UK press commission rules on “The Great Green Con”

It seems reporter David Rose has been cleared of any press ethics issues related to his publication of “The Great Green Con” in the UK Mail on Sunday. It seems his article upset (as the Press Commission described) “an environmentalist and the author of greenerblog.blogspot.com” and a complaint was lodged about the accuracy of the article.

greatgreencon

Here’s the decision from the Press Commission (emphasis mine):

=================================================================

Dear Mr Wellington

Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now considered the complaint from Dr Lawson. The complainant’s concerns were reviewed within the context of the article as a whole, taking into consideration the requirements of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

After assessment the Commission has decided that no matters have been raised which show a breach of the Code. The more detailed reasons for the decision are below.

We are grateful to you for your co-operation in dealing with this matter.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Hales

rebecca.hales@pcc.org.uk

Commission’s decision in the case of Lawson v The Mail on Sunday

The complainant, an environmentalist and the author of greenerblog.blogspot.com, was concerned that the newspaper had published an article on the subject of climate change – both in print and online – which contained a number of alleged inaccuracies, misleading statements and distortions in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

Under the terms of Clause 1, “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information”; “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected promptly and with due prominence”; and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.

In this instance, the article under complaint formed part of a “four-page special report” entitled “The Great Green Con”.  The piece was written from the perspective of investigative journalist David Rose and, in the Commission’s view, readers would have recognised the article as one individual’s analysis of the information provided by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  When reporting scientific findings, publications must often present complex information to a general readership; this may involve an element of interpretation.  The newspaper was permitted, under the terms of the Code, to publish such interpretation of scientific data, however strongly disputed.

The Commission considered each of the points raised by the complainant in turn and carefully took note of the supporting material supplied by both parties.

The article was accompanied by a graph showing estimated temperature changes over time alongside the average temperature for the same period.  The complainant said the newspaper had misrepresented the nature of computer model hindcasting (where known or closely estimated inputs for past events are entered into a model to see how well the output matches the known results) when it described the earlier temperature records in the graph as having been “plotted in retrospect”.  The complainant said that if the graph had been accurately “plotted in retrospect” by hand, it would have displayed a post-1998 levelling off of surface temperatures.  The Commission considered that the newspaper was free to rely on a graph produced by computer model hindcasting showing predicted data originating from the IPCC and actual temperatures supplied by the Met Office.  While the complainant’s position was that the newspaper could have better explained to readers the processes behind generating such a graph, the Commission could not conclude that the description of predictions “plotted in retrospect” misrepresented what had been done in this instance.  There was no breach of the Code on this point.

With regard to the article’s claims that “the graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997” and “the awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years”, the complainant argued that this might possibly be true of the world’s average surfacetemperature, but the phrase “world’s average temperature” implied that all temperature measurements were included.  He said that when the continuing increase of ocean temperature is included, a statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature has continued since 1997.   The Commission could not agree that the phrase “world’s average temperature” would automatically be understood to include ocean temperature.  It considered that the readers would have understood the figures to represent surface temperature, as experienced in their day-to-day lives.  The Commission’s role is to administer the Editors’ Code of Practice and it emphasised that it is not the correct body to test veracity of the scientific data relied upon by the columnist.  However, it was able to conclude that the newspaper had not presented those figures to readers in such a way that would have misled them as to what was being shown by the graph.

The Commission noted that, contrary to the complainant’s assertion, the article did not refer to Dr David Whitehouse as an “expert” in the field of climate change.  Rather, he was given the broader description of “avowed climate sceptic” and author.  In the absence of any complaint from Dr Whitehouse that his position had been misrepresented, the Commission was unable to conclude that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 of the Code on this point.

Although the complainant considered that the newspaper should have explained to readers the background of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Commission made clear that the Code does not require newspapers to publish exhaustive information on a particular subject.  The omission of details about the political motivations of the Global Warming Policy Foundation did not render the article misleading or significantly inaccurate in such a way that would necessitate subsequent correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).  In any case, the Global Warming Policy Foundation was mentioned in the context of the report penned by Dr Whitehouse and, as his position as a sceptic was made clear, the Commission considered that it would have been clear to readers that the organisation was not impartial on the issue of climate change.

The complainant was concerned that the article’s reference to the “global cooling” theories of the 1970s was misleading as the idea was only put out by a very small group of scientists at that time.  The Commission noted his position that just seven scientific papers from the era suggested cooling, while six times that number suggested warming.  He had argued that the prevalence of global warming theories meant that it was wrong for the newspaper to state that “in the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming”.  This was plainly a matter of interpretation of scientific papers (which the complainant did not dispute existed) and the Commission considered that the newspaper was entitled to set out its editorial stance that historical concerns about global cooling are comparable to modern day fears about global warming.

The complainant objected to the article’s assertion that “the forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets”.  He asked the newspaper to provide examples of where more than one manufacturer had relocated to places with no emissions targets where the motivation of “no emission targets” was the primary driving factor.  The Commission noted that the during the complaints process the newspaper had supplied material detailing how companies – such as steel manufacturers and oil refineries – have closed or relocated due to carbon constraints.  The complainant had accepted the newspaper’s evidence that energy levies may be a factor in some firms relocating and the Commission was satisfied that there was no breach of the Code on this point.

No breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) was established by the complaint.

Finally, the Commission noted that the complainant had initially expressed concerns about the reporter’s alleged misrepresentation of comments made by Professor Myles Allen in relation to past predictions for temperature change and revisions to those predictions.  In regard to complaints about matters of general fact under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code – where there are no obvious first parties cited in the article, who might complain – the Commission emphasised that it can indeed investigate complaints from any concerned reader.  However, in this instance, the disputed comments were clearly attributed to Professor Allen (who had subsequently clarified his position in an article published in The Guardian newspaper).

During the complaints process the complainant had indicated that he was content to leave it to Professor Allen to complain about these issues, rather than pursue the matter himself.  The Commission noted that Professor Allen had written in support of the complainant’s case, but had not submitted his own formal complaint to the PCC.  The Commission explained that it had subsequently written separately to Professor Allen, providing him with the information necessary to allow him to make his own complaint, but no reply had been received. The Commission made clear that should Professor Allen decide to complain separately, then it would be happy consider the matter further.

Reference no. 131408

Rebecca Hales

Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD

Tel: 020 7831 0022

Website: www.pcc.org.uk

About these ads

88 thoughts on “UK press commission rules on “The Great Green Con”

  1. Three cheers for the Press Complaints Commission, quite a strong refutation of the complainant who was without doubt “trying it on” as he had nothing to lose.

  2. The PCC was just saying what most people in this country are starting to realise; that we are wasting billions of £’s combating a non-existent problem. Even worse these billions of £’s are coming out of the pockets of ordinary people. If people like Wellington wish to buy carbon credits, cycle, not fly, not drive and fit solar panels to their houses, I do not have a problem, it is when they expect me to do the same that I do have the problem!
    I read the Mail article when it was originally published and it was an excellent article!

  3. Another shining example of leftist tactics; if you’re losing in the arena of ideas, censor your opponent. It’s almost heartwarming to see a “traditional” media outlet use logic and common sense.

    Unfortunately. hell to freeze over in 3, 2, 1……..

  4. Q ….. and by how much did those billions affect the Keeling curve ?

    A As a 12-year old could have told your Government (and the Stern buffoon) before it stole your money – the square root of f*ck all.

    Will they be giving the money back one wonders ??

  5. The very notion of a “Press Complaints Commission” is antithetical to freedom.

    Good that they made the correct ruling in this case, but such a body should not exist.

  6. Press Complaints Commission? Gross. But it’s nice to see it put that whining, lying Wellington in his place.

  7. The complaint served a good purpose- it allowed issