Lord Oxburgh (Of the famed Oxburgh non-inquiry of Climategate) was interviewed on Australia’s ABC radio recently
Simon at Australian Climate Madness, has the audio, transcript, and story. Well worth a look and listen for the sheer ineptitude on display.
Bishop Hill comments:
The interviewer is very impressed that an oil industry man is so convinced of AGW. He also seems well informed about Oxburgh’s advisory role to banks and governments. Strangely, however, he doesn’t seem to have picked up that Oxburgh is heavily involved in the renewables industry.
I found this bit interesting, apparently we just don’t have the right breeding and lineage to ask useful questions:
“Most of the allegations that had been made basically by bloggers and others against the UEA, certainly against their honesty and reputation, were really unfounded.”
“[Scientists] were like rabbits in the headlights and they did some stupid things, but they weren’t dishonest and really anything that happened then didn’t reflect on the fundamental science of climate change.”
Josh’s cartoon on Oxburgh is still relevant today:
Readers may recall that Oxburgh spent just 45 hours on the inquiry, much of that at lunches and dinners, and didn’t even ask pertinent questions. See: Lord Oxburgh’s whirlwind whitewash tour
This was an impartial investigation and there was never any hint of whitewash.
There, fixed. There was no hint of any conflict or bias whatsoever. Now move along folks.
There is no one like the British Establishment who consider themselves more above criticism and having no reason to explain their actions to their supposed intellectual inferiors .
No one patronises those it sees as its class and intellectual inferiors like the British Establishment.
Oxburgh is a card carrying member of the British Establishment. In reality, he views his critics as little less then vermin, a trait he shares with His Manniness.
For our American friends, the equivalent of the British Establishment in our former colony is like being born in Massachusetts with the surname of Kennedy and having a late uncle Teddy.
The interviewer is very impressed that an oil industry man is so convinced of AGW. He also seems well informed about Oxburgh’s advisory role to banks and governments. Strangely, however, he doesn’t seem to have picked up that Oxburgh is heavily involved in the renewables industry.
Sorry, but does this comment deserve praise? Who cares about the “revewables industry,” they are not small potatoes, they are tiny tater tots. A “well-informed” person would know several reasons why an “oil industry man,” especially if one’s company is more loaded into NG than oil, would support the climate change train. Also, advisory role to banks? That’s another big target, not the “renewables industry.”
Cross-posting from the Bish’s admirable website – hope that neither you or he object.
—————————————
He was interviewed on the ABC, whose dedication to CAGW is possibly even more devout than that of the BBC. In fact, there is a website:
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com.au/
run by a savvy chap called Marc Hendrickx which devotes a lot of time to exposing the ABC’s most egregious errors about climate science. Marc has managed to squeeze retractions, rewrites and apologies out of them, but usually so long after the event that everyone else has forgotten about anything but the initial alarmist message. Sound familiar?
My own experience with the ABC’s propaganda mindset came a couple of years ago when they ran, once again, the simply false story about islands in the Cartaret group (Pacific) being drowned by rising seas due to SUVs and aircon and Western decadence generally. They have run this fairytale several times, before and since my fruitless complaint. Long before the scare du jour, it has been acknowledged that some islands in that area are sinking because of tectonic plate activity. I sent a formal complaint, complete with impeccable scientific references, and was basically told to go and resume crocheting in the corner facing the wall until I had overcome my attitude problem.
It is no surprise, therefore, that the ABC interviewer either didn’t bother, or didn’t care, to mess up the message of the interview encumbered by basic research. Slaves of dull, plodding fact are the antithesis of post-modern journalism, as exemplified by this interview.
I couldn’t give a rat’s, except that my taxes pay for this illiterate, unresearched rubbish.
I foresee the entry of a new verb into the politico-scientific lexicon: to Oxborough — conduct an inquiry which preclears all issues to be touched and avoided with the targets, so as to ensure a proper result.
typo: to Oxburgh —
The word journalism is taken from the French journal which in turn comes from the Latin diurnal or daily. Daily is something we all do in the latrine. Thus, a correlation that a journalist produces journalism, a daily outflow of product one might find in a latrine.
SniffstheBux;
the renewables industry is not “tiny tater tots” for any of the players involved. It is a multi-billion dollar per annum open artery which supports huge colonies of bloodsuckers and rent-seekers, not least of whom are the academics and “consultants” who somehow also get themselves appointed to government and international bodies in a position to smooth their way and to keep the flowing wound open and un-scabbed. Meanwhile committing governments like the whacks running California and the UK to hilarious stupidities like replacing 80% of all power with dilute, uncontrollable, hugely capital and (concrete and steel) infrastructure heavy unproven alternatives with thinly disguised costs multiples of every existing alternative.
It’s about like replacing all your food crops with Kudzu.
Follow the Money says:
“Sorry, but does this comment deserve praise? Who cares about the “revewables industry,” they are not small potatoes, they are tiny tater tots…”
Really? You don’t think being “heavily involved in the renewables industry” might have a profound influence on one’s view of AGW and might create a strong bias in its favor? Are you aware of the amount of government subsidies provided to the renewables industry? People tend not to bite the hand that feeds them. I suggest you “follow the money” if you want to understand why the statement is relevant.
Follow the Money says:
August 10, 2012 at 11:13 am
“Sorry, but does this comment deserve praise? Who cares about the “revewables industry,” they are not small potatoes, they are tiny tater tots. ”
You are very uninformed. The solar and wind industry and the project organizers have used the billions they got via subsidies in the form of FIT tariffs to build up the largest best-organized lobby organization in the EU and CONSTANTLY have their young manager boys travel to Brussels to give the poor lawmakers in the EU comission (Every comissioner has 500 well-paid underlings, all unelected) a little bit of “factual” input for their difficult lawmaking.
The laws are then presented to the democratically elected EU parliament whose ONLY competency is to rubberstamp then.
A tiny amount of the profits of the renewables complex also goes into R&D. But that was never the point. And if they accidentally managed to come up with a new product the first question was always – how do we get some incentives for this type of product. Quick, send a boy to Brussels to tell them what we have here. Because not one of these innovations can compete in a free market.
Follow the Money: Being of a penurious frame of mind, I generally wonder whose palms are being greased… but from what I’ve heard about investments in the renewables industry, it’s not just tater tots.
I would make a distinction between the actual value of the renewables industry and its assumed value to investors (including governments).
This bloated statistic from a Science Daily article, dated June of this year, may be spurious, but the fact that they can print it captures the Tulip-maniacal intent and fervor surrounding the renewables.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611092347.htm
Wouldn’t be the first time something of negligible real value became the focus of investors’ benighted adoration.
Still waiting for Lord Luvaduck to weigh in…
Bill Parsons says:
August 10, 2012 at 12:21 pm
This year, German electricity ratepayers alone will give 16 bn EUR to the owners of renewables contraptions. That’s about 20bn USD. The German FIT law, the EEG, has been copied by about 40 nations and 40 provinces around the globe. Greece for instance has a FIT of 36 Eurocents/kWh reward for solar.
So that gives you an idea of the money sloshing around, and remember, the FIT laws guarantee the agreed FIT for an installation over 20 years. This explains the attractiveness to investors in an environment where AAA debtor nations pay less interest rate on their bonds than the inflation.
The real energy infrastructure – the one that actually keeps the lights on and the traffic running , the one that still provides 99% of primary energy use – is already in place and needs comparatively little money to be maintained.
The ABC is ‘rotten’ with Climate Change. It was bribed by the present Labor Government with the awarding of a major contract to create and run an Asian English language satellite TV channel.
Given that, I for one am hoping that its incessant cheerleading for the Carbon Tax and all things ‘carbony’ will result in the upcoming Liberal National Government severely defunding it.
The other day I almost threw up when I heard someone on the Radio National rural program saying that ‘carbon’ farming could be almost as profitable as farming itself. It’s a mad, mad world.
And that would be Lord Oxburgh- former CEO of Shell Oil. Shell seems to have connections to many of the players in the Climastrology Shell game.
Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford) has a lot say about Oxburgh at http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html
This “new” thing is just more of the same old whitewash.
You have to wonder if someone does seminars on how to ignore the effects of economic incentives unless you are trying to create corrupted, self-interested behavior. I have learned to look for the conflict of interest. Usually it has been deliberately created and the dollars used by foundations or govts so far exceed anything a free market would pay that the addiction to jumping to secure and then maintain the statist revenue stream becomes a habit.
Q: And what do you say about the alleged expanding deserts?
Puls: That doesn”t exist. For example the Sahara is shrinking and has lost in the north an area as large as Germany over the last 20 years. The same is true in the South Sahara. The famine that struck Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia was mainly caused by the leasing of large swaths of land to large international corporations so that they could grow crops for biofuels for Europe, and by war. But it is much easier for prosperous Europe to blame the world’s political failures on a fictional climate catastrophe instead. (Meteorologist Klaus-Eckard Puls, translated by P Gosselin)
So they chose a climate zealot to investigate? Why doesn’t that surprise me.
To give credit where it is due, Oxburgh actually did have some sensible things to say in that interview. His comments on fracking, biodiesel and ethanol were spot on.
Peter Miller has it spot on. The British “upper class” are, in fact, the people responsible any time you see an American (or anyone else) railing about “Brits” – 99.999% of us had no influence at all over whatever corruption, degeneracy or crime is being discussed, and we can’t do anything to get rid of ’em.
What’s the opposite of “élite”? It’s a word we need.
The mention of the CCS Institute flagged up for me, check out the membership list, http://tinyurl.com/8m85q4w, that’s another place our money goes to. This is from Bishop Hill’s Climategate Inquiries, http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html, noted above by Andres Valencia.
“Lord Oxburgh was identified in the UEA press release as being ‘President of the
Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewables’, a company
involved in construction and operation of windfarms. Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that
Lord Oxburgh is also a member of an organisation called GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) and a member of the Green Fiscal Commission, a body which works to promote environmental taxes”
The current president of GLOBE is John Gummer, (Lord Deben), also the new chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee, which advises government on policy. He has his fingers in many green pies. For more on GLOBE, check out “United Socialist Nations”, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.html
On the International Advisory Board of the CCS Institute is Lord Nicholas Stern. Stern is Chairman of the London School of Economics Grantham Climate Institute and is a carbon trading advisor with Idea Carbon, an advisor to HSBC and a member of Schellnhuber’s Potsdam Scientific Advisory Board, along with Sir Brian Hoskins, (IPCC), who is the Director of Imperial College Grantham Climate Institute. Hoskins also features in Bishop Hill’s Climategate Inquiries. Also on the Potsdam “Scientific Advisory Board” is former WWF Climate Director, Jennifer Morgan, now at World Resources institute where Al Gore is on the Board. She is a former advisor to Tony Blair and John Schellnhuber.
For more on Stern check out http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers and “High Level Climate Finance” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/high_level_climate_finance.html
Schellnhuber is on the Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisory Board with Oxburgh and Lord John Browne, former BP, now Riverstone Holdings and Cuadrilla. Pachauri was on the Deutsche Board until a couple of years ago, his place has been taken by a former Director of Tata Sons and of Pachauri’s TERI Organisation.
Also on the CCS Institute Advisory board is Dr Leena Srivastava, Executive Director at TERI. She is also senior vice-president of TERI-North America, (TERI-NA) and a recent Director of Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, India’s largest utility company. She is additionally a member of the Meridian Institute board, whose chairman is former EPA chief, Bill Ruckelshaus. Srivastava was a Co-ordinating Lead Author for WG III in the IPCC TAR and was “anchor” for Sustainable Development for AR4. TERI-NA board of directors has other interesting names. http://www.terina.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33
Also on the Meridian Board is Frances Beinecke, President of the National Resources Defense Council. She is also on the WRI board with Al Gore and is co-chair of the Leadership Council of the Yale School of Forestry. TERI and IPCC’s Pachauri is Head of the Yale Climate and Energy Institute.
The network is huge and grows constantly as they continually invent new institutes, all funded by us.
Their Lordships.
It always sounds very grand to quote Lord XYZ, but the UK peerage system is just a political reward system and peerages are handed out like sweets.
Examples, Lord Oxburgh, ex Shell, Baron Oxburgh of Liverpool, made a Lord in 1999
Lord John Browne, ex BP, Baron Browne of Madingley, made a Lord in 2001
Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK FSA, recent Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee, Baron Turner of Ecchinswell, 2005
Lord Stern of Brentford, LSE former World Bank, Baron Stern of Brentford, 2007
Lord Deben, John Selwyn Gummer, former Conservative Environment Minister, now the new Chairman of the Climate Change Committee, Prominent supporter of Kyoto, also chairman of Forewind Consortium and several other green grant receiving companies, president of Globe International. Became Baron Deben of Winston, (in the County of Suffolk), in 2010.
It also means they can be brought into government without having to go through an election process.
Lord Oxburgh wishes to limit the Freedom of Information disclosure obligations which apply to universities as he stated recently in parliament. “I think it is widely accepted that when the freedom of information legislation was originally conceived, little or no thought was given to the effect that it might have on universities.”
Lord Oxburgh gives various reasons why the FOI Act should be restricted when applied to universities in the UK. Hansard 12 march 2012: column 61.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120312-0002.htm#12031237001050
The organisation Universities UK, submitted written evidence to parliament (July 25 2012) in which it made the following recomendations:
“The question of how the FOIA should be applied to a more diverse set of higher education providers needs resolving as a matter of urgency. We seek the advice of the Committee on how this should be dealt with as part of the new regulatory framework for higher education, currently being developed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
“Universities UK proposes that the Committee should reconsider the definition of activities that could be charged for and count towards the exemption where cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.
“Further advice and guidance on how the FOIA interacts with other legislation in a higher education context is required.
“Universities UK seeks greater clarity on whether higher education institutions could be treated in the same way as other organisations under the FOIA that have strong commercial interests.
“We seek the Committee’s support for the introduction to the FOIA of a limited exemption for pre-publication research.
“Universities UK calls on the Information Commissioner’s Office to clarify existing guidance about the application of current exemptions to research.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/96/96we08.htm
“Universities UK (UUK) is the representative organisation for the UK’s universities. Together with Higher Education Wales and Universities Scotland, its mission is to be the definitive voice for all universities in the UK, providing high quality leadership and support to its members to promote a successful and diverse higher education sector.”
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/AboutUs/WhoWeAre/Pages/default.aspx
Given their prominence and the obstructive attitude of universities to FOI requests, such requests relating to climate science must have played a considerable part in any discussions concerning how the FOI Act should be restricted when applied to universities.
“anything that happened then didn’t reflect on the fundamental science of climate change.”
This is the logical flaw. Given that the “Team” exhibited behavior that ranged from tribal to corrupt (e.g., hide the decline), what are the odds that they got the science right?
[ SNIP – I’m not interested in your snotty anonymous opinions right now given the circumstances we are going through, get off my blog for a week. Or get off permanently, I don’t care, but do refrain from further posting for a week, all your comments will be deleted without regard to merit. I’m sick to death of you and those like you right now. – Anthony]
Alex Heyworth says: August 10, 2012 at 6:40 pm
To give credit where it is due, Oxburgh actually did have some sensible things to say in that interview. His comments on fracking, biodiesel and ethanol were spot on.
__________
I agree Alex.
Oxburgh made sensible comments on fracking, biodiesel and ethanol. He was quite negative on corn ethanol for fuel, and I have long held this view. Also his views on oil supply and price were reasonable.
I completely disagree with his views on Climate Change and ClimateGate. I am surprised that a geologist could hold these views – all the competent geologists I know are climate skeptics.
Furthermore, Oxburgh is apparently oblivious to the complete failure of the predictions made by global warming alarmists. In science as in other professions and trades, one’s predictive track record is the single most important measure of one’s competence.
It is notable that none of the global warming alarmists’ scary scenarios has materialized. The alarmists predictive record is almost perfect, but in the negative – it is always wrong.
Almost every major conclusion written by the IPCC has proven false and even fraudulent:
– The Mann hockey stick, the Divergence Problem, Mike’s Nature trick, Hide the Decline; the ClimateGate letters;
– Contrary to IPCC projections, there has been NO net global warming for a decade or more, and no evidence of wilder weather, more hurricanes, or tornados;
– “Green energy “ technologies have failed to produce significant amounts of useful net energy.
– A trillion dollars of scarce global resources has been squandered on climate and energy nonsense.
Anthony, I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like this dude is just trying to provoke a reaction, so that whatever you say or do can be lifted from this page, taken out of context, twisted and used against you and others.
On another page, someone suggested that he deserved a month, while you suggested that after a week, you would try to return to a state of more tolerance.
In my opinion (FWIW), the problem of their twisting and taking out of context things that are said or done to them is the primary reason why we have to be careful. There are some who have the mindset of a predator, seeing us only as prey and willing to do things to us that we wouldn’t dream of doing to anyone … in order to get what they think they need. For this reason, I submit we cannot always give them what they may deserve. Doing so may seem sensible and may feel good, but it can also rebound against us. I think you intuitively know this. But just in case you were wavering, I offer the above for your consideration. Sometimes what is fair to oneself is not in one’s long-term interest.
Please consider that in telling others what you do, they will never, ever, ever accurately report what they did to provoke it. If they did that, the prey could “escape”, and presumably in their view, that is a survival situation for them or their loved ones. So I would expect them to act according to how they presumably see it.
RTF
When cruising the Thames, visitors are sometimes shown a clock that is a small diameter larger than Big Ben. It’s on the Shell building, so it’s named “Big Benzene”.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet of how the funds have been flowing through the green money institutions and insurers, free riders, tax avoiders, etc. In time, we will find out when we are old and grey unless someone in politics has the moral fortitude to call a Royal Commission into the whole smelly mess Like the Leveson Inquiry, now ending, but naming a few names in the process.
I encourage people to become wealthy when they make something of great benefit to mankind. I have profound regret that people can become wealthy by the quasi-legal manipulation of other people through propaganda and false statements and misuse of Science – in one word, corruption. In a few words, corruption against the greater good of ordinary people.
Wo really knows what is going on with Big Oil? There are conflicting statements. Here is one quoted in part from Oil Price.com
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Tougher-EU-Climate-Target-Would-Boost-EUs-GDP-By-842bn.html
………………………..
An increase in the EU’s target to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 30% by 2020 would boost its economy and cut unemployment, according to a report commissioned by the German government. Analysis of the economic impact of climate change policies usually focuses on how much they will slow growth in GDP, from the 2006 Stern review onwards. But the report, carried out by the Potsdam Institute, found that a more ambitious target could boost GDP by 6% to $15.4 trillion across the EU’s 27 member states, or an increase of about $842 billion (in 2004 terms).
“In traditional economic models, reducing greenhouse gas emissions incurs an extra cost in the short term which is justified by avoiding long-term damages,” said Carlo Jaeger, lead author of the report. “However, what we are showing here is that by credibly engaging on the transition to a low-carbon economy through the adoption of an ambitious target and adequate policies, Europe will find itself in a win-win situation of increasing economic growth while reducing greenhouse gases.”
A unilateral move to a 30% cut in GHGs from 1990 levels, up from the current 20% target, would help stimulate a rush of investment, the Potsdam Institute argues. The move could create a “virtuous circle of additional investment, learning-by-doing and expectation formation”, the report says, if the EU can “stabilise” investor expectations of the long-term trajectory towards sustainability.
(Now read this. Sounds like war to me):
“After the global crisis of 1929, such a surge of investment in Europe as elsewhere was initiated by the perspective of military armament. Nowadays, this is obviously not an option. However, after the financial crisis of 2007–08, the perspective of sustainable development can mobilise investment in a similar way for a worthier purpose,” the report says.
Geoff Sherrington says: August 12, 2012 at 3:37 am
Who really knows what is going on with Big Oil? There are conflicting statements. Here is one quoted in part from Oil Price.com
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Tougher-EU-Climate-Target-Would-Boost-EUs-GDP-By-842bn.html
____________
Hi Geoff.
The article you cite was written on 25 February 2011 – that’s 2011 – by an avid promoter of failed green energy technologies. The actual report was written by the “Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research” for the German Government . It is not, and never was, a statement by Big Oil.
Incidentally, “Big Oil” does not have one single position on this subject.
Shell and BP, for example, have been sympathetic to the global warmists’ position.
Exxon was scientifically opposed to global warming mania and fought it for a few years, and then capitulated to external pressure, including a boycott campaign launched by Greenpeace (and covertly financed by some other oil companies, imo). Recently Exxon’s Rex Tillerson spoke out again on this subject, advocating adaptation to climate change.
In the end, I believe that Exxon’s past opposition to CAGW mania, for which it was savaged in the media, will prove to be the correct scientific and ethical stance.
The developed world is entirely dependent on inexpensive, efficient energy for its economic and physical survival.
A trillion dollars has now been squandered on global warming hysteria and “green energy “ nonsense, with little of value produced. This climate and energy debacle is one of the root causes of the severe economic downturn in Europe. Even if Europe were to reverse direction now, it would take decades to pull itself out of the quagmire it has created.
Ridiculous reports like the subject document from the Potsdam Institute will not encourage such rational behaviour.
It should be obvious by now that these CAGW Institutions, like the IPCC, have NO predictive track record – every one of their major scientific predictions has proven false, and their energy and economic recommendations have proven costly and counterproductive.
In comparison, here is what we predicted a decade ago.
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
I (we) also predicted in a separate 2002 article that global cooling would return by 2020 to 2030. There has been no global warming for 10-15 years.
I suggest that natural global cooling is imminent, and is a far greater threat to humanity and the environment than global warming ever was.
I see little evidence that this threat of global cooling is recognized, or that any sensible plans are being developed to adapt to it.
Hope I’m wrong about global cooling, but I like our track record to date.
Hi Alan,
I knew the authors of the paper from which I quoted, but I wondered what it was doing on an oil industry fact sheet with no editorial to say if oil people agreed or not. Like you, I think Big Oil is all over the place, hedging bets, trying to turn a buck whichever way it can — as it should, but only by honest means.
This is really a simple solitaire game like you might find on your Windows PC. Actually, there are many solitaire games like this one on the iPhone, but Sol Free Solitaire stands head and shoulders above the rest. The graphics are clear and crisp, and the cards are extremely responsive to the touch of your finger as you drag them from pile to pile.If you’ve ever watched someone play Guitar Hero, then you know the basic concept of this game. Instead of a guitar, you tap on the screen to the beat of your favorite music. You can rack up a high score by tapping many notes in a row without missing any.