a teapot — no data was destroyed. And the article at The Times, oddly enough, just happens to leave out that part of Phil Jones’ explanation.

    According to CRU’s Web site, “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit, said that the vast majority of the station data was not altered at all, and the small amount that was changed was adjusted for consistency.

    The research unit has deleted less than 5 percent of its original station data from its database because the stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends, Jones said.

    “When you’re looking at climate data, you don’t want stations that are showing urban warming trends,” Jones said, “so we’ve taken them out.” Most of the stations for which data was removed are located in areas where there were already dense monitoring networks, he added. “We rarely removed a station in a data-sparse region of the world.”

    Refuting CEI’s claims of data-destruction, Jones said, “We haven’t destroyed anything. The data is still there — you can still get these stations from the [NOAA] National Climatic Data Center.”

    By the way, here’s some information on the group spreading the “destroyed data” claim: Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    CEI is a think tank funded by donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. CEI does not accept government funding. Past and present funders include the Scaife Foundations, Exxon Mobil, the Ford Motor Company Fund, Pfizer, and the Earhart Foundation[5][6]. …

    CEI is also active in the legal aspects of antitrust and government regulation. As part of its “Control Abuse of Power” (CAP) project, CEI launched lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), respectively.

    Again, the connection to energy industries and big tobacco. Almost every one of the main anti-AGW front groups is connected to either big energy or big tobacco, and often both.

    Now, some excepts from that aforementioned New Scientist article:

    “Forget about the temperature records compiled by researchers such as those whose emails were hacked. Next spring, go out into your garden or the nearby countryside and note when the leaves unfold, when flowers bloom, when migrating birds arrive and so on. Compare your findings with historical records, where available, and you’ll probably find spring is coming days, even weeks earlier than a few decades ago.


    You can’t fake spring coming earlier, or trees growing higher up on mountains, or glaciers retreating for kilometres up valleys, or shrinking ice cover in the Arctic, or birds changing their migration times, or permafrost melting in Alaska, or the tropics expanding, or ice shelves on the Antarctic peninsula breaking up, or peak river flow occurring earlier in summer because of earlier snowmelt, or sea level rising faster and faster, or any of the thousands of similar examples.


    None of these observations by themselves prove the world is warming; they could simply be regional effects, for instance. But put all the data from around the world together, and you have overwhelming evidence of a long-term warming trend.”

    And so it went over at NS.

  111. E.M.Smith says:

    Ron de Haan (16:40:03) : Dec 10, 2009 (www.icecap.us)
    Forget Carbon, Copenhagen Scientists Find New Target to Spend Our Money on – Nitrogen!

    My Friends, I must now convert to The House of Warmers. For all these months and years, toiling as I may, I have been toiling in vain. For clearly I have been in error. I had forgotten Nitrogen. As part of my conversion to being a Warmer, I feel I must dedicate my life to assessing the impact of this newly identified threat to humanity; nay, to the very existence of all life on earth.

    To that end, I will forthwith commence, at great personal peril, an intense study of the impact on the environment of the metabolic byproduct of the consumption of the zymurgy byproduct of Hordeum (be it spontaneum, vulgare L, or any of the diploid, tetraploid, or even hexaploid types). This will be done either as the “fresh” 5-9% product fully contaminated with carbonic acid, or, again at great personal peril, the 40% product even after exposure to the pyrolysis carcinogens produced from various Quercus and Sphagnum species. Of course, to achieve these ends, the zymurgy product will need to consist of an especially high proportion of those that have had long and persistent exposure to the pyrolysis products so that maximal effect can be assessed.

    To assure that no person is put at risk without informed consent and that it is clear what risks exist, I will use myself as both the primary researcher and the primary test subject. To the extent funding can be secured, other volunteers may be recruited, provided they pass an extensive interview process that would assess their ability to tolerate the noxious side effects of the large doses that well may need to be applied for proper evaluation.

    Let there be no doubt, the fait of the world hangs in the balance. So I am sure various national, and supra-national, governmental agencies will understand this need and provide a suitable research budget, with only a small stipend for me, the researcher / primary test subject, but with a generous budget for facilities and supplies.

    We simply must gain a greater understanding of the environmental impacts of the vast quantities of these zymurgy products set loose in the economy and the nitrogen rich metabolites produced hours, or sometimes mere minutes, later. It is up to you. Please, do it for the children.

    Your humble servant, E. M. Smith

    P.S. When can I expect my grant money? I’m feeling a bit parched… and I’m down to my last barley malt…

    /parodyoff>

    Hey, it’s at least as good a thesis as hockey sticks, tree rings, bear poo ( I once helped a friend collect ‘scats’ for a paper…), and computer climate fantasies.

  112. Chazz says:

    Excellent speech. I particularly liked his observation that if “the science is settled”, why are we spending all these millions on research?

  113. Malaga View says:

    tallbloke (16:11:50) :
    Yep, it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in

    Sad but true…

  114. Aligner says:

    OT. Anyone out there looked closely at this?

    “Aerosols in the Atmosphere: From Mexico to Japan, Finland to Switzerland, the Same Everywhere”

    Holistic approach to aerosol research boosts prediction power for climate and air quality models.

    These particles influence cloud formation and therefore rainfall. They also affect human health and can lead to illnesses like asthma, heart disease and lung cancer.

  115. E.M.Smith says:

    AdderW (18:45:57) :
    It seems to me, and it is all becoming very clear to me now, here is how the scam was going to work: …

    so he gains on both the “warming” and the cooling

    I suspect you are right, but it was more than Mann, it was the whole Team and their backers. But they missed their schedule.

    There is some evidence in the pattern of ‘fudging’ of the GHCN data that looks to me like a ‘last ditch’ effort to get’re done (i.e. keep the year over year warming showing up from a flat input). I think what happened was a little tuning in the early 1980′s, then more in the late 1980s (but most of the ‘load’ was carried by changes in GIStemp and CRUT). Then once GIStemp code was released, they expected to be done, but things dragged on… So the thermometer cutting became ever more extreme. To the extent that by 1990-1991, they had to go whole hog and cut to the 90% gone / 10% left level in a precipitous chop. (no one had caught the earlier cuts / bias… so… risky, but the double dip had to happen…).

    Then things drug on some more. There is a slight time delay built into GIStemp (data is smeared a year or two in time a bit, and a ‘too short’ record (below 20 years) as it ‘ages in’ to 20+ years suddenly “shows up” in the product. But it’s been almost 20 years since 1990,,,

    The “fudge more” ran out of gas about 1998 and stalled out, while nature showed up on cyclical schedule. And yes, it’s all “Bush’s Fault”. He wasn’t supposed to win, and that screwed up the schedule. ;-) Kyoto was supposed to be The Deal Closer. And it belly flopped.

    Now we have dramatically rising carbon dioxide, no hope of reducing it for 20 years, and a dramatically cooling winter last year and this. Thus the hysteria about Copenhagen.

    This is the last chance to tighten the noose. If we slip the noose now, they are in a losing race with an ever colder history…

    So what happened? Anthony starts whacking at the thermometer quality. Steve punches holes in their math. Climategate breaks. In some small way, I’ve “shown the method” of the GHCN hack and the GIStemp bogositites. And the general news is now starting to ask pointed questions…

    They, The Team, are not having a good day.

    And they must, by now, have figured out that “the jig is up”. They must know that the SHTF and are just trying to whistle past the graveyard and hope to score the goal and declare victory so maybe all the lead-in will be forgotten…

    But they know that co2 will be rising for the next decade or three and temperatures will be dropping. And they ought to know that the mob tracking down their shenanigans is growing.

    So I have one word of advice to them:

    Confess.

    The long form:

    Come clean now, and early, and you can probably ‘cut a deal’ for testimony. If you don’t: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    We’re “onto you” and we have the goods now. We’ve got the leaked stuff on CRU (and the internal affairs folks will be going over what was not leaked.)

    We will get the FOIA requests forced on NASA and NOAA (a couple of Senators and Representatives have started motions to assure that…).

    And most importantly, we’ve got the evidence in the thermometer record changes. The ‘foot prints in the snow’ will just not go away.

    And finally, there is a fairly competent group of folks hound dogging your past and present steps. We are outside the control of anyone. Not on any payroll. Not under any authority. Not subject to buggered peer review filtering. We are the New Public Review Reality, and we are here to stay.

    I, for one, will be chewing a hole in your “story” for the rest of my natural life… and I can chew a pretty good chunk. But once the story is “out”, well, I’ll go back to other things. Until that day, you can expect a few things:

    1) An honest data series to be produced (be it from surfacetemps.org or be it SmithTemp). The data buggering is being “outed” now.

    2) An honest analysis done on that data.

    3) A forensic comparison of those two with your work product (and a spotlight on just what was buggered and how, which will then point at who. And I’ll be happy to advertise just who is whom).

    4) A book or two. Doesn’t matter if “the agenda” gets passed or not, I think I’ve got enough to make a decent “tech forensics” book out of this. Been wanting to write such a thing for a while… Frankly, once “the agenda” is passed, folks will be even MORE interested in how they were “taken” so sales will be better. And by then, your name will be in it.

    5) Endless looking over your shoulder. Even in retirement. Even after you are dead and buried. You can be the ‘whistle blower’ hero, or you can be the next Ponsi / Madoff. Up to you. But you are too late for a ‘walk away clean’ ending. You missed the window. We’re already dropping into a deepfreeze and the temperature buggering is becoming ever more widely known.

    Oh, and the ‘footprints in the snow’, the email logs, the backups and the meeting notes. The record will persist. It’s a ticking time bomb and you are sitting on it. It will happen. When is the only unknown.

    Think about it. You don’t have much time. Even the house of Lords is starting to ask questions…

  116. dearieme says:

    “BTW, I liked the term Warm-mongers as the name to describe the Warmest movement. The term was coined by Andrew Bolt”: long after I started using ot, though, and I’ve no particular reason to suppose I was the first.

  117. Aligner says:

    TerryS (16:03:43) :

    You paint a wildly inaccurate picture, Terry.

    The thing a lot people dislike about the House of Lords is the fact they are unelected and cannot easily be kicked out once appointed. This is also their strength.

    The New Labour project removed most of the hereditary peers via the House of Lords Act 1999 and will remove the remainder if returned to power next year. A breakdown of the partisan placemen setup that currently exists can be found here.

    Once there they do not depend upon a political party for their “job” and they don’t have to pander to popular opinion. They can render decisions based on what is right and not what is politically expedient.

    While I agree with the sentiment, that’s an illusion. Several junior minister posts are held by members of the House of Lords. Appointment of life peers is still largely at the behest of party political leaders with no voting by the electorate. This is not democracy but pure cronyism that compromises the whole purpose of a second chamber. The example of Peter Mandleson’s hasty ennoblement then immediate appointment as “First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council” in one foul swoop by Gordon Brown (accompanied by much unquestioning BBC propaganda) is an utter disgrace not even worthy of a banana republic.

    Having resigned his post as EU Trade Commissioner the “Prince of Darkness” now exercises control over vast swathes of Whitehall. This completely unelected Bilderberger, twice previously forced to resign from cabinet positions in disgrace, is now for all intents and purposes running the UK. Here is his WikiPedia entry, be sure to view the discussion tab.

    The house of commons (the elected politicians) don’t have to enact what the Lords say, but they cannot ignore them.

    Meaningless I’m afraid. You are forgetting about the Parliament Act 1949, IMHO the most undemocratic and pernicious piece of legislation ever. Note the history of its origin and use; only four times, three of which have been since 1997 by New Labour. Also note that unlike the US Senate, the House of Lords has no influence over public expenditure.

    IMHO we in the UK no longer live in a democracy. The House of Lords now has very little power and acts largely as a free retirement home for former politicians and party donors, appointment of whom the electorate has no control over whatsoever. Also don’t forget the “Cash for Honours” and “Cash for Influence” debacles, both under New Labour and neither effectively resolved.

    There are perhaps lessons to be learnt from this sorry state by all those rightly proud of the US Constitution. Subversion of democracy by the third way is a drawn-out dirty game, ignore the early signs at your peril.

  118. P.Laini says:

    “We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. ”

    On the contrary, I suppose that even the Inquisition would not say that science was settled, and didn’t. More and more I think that we underestimate people of that time and suspect sadly that in many ways the true Dark Ages are now.

    It’s always time to recognize how little we know and begin to review some crystallized ideas. Just an start point on the subject of Galileo, with Thomas Woods, an important American historian::

    Reply: This post pushed the limits of religious discussion, but in my opinion, dispelling the common notions of the relationship between Galileo and the Church justify allowing it. ~ charles the moderator

  119. E.M.Smith says:

    Graeme From Melbourne (19:49:52) : Does anyone know what has happened to the warmists that used to post here, i.e. Joel Shore, Mary Hinge, Flanagan, etc… that side of the conversation has gone awfully quite of late.

    I’ve noticed a very useful pattern to their side. If you have a weakness in your argument (or even a reasonably strong argument, but seem to have poor mastery of a point they can ignore) you will get a strong attack.

    But when you have a rock solid case, they simply go quiet. Not a peep. No sense giving any added air time to that strong case by being a foil that causes more discussion.

    So when you hear dead air, when there is NOTHING in response to a point you made: Mark it down in you best arguments list. Save it. Promote it. Pull it out and stuff it in front of them as often as you can. DO NOT just let is pass by and fade away.

    This “tell” is worth more than gold. It confirms when you have a “magic bullet”. Cherish it.

    So I suspect that, in addition to being in Copenhagen for some of The Team, they are also doing the “duck and cover” drill. But don’t worry. Though they were told it will all be over with The Treaty, Copenhagen will fail. China, India, Russia, Brazil have all assured that. And Climategate assure the Senate will not ratify should Obama sign some paper or other. So they will be back. But listen to the silence, and take notes when it happens…

  120. Charles. U. Farley says:

    Michael (17:36:31) :

    AdderW (17:10:36) : Wrote

    “My new mantra:
    Refuter is the word – I am a refuter

    Absolutely.

    Michaels point re- subversion of language.
    specifically the use of the word “pollution” to encompass CO2 is one of those methods the warmist fundamentalists use.
    See through them for what they are and to coin a phrase “Refute” them.

  121. Partington says:

    “Ray (15:58:42) :
    tallbloke (15:32:28) :
    I am not here to divide anything.
    It might be a good speech but in the same speech saying on one side that global warming is real and we must do something and later admitting that the science is doubtful… I can’t reconcile both of those sides and I don’t know how he could. From his speech, it’s not just the science that is corrupted but the politics too.
    I go with Lord Monckton when he said to have the courage to do nothing.”

    This argument keeps coming up and it’s important to understand the facts. Global Warming from “greenhouse gases” is indeed real. Turnbull knows that and Monkton knows that. A simple calculation based on satellite data of Earth’s energy balance show a likely warming of about 1.8 degrees C from a doubling of “early” CO2 levels. We’ve already had about 0.8 degrees so that leaves another degree to go, nothing to worry about and perhaps even welcome.
    The “problem” is the hype and how this one degree or less is parlayed into four or even six degrees. That’s where the dodgy science enters and one can be very easily sucked into belief.

  122. 40 Shades of Green says:

    Guys,

    Before you get too carried away by the oratory and its potential impact, bear in mind that the UK house of Lords is largely hereditary.

    Yes Hereditary.

    For all you US readers out there. You fought a revolution to get government for the people and by the people.

  123. Gregg E. says:

    So some have seen the writing in the e-mails and realize the demon of C02 is shown to really be a snipe hunt.

    Now they’re on Nitrogen as the new big bad.

    Nitrogen, which is 78% of the atmosphere, which like CO2 is also a vital nutrient for plants.

    What are they going to try? Banning all use of fertilizers? That’d push farming technology back a hundred years or so.

  124. JustPassing says:

    Lord Turnbull

    “My electricity costs me 11p per kilowatt hour. If I erected a wind turbine, I could sell the power I produced to the grid for a whopping 23p. I think I would go out and buy a gizmo which linked my inward meter to my outward meter.”

    I like the way he thinks. :)

  125. Roger Knights says:

    Rathtyen (15:27:43) :

    “BTW, I liked the term Warm-mongers as the name to describe the Warmest movement. The term was coined by Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_the_search_for_a_proper_noun), and I think it might take-off.”

    Googling for the term brings up 11,000 hits, so it’s not original with Bolt. It’s been used on this site 11 times; the entry with the earliest date is April 2009. (But an undated entry might be earlier.)

  126. Tenuc says:

    Wakefield Tolbert (22:02:55) :
    “Anthony, your site is getting linked to quite a bit also by conservative/libertarian types all over the Net…”

    Once they have read through the emails and other documents, they will be as shocked about what’s been going on as I was.

    These people are not doing real science, they are just green activists pushing their masters political agenda. Science about facts. These do not support the hypothesis of CAGW.

  127. Mark, Edinburgh says:

    This matters. Because it matters to the people who matter.

    There are Lords who are political placemen, or even some still who have inherited titles.

    Other Lords get appointed because of their previous job.

    Lord Turnbull was Head of the Civil Service and UK cabinet secretary until 2005.

    i.e. the most senior public official in the land. And Muir Russell’s former boss.

  128. DennisA says:

    Scientists behaving like NGO activists……

    Some scientists ARE NGO activists. Read this http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=288.0 and then google Climate Analytics.

  129. Partington says:

    Since this thread is about the now irrelevant UK Parliament. This beaking news is interesting:

    Thursday, 10th December 2009

    Viscount Monckton, better known as Christopher Monckton, the journalist and author has today joined the UK Independence Party.

    At a press conference in Copenhagen he said: “For some years I have been concerned that the democracy into which I was born has become a bureaucratic centralist state run by commissars who we, the people, do not elect, cannot question, cannot hold to account, cannot remove and cannot replace.

    “Moreover, due to our membership of the European Union, most of the laws we cannot now rescind.

    “People, through their elected politicians no longer have the right to propose law or decide on legislation and its amendments. Everything is now merely subject to the agreement of the unelected bureaucrats.

    “No other party except the UK Independence Party believes that Britain should remain a self governing country. I have long been a friend and admirer of Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Now that he has become the leader of UKIP, the nation will take our party very seriously indeed.”

    UKIP Leader Malcolm Pearson said, “I am delighted that Lord Monckton has accepted my invitation to join UKIP as our chief spokesman on Climate Change.

    “He was Margaret Thatcher’s Special Adviser in Downing Street on a number of areas, including science. He is now perhaps the world’s leading expert on the case against Man-made Global Warming, and as such is a household name in the United States and elsewhere.

    “To have another heavyweight join us at this time shows how the party is continuing to grow”.

  130. Ken Harvey says:

    This old layman has spent more than a dozen hours a day studying Climategate this past three weeks. I conclude that whether CO2 emissions are any great problem is unsettled. I conclude that there seems to be no reason to believe that global warming outside of historical bounds has taken place. I am left with nothing but my original belief that climate is almost totally dictated by solar activity that we are never going to be able to influence. I further conclude that the warming enthusiasts have no understanding whatever of economics and are prepared to see unimaginable amounts of someone else’s money thrown at carbon reduction.

    There is no doubt that we have very serious pollution problems that are real and undeniable. Just one of those is marine pollution and the decimation of sea life.

    Seeing that we have this unimaginably large funding just looking for a home, I have a target for it that would help save the oceans and very substantially reduce CO2 emissions right around the globe. What we should do is insist that all shipping converts to wind power – sailing. Some oil spillage, arguably, would be avoided, truly massive amounts of bunker fuel pollutants including CO2 and methane would be eliminated, and those far eastern “trawlers” would stop cruising down the eastern coast of Africa, and past my front door, trailing their ten kilometer long lines threaded every few feet with large hooks. In case it may be thought that I exaggerate, I repeat, ten kilometers.

    That, of course, is dreamland thinking and no one will take it seriously. Equally unrealistic is that man will be able to reduce gas emissions until we have a new means of locomotion. Short of that we should need a new ice age to do the “trick”.

  131. Robinson says:

    Guys,

    Before you get too carried away by the oratory and its potential impact, bear in mind that the UK house of Lords is largely hereditary.

    Yes Hereditary.

    For all you US readers out there. You fought a revolution to get government for the people and by the people.

    There are 750 peers, of which around 90 are hereditary.

  132. DennisA says:

    Scientists behaving like NGO activists……

    That link doesn’t seem to be working at the moment but the essence is this: Bill Hare, IPCC Lead author and SPM co-author has been at the Potsdam Institute since 2002. He has been Greenpeace international Climate Campaign Director for most of that time. European Climate Forum still names him as from Greenpeace. Bill Hare has stepped up a gear at Potsdam and has just formed a new “not-for-profit” group, Climate Analytics, with funding from the German Federal Government:

    http://sites.google.com/a/climateanalytics.org/test/welcome/team

    “Dr. h.c. Bill Hare is a Physicist and Environmental Scientist with more than twenty years experience in relation to the science, impacts and policy responses to climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion.
    (I presume the “h.c.” refers to the honorary nature of his doctorate)

    He was awarded and (sic) Honorary Doctor of Science by Murdoch University in 2008 for his contributions to the climate change isses” (sic). (didn’t include proof reading)

    He has however been calling himself Dr for many years but I have not to date found any scientific qualifications for him.

    23 March 2009. Hare co-ordinated a letter to the US Senate and Congress: “from leading US scientists and CLIMATE ANALYTICS Project Coordinator Bill Hare.”

    Dr. Stephen Schneider *
    Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies
    Stanford University

    Dr. Thomas Lovejoy
    Biodiversity Chair
    The John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment

    Dr. Michael Oppenheimer *
    Albert G Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs
    Princeton University

    Dr. H. Ronald Pulliam
    Regents Professor Emeritus
    University of Georgia

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth *
    Head of the Climate analysis Section
    National Center for Atmospheric Research

    Dr. (h.c.). Bill Hare *
    Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

    • IPCC Convening Lead Author or Lead Author for AR4

    Joining Hare in this new climate company is Dr Malte Meinshausen, lead co-author with Hare of the recent Nature paper:

    “On the way to phasing out emissions: More than 50% reductions needed by 2050 to respect 2°C climate target”

    One link of thousands:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-chaos-predicted-by-co2-study-1676411.html

    He has co-authored with Hare on this topic before, in 2004:
    http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/action_climat/library?l=/meinshausen_commitment/_EN_1.0_&a=i
    2°C target and warming commitment

    And 2006: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g5861615714m7381/
    Bill Hare1 and Malte Meinshausen2, 3

    Like Bill Hare, Meinshausen is a climate activist and says he has worked as a “consultant” for Greenpeace and WWF although as recently as December 2008 he was telling his Oxford college website that: “I now work on the issue of climate policy at the UN Climate Change Conferences for Greenpeace International.”

    Like Hare, he has also been prominent in the Climate Action Network:

    Sinks in the CDM
    http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop8/enbots/asc/enbots1105e.txt
    Issue #5 ENB on the side – UNFCCC COP-8, 29 October 2002

    Presented by the Climate Action Network (CAN)
    Malte Meinshausen, Greenpeace, highlighted the Protocol’s requirement that all CDM projects result in “real, measurable and long-term benefits”. He stressed that: sinks are not permanent; sinks with full liability are not equivalent to permanent emission reductions; and the carbon storage of eligible projects should be sustainable for hundreds of years.

    He has also co-authored with Jennifer Morgan of WWF: http://www.foejapan.org/climate/doc/tokyoconf/09b_MORGAN.pdf (2004)

    In 2007, Morgan served as Senior Advisor to the German Chancellor´s Chief Advisor, Dr. Schellnhuber and in 2008 advised former Prime Minister Tony Blair in his Breaking the Climate Deadlock project. She is now at the World Resources Institute which is represented on the management board of the UK Grantham Climate Institute at LSE of which Lord Stern is head.

    Search the CRU e-mails for Dr Stephan Singer, Greenpeace, and see the influence on research and presentation.

    The NGO influence is deeply embedded in IPCC.

  133. DennisA says:

    Sorry, getting carried away, Singer is WWF not Greenpeace.

  134. Roger Knights says:

    “Some scientists ARE NGO activists. Read this http://forum.junkscience.com/index.php?topic=288.0 and then google Climate Analytics. “

    When I click on that I get a not available message.

  135. UK Sceptic says:

    TanGeng (16:13:14) :

    “More like the House of Lords has no power so they aren’t constantly being bombarded by bribes by the vested interests at large.

    That’s why House of Lords will be reflect truth more than the House of Commons”

    Sadly not true. Our peers are as venal and corrupt as the Commons MPs are

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5592511.ece
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6736141.ece

    However, it seems that Christopher Monckton has joined the UK Independence Party for whom I voted during the EU elections and for whom I shall be voting come the 2010 General Election.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/monckip.html

    At least some of our Lords are worthy, thank goodness.

  136. 3x2 says:

    There is a lot to be said for an independent tier of Government. Eloquent and to the point.

    What do we get from the PM? “flat-earthers” and “anti-science”. I suppose you would have to say that if you get your advice from CRU/MO (anybody else noticed that they have become one and the same of late?) and the noble sounding Committee on Climate Change (nice work if you can get it)

  137. Mailman says:

    TerryS (16:03:43),

    Unfortunately Labour has undermined this “impatiality” by appointing Labour party stooges to the house of lords just so they can control what goes on in the upper house.

    Also, Labour saw fit to get rid of the Lords as being the last call of port for anyone seeking legal redress. This has now been replaced by a Supreme Court, who in their first ruling ruled AGAINST the people on bank charges.

    Once upon a time the House of Lords used to be an independent body of fuddy duddies, but no more. They are now being appointed by who ever the Government is to further that Governments aims and objectives.

    Mailman

  138. 3x2 says:

    JustPassing (01:16:27) :

    Lord Turnbull

    “My electricity costs me 11p per kilowatt hour. If I erected a wind turbine, I could sell the power I produced to the grid for a whopping 23p. I think I would go out and buy a gizmo which linked my inward meter to my outward meter.”

    I like the way he thinks. :)

    Then you will love the UK. He is only “in the ball park” though. You don’t go out and buy a gizmo, you get a grant to buy a gizmo. Should your gizmo not perform as anticipated then you get subsidies until it does (or change the method of accounting).

    It operates like a huge money laundering scheme that nobody can unravel. Nobody can say where the money comes from or where it goes in the many and various schemes only that prices are rising. Most UK residents recognise that domestic fuel bills have gone through the roof in the last few years but few have yet linked this to happy folk working the carbon scam for all it is worth.

  139. JB says:

    I have a simple response to any AGW Thermomonster ranting on at you about the evils of mankind and global warming – say nothing and just outline the shape of a sine-wave in the air with your finger. It sums up my thoughts on the issue very succinctly.

  140. Pogo says:

    “40shadesofgreen”… You are incorrect, the House of Lords has only a small minority of hereditary peers, the vast majority are appointees of one government or another.

  141. A Smith says:

    Thanks for the LGF links Wakefield Tolbert. Charles J changes his opinions with the weather these days; remember, only two years ago he was classed as a “right wing” “denier” of AGW. He is currently in a state of political flux, whipped-up by the anti-science, creationist loons in the US. It saddens me that he now unreasonably classes AGW sceptics alongside intelligent-designers.

    The emails merely confirm what many refuters of AGW have been saying for years: that AGW is an unproven theory driven by agenda driven scientists. Show me the AGW equivalent of e=mc2, or a repeatable experiment that takes into account all the forcings, feedback loops and planetary gas/liquid interactions with solar and magnetic influences and I will accept those emails and software scripts have been taken out of context. They can’t even demonstrate an audit trail for their data ffs. If you really look into the SW code and emails you will realise just how sloppy, hit and miss and unprofessional their work was at the time, and be amazed that 10 years of government climate policy was based upon.

  142. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Well said, my Noble Lord!

    It is often asserted by socialist upstarts, that the House of Lords is an anachronism which must be brought under the control of the House of Commons.

    Whilst that might be an interesting theoretical construct in the scenario that the level of statesmanship, scientific knowledge, intellectual rigour of enquiry, worldliness, business experience and financial excellence were to clearly outstrip the House of Peers, it is currently the case that the ministrations of the Commoners reported by the Media would indicate that precisely the reverse would appear, currently, regrettably, to be the case.

    I applaud what is, within the august chamber you clearly occupy with considerable worthiness, the equivalent of Mohammed Ali’s rope-a-dope response in Round 8 and hope that suitable political mechanisms exist so that the punches thrown are able to reach the necessary targets, as I suspect that Mrs Palin is both too ladylike and shrewd to be seen to be engaging in such downstairs behaviour over the next three years…..

    It is perhaps important that both yourself and the good Lord Lawson target the politics of the future rather than the politics of the present. Clear signals have emerged on public political debating programmes that elements of the future clearly would be responsive to your ministrations, although they are currently considerably constrained in their freedom of movement in public chambers. The Eastern Rose may be a good place to start, I suspect…..

    I look forward to the successful germination of your latest JV with your fellow Noble Lord and hope that its sustainable growth is mirrored by sustainable policies within what is currently a highly febrile, somewhat contentious and significantly religious field of human endeavour. I understand that building international bridges in the religious sphere is expected to continue in London in the near future. Perhaps a few Copenhagen delegates might profitably seek some enlightenment there?

    Especially if their international travel budgets extend toward stimulating the UK economy by inbound flights, usage of quality hotels and enjoying the experiences of the London night is on their agenda……

  143. Stefan says:

    great choice of word, “synthetic”:

    “combining”, “artificial”, “man-made”, “not-natural”.

    Wish my command of the language was that good.

  144. Vincent says:

    UK Sceptic,

    “However, it seems that Christopher Monckton has joined the UK Independence Party for whom I voted during the EU elections and for whom I shall be voting come the 2010 General Election.”

    Although I agree with your sentiments, I feel to vote for the UKIP during the general election would be a terrible tactical blunder. These UKIP votes will be coming at the expense of Conservative votes. Are you really prepared to risk Brown winning the election?

  145. Martin Brumby says:

    The full House of Lords debate is at:-
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91208-0007.htm#091208100000169
    Don’t assume that Lord Turnbull’s is typical! There is a good contribution from Lord Reay (timed at 6:27pm) which does one of the best demolition jobs on wind power that I have seen. And Lord Hunt of Chesterton (at 7:33pm) talks at least some sense. But otherwise it is pretty much an AGW lunacy wasteland with particularly disingenuous and stupid contributions from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (opening and concluding the debate) and the egregious Lord Stern.
    Another first rate speech was given 17 November last year by Lord Lawson of Blaby.
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/81117-0007.htm#0811175000244
    when the Climate Change Bill was voted on.
    Occasionally you do at least get sensible debate in the Lords, increasingly a rarity in the Commons.

  146. Tim Clark says:

    Given the extent to which the outcome is affected by the statistical techniques and the weightings applied by individual researchers, it is essential that the work is done as transparently as possible, with the greatest scope for challenge. That is why the disclosure of documents and e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit is so disturbing. Instead of an open debate, a picture is emerging of selective use of data, efforts to silence critics, and particularly a refusal to share data and methodologies.

    I’m halfway finished memorizing this paragraph for later use.

    In the finest style of NFL trades, the USA will trade 60, 7th round draft choices for one Lord Turnbull, and throw in the entire democrat practice squad Representatives.

  147. John Sims says:

    Yes, a great speech. Unfortunately most of the Peers of the Realm vote unthinkingly for their party (or church in the case of the bishops) – which means that ouit of 735 of them, around 500 will vote, regardless of the arguments are put (no matter how lucid or compelling) according to party. And all the parties are signed up to the IPCC line. Well, with 80% of our laws handled by unelected EU commissars (sorry, commissioners) or quangocrats, I guess ignoring the public (to say nothing of the contrary evidence) on global warming is just par for the course.

  148. Silmaril says:

    “No other party except the UK Independence Party believes that Britain should remain a self governing country.”

    Not true. The BNP also believes this. They also believe the science behind AGW is not settled.

  149. Tenuc says:

    Good news that Lord Monckton is joining UKIP. I was planning to abstain from next years General Election – can’t vote Labour or Lib-Dem because they’re both embroiled in the EU dream of a united Europe, and can’t vote Tory, as Cameron is a self aggrandising, elitist prate.

    UKIP seems like the last hope for those like me who believe in common sense and freedom. Our pseudo-democracy is a fascist state by any-other name, as is most of the rest of the western world.

    The Earth turns and I think it is time for a fresh beginning again.

  150. Well, with 80% of our laws handled by unelected EU commissars (sorry, commissioners) or quangocrats, I guess ignoring the public (to say nothing of the contrary evidence) on global warming is just par for the course.

    Interesting this is now stated. Here in the US we’re told by “official” clearninghouses of info that if we outsource our laws (which it is also denied we’d EVER do such) by treaties and the like, the US Constitution is still our ultimate backup and shelter against Euro-styled regulation.

    It is not, of course, in that treaties in case law have the effect of superceding US law.

    The current rage being over the mere possibility of regulating, say, guns and carbon, to name of couple of things plucked at random from the news.

    Of course, the defendes of notions of, say, intense carbon regulation and joining a Euro-esque, EU-styled international governance of unelected busybodies is always defended as the requisite move to save the planet and regulate behavior, even while it is also denied this means loss of freedoms at the personal level, etc.

  151. tallbloke says:

    Partington (01:03:25) :
    Global Warming from “greenhouse gases” is indeed real. Turnbull knows that and Monkton knows that. A simple calculation based on satellite data of Earth’s energy balance show a likely warming of about 1.8 degrees C from a doubling of “early” CO2 levels. We’ve already had about 0.8 degrees so that leaves another degree to go, nothing to worry about and perhaps even welcome.
    The “problem” is the hype and how this one degree or less is parlayed into four or even six degrees. That’s where the dodgy science enters and one can be very easily sucked into belief.

    The problem with this argument is that it assumes the rest of the climate system stays te same while the thoeretical warming effect of co2 takes place. There is plenty of evidence to show it doesn’t.

    No-one knows how the Earth will adjust its temperature through various feedbacks. End of.

  152. Mark Fawcett says:

    As the Lord’s speech referenced the recent “Act on CO2″ advertising campaign I thought I’d give an update…

    I (and many others) complained about these Government sponsored adverts around October time. I received a prompt and very professional response from the Advertising Standards Agency. I then heard nothing more so I sent them an email (a couple of weeks ago) asking [a] what was happening and [b] how many people had complained.

    I’ve just received the following:


    Dear Sir/ Madam,

    Please find attached an update letter on the progress of this case.

    We regret that due to the volume of complaints received we are not able to enter into individual correspondence.

    Thank you for your patience.

    Kind regards,
    Jenny A.

    Again a proper response (see below) and nice to see. For the ASA to respond like this, regarding “volume of complaints” means there must have been one hell of a lot of disgruntled types like mygoodself; it’s the only time I’ve ever felt angry enough to complain officially about any advert on TV. The attached letter reads thus:


    DECC “Bedtime Story” Ad Complainants Please Quote: A09-106458/JA

    By E-mail

    10 December 2009

    Dear Sir/ Madam

    YOUR COMPLAINT: ACT ON CO2 TV AND PRESS ADS

    You complained to the ASA about the Act On CO2 campaign by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We are writing to update you as to progress.

    As you may know, we have received several hundred complaints about ads in both broadcast and non-broadcast media. We are now investigating seven separate points of complaint in relation to the TV advertising and three in relation to the press advertising. Two of the points of complaint about the TV advertising have been referred simultaneously to Ofcom, who are responsible for deciding whether the TV ads constitute political advertising.

    The fact that this case concerns many points of complaint relating to several ads, in different media, and spanning the regulatory responsibilities of both the ASA and Ofcom makes this an unusually complex investigation. We are progressing it as quickly as possible, but we need to look into all aspects thoroughly. We have now received a response from the advertiser (the Department of Energy and Climate Change [DECC]) to the points of complaint made and are in the process of considering that. Ofcom is still considering the complaints concerning political advertising.

    We have now received complaints about four press ads [“Three Men in a Tub” (b) “Jack and Jill” (c), “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” (d), and “The Cow Jumped Over the Moon” (e)]. Please find below an updated summary of the points we are investigating:

    Many viewers complained about the TV ad (a) because they believed:

    1. the ad was political in nature and should not be broadcast;

    2. the theme and content of the ad, for example the dog drowning in the storybook and the depiction of the young girl to whom the story was being read, could be distressing for children who saw it;

    3. the ad should not have been shown when children were likely to be watching television;

    4. the ad was misleading because it presented human induced climate change as a fact, when there was a significant division amongst the scientific community on that point;

    5. the claim “over 40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things” was misleading;

    6. the representation of CO2 as a rising cloud of black smog was misleading;

    7. the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding in the UK, and associated imagery in the ads, were exaggerated, distressing and misleading;

    8. Many complainants objected to the press ads (b) (c) and (d) on the grounds of (4) and (7) above.

    9. One complainant objected to the press ad (e) on the grounds of (5) above

    The TV ad (a) will be investigated under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 4 (Political and controversial issues), 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (Misleading advertising: general), 5.2.1 (Misleading advertising: evidence), 5.2.6 (Misleading advertising: environmental claims), 6.4 (Harm and offence: personal distress), 7.4.6 (Children: distress), 7.4.7 (Children: use of scheduling restrictions) and CAP (Broadcast) TV Scheduling Code rule 4.2.3 (Treatments unsuitable for children).

    The press ads (b), (c), (d) and (e) will be investigated under CAP Code clauses 3.1, 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 9.1 and 9.2 (Fear and distress), 49.1 and 49.3 (Environmental Claims).

    Once we have reached an initial conclusion, we will make a recommendation to the ASA Councils as to whether or not we believe the ads may breach the advertising Codes on one or more points. We will do this as soon as we can, but it is important that we follow our published procedures, and that means we will not be in a position for the Councils to make a final decision on the case until the New Year.

    We will write to you again with a copy of our final adjudication and the date it will be published on the ASA website http://www.asa.org.uk. We regret that, due to finite resources, we will not be able to provide another update until then.

    We hope you find this information helpful. As before, we ask you to keep confidential all correspondence relating to this case.

    Yours sincerely

  153. David Watt says:

    One of the best and most balanced overviews of the position we have seen.
    Now we need to start on the next step. A good start would be a significant overview of the temperature data.

    CRU, the Met Office, NASA and NOAA have all been doing this, but Climategate shows us they are colluding with one another and that on an issue as important as this, we cannot depend on them to be totally trustworthy

  154. Tim Clark says:

    E.M.Smith (22:15:35) :
    To the extent funding can be secured, other volunteers may be recruited, provided they pass an extensive interview process that would assess their ability to tolerate the noxious side effects of the large doses that well may need to be applied for proper evaluation.

    We simply must gain a greater understanding of the environmental impacts of the vast quantities of these zymurgy products set loose in the economy and the nitrogen rich metabolites produced hours, or sometimes mere minutes, later. It is up to you. Please, do it for the children.

    It would be an honor for me, on behalf of my grandchildren, to volunteer for the odious task of supplying whatever raw materials are necessary to further this splendid endeavor.

  155. ralph says:

    Hey – even the old duffers in the Lords understand the many problems.

    .

  156. Bernie in Pipewell says:

    Tenuc

    As they say in the other place Hear Hear.

    I’ve always voted tory but its UKIP this time.

  157. UK Sceptic says:

    Vincent, I’m anti-EU and anti-AGW. David Cameron, leader of the Not The Tories, is pro both. Although I’ve voted Conservative all my adult life there is currently no such beast as a Conservative Party. Voting Brown out is not a good enough reason to vote “Cast Iron” Cameron in. If only we had another Margaret Thatcher to take the helm. Seeing Rompuy and his creatures “handbagged” would be a treat.

    Since we effectively lost our sovereignty on the first of December and are now ruled from Brussels, I’m not actively seeking the re-election of the party who sold the UK out to Dark Socialist Forces or voting for the wannabes who want us to remain a vassal state and be taxed into the Dark Ages in the name of Gaia. As far as I’m concerned they are treasonous and should be booted through Traitors Gate and locked in the Tower from whence they ought to be taken…

    Unfortunately, this isn’t going to happen so I’ll be voting UKIP instead.

  158. Partington says:

    tallbloke (08:35:04) :

    “The problem with this argument is that it assumes the rest of the climate system stays te same while the thoeretical warming effect of co2 takes place. There is plenty of evidence to show it doesn’t.
    No-one knows how the Earth will adjust its temperature through various feedbacks. End of.”

    What you write is true tallbloke, that’s why I was careful only to cite empirical evidence: Earth’s radiation balance from satellite data which includes all current feedbacks of whatever sign. Whether my suggestion of one degree warming to come (for doubling early CO2 levels) is right or wrong at least Monckton acknowleges some small amount of future warming based on empirical evidence as indeed do I. I put myself firmly in the sceptical camp but cannot deny the possibility of some slight warming by GHG’s, after all we have about 33 degrees from greenhouse gases (one of which is water) which keeps the Earth comfy.

  159. Hangtime55 says:

    I find it unusual when Climategate finally reaches the British House of Lords after 4 weeks !

    The House of Lords meets in the Palace of Westminster in London , approx. 116 mi (about 2 hours 28 mins) from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit , Norwich , UK. One could almost open their windows in London and smell the stench of ClimateGate .

  160. Mercurior says:

    this is why we have the house of lords, as a balance against, politicians, the house of lords is unelected, and they have nothing to gain.. they have their peerage..

  161. Derek says:

    Charles. U. Farley (00:54:21) :

    Michael (17:36:31) :

    AdderW (17:10:36) : Wrote

    “My new mantra:
    Refuter is the word – I am a refuter

    Absolutely.

    I join this “bandwagon” as well, I AM A REFUTER.

    Re – Lords – Before we get too carried away with our (well some anyway – there was a lords expenses scandal as well wasn’t there) Lord Monckton is so sure of the British “system” he has gone to America….

    The real problem remains however, as the “lower” houses of elected representatives, still “represent” the brain washed, and lilly brained masses (sheepeople).
    The CRU emails are the turning point, BUT whilst the met office et al continue as “normal”, that is evidence enough that skeptics, the refuters, work is still not done by a long chalk. It now truely starts. So that the sheepeople have some chance of catching up with those brave enough to speak out, like lord Turnbull.

    I still have not seen a single mention of the MLO dataset, you remember, a 60 year dataset, with no raw data and no algorithms used. Surely it (and those that “maintain it” were mentioned in the emails.
    As it used to be quite a frequently mentioned subject on these pages, it does seem surprising that Anthony and Co. have not been apparently delving into it for, to be honest, some years now. Why. ?
    This is surely the time to delve again, and
    this is THE other main metric relied upon, not as yet mentioned.
    Quite surprising really that the CO2 record has not cropped up………

  162. Derek says:

    Maybe I’m being a bit too cynical, but,

    Britain – we’ll “handle” temperature,
    USA – we’ll “handle” CO2 levels and assumptions.
    Europe – we’ll “handle” the beauocracy (hat tip to Willie Soon).

    Game, set and match.

    Re – Europe – Is anyone else also reminded of The Hitch hikers Guide to the Galaxy…
    Specifically the first chapter where Earth complains about not being told it was due to be demolished by a vogan constructor fleet for some sort of space highway.
    We were told apparently, the plans were plainly on public display in a basement of an obscure coucil building on Alfa Senturi, in a small cupboard, with a large notice on the door in bold letters stating,
    BEWARE OF THE LEOPARD.

  163. DennisA says:

    Roger Knights (02:55:41) : Yes, see my subsequent post, DennisA (02:53:48) :

  164. John Diffenthal says:

    Monckton’s paper at the end of November was entertaining but had too much hyperbole for me. Turnbull’s contribution, despite the limited scope was more powerful. I’m genuinely impressed that we have people of this calibre in the Lords.

  165. John Diffenthal says:

    Ray (15:58:42)

    It isn’t such a dichotomy as you might think – there are plenty of people on here and Climate Audit that acknowledge that the globe has grown warmer over the past 150 years or so. The question is what is the cause and what can we do about it.

    If it has a natural cause then we should consider whether all these carbon saving measures make economic sense given our longer term need to reduce our energy dependence on oil. If they do then that’s great, let’s do them, but let’s not pretend that they have much to do with reducing the levels of Co2 in the atmosphere.

    I particularly liked Turnbull’s analysis of the impact of wind power on the merit order – the order in which different generation sets are called to deliver power to the grid depending on the costs of bringing them up to power, the marginal cost of running them and the costs of swithching them down subsequently. At one time the merit order had an obligation to put together a load curve based on minimum cost. Once you have a renewable target, that obligation has to be forgotten.

  166. alan neil ditchfield says:

    CLIMATEGATE
    THE LEBENSRAUM FALLACY
    The Lebensraum doctrine of Green activists rests on three tenets they accept with an act of faith:
    • We are running out of space. World population is already excessive on a limited planet and cannot grow without dire effects.
    • We are running out of means. The planet’s non-renewable resources are being depleted by consumption at a rate that renders economic expansion unsustainable.
    • We shall fry. Carbon dioxide emitted by human economic activity causes global warming that shall make the planet uninhabitable.
    When such tenets are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands out sharply.
    Is overpopulation a grave problem? The sum of urban areas of the United States is equivalent to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely inhabited countries such as England and Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If comparison is limited to land covered by buildings and pavements the occupied land in the whole world amounts to 0,04% of the terrestrial area of the planet. With 99.96% unoccupied the idea of an overcrowded planet is an exaggeration. Population forecasts are uncertain but the most accepted ones foresee stability of world population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, world population may begin to decline at the end of this century. With so much elbowroom it is untenable that world population is excessive or shall ever become so.
    Strictly speaking, no natural resource is non-renewable in a universe ruled by the Law of Conservation of Mass. In popular form it holds that “Nothing is created, nothing is lost, all is transformed.” Human usage is not subtracted from the mass of the planet, and in theory all material used may be recycled. The possibility of doing so depends on availability and low cost of energy. When fusion energy becomes operative it will be available in practically unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, a hydrogen isotope found in water, in a proportion of 0.03%. One cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than can be obtained from combustion of all known petroleum reserves of the world. Since oceans hold 3 billion cubic kilometers of water, energy will last longer than the human species.
    There is no growing shortfall of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the middle of the 19th century The Economist publishes consistent indices of values of commodities and they have all declined, over the period, due to technological advances. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was 8 times greater in 1850 than it is today. In 1950, less than half of a world population of 2 billion had an adequate diet, above 2000 calories per day. Today, 80% have the diet, and world population is three times greater.
    There is a problem with the alleged global warming. It stopped in 1998, after having risen in the 23 previous years. It unleashed a scare over its effects. Since 1998 it has been followed by 11 years of declining temperatures, in a portent of a cold 21st century. This shows that there are natural forces shaping climate, more powerful than manmade carbon dioxide and anything mankind can do for or against world climate. The natural forces include cyclical oscillation of ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect of magnetic activity of the sun on cosmic rays. All such cycles are foreseeable, but there is no general theory of climate with predictive capacity. What knowledge exists comes from one hundred fields, such as meteorology, oceanography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology, paleontology, biology, etc. with partial contributions to the understanding of climate.
    Devoid of support of solid theory and empirical data, the mathematical models that underpin alarmist forecasts amount to speculative thought that reflects the assumptions fed into the models. Agenda driven computer simulations offer no rational basis for public policy that inhibits economic activity “to save the planet”. And carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is the nutrient needed for photosynthesis that supports the food chain of all living beings of the planet. But carbon dioxide became a toxic-by-decree of the Obama administration, with an act that smells of rotten bananas of a comic opera republic.
    Stories of doom circulate daily. Anything that happens on earth has been blamed on global warming: a Himalayan earthquake, a volcanic eruption, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, tribal wars in Africa, a dust storm in Australia, recent severe winters in North America, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, known for five centuries, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. Evo Morales blames Americans for the summer floods in Bolivia.
    Global warming is not a physical phenomenon; it is a political and journalistic phenomenon that finds parallel in the totalitarian doctrines that inebriated masses deceived by demagogues. As Chris Patten put it: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.” Their dream is the hippies’ lifestyle of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and vegetarian diet, imposed on the world by decree of Big Brother, and justified by the Lebensraum fallacy.

  167. Roger Knights says:

    Vincent said:

    “I feel to vote for the UKIP during the general election would be a terrible tactical blunder. These UKIP votes will be coming at the expense of Conservative votes. Are you really prepared to risk Brown winning the election?”

    Elections should employ an instant runoff feature (computerized voting makes it easy), whereby votes for losers get reassigned to their preference among the two top vote-getters. (I think there’s something like this in Australia already.)

  168. Vincent is worried that voting UKIP may cause Brown to be re-elected, so he must be assuming Labour are running the country. They’re not – any more than the Tories would be if they won. The EU is running the country, so it will make no difference whether Labour, Conservative or LibDems get in to Westminster. If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you’ll keep getting what you’ve always got. If you want real change, we all have to vote for a different party that will get our democracy back.
    By the way, my favourite question to any of the AGW camp, when they say it is critical we don’t allow average global temperature to rise more than two degress is – “Above what?”
    I’m still waiting for an answer.

  169. Andy Deady says:

    An interesting development reported on the BBC website just now. Apparently our male-dominated climate scepticism is bred form an early age where men of a certain persuasion were “psychologically damaged”

    Utter nonsense from the left leaning BBC once again.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html

  170. Pamela Gray says:

    My just sent letter to my Democratic Senator:

    Dear Senator Merkley,

    Well, well, well. I still have the text of the response letter I received from you a while ago regarding my concerns with climate change. Would you like me to send it back to you to refresh your memory?

    My position stands as before. I am a registered Democrat. Liberal in my views of my fellow humans, conservative in my own way of life. I have voted the Democratic ticket almost exclusively during my entire adult life. But this climate change business has turned out to be a water shed event for me.

    Tell me, what say you now about climate change? Still want to hang your career on it? Because in truth, if you do, your career will surely be hanged by it.

    Sincerely,
    Your Constituent

Comments are closed.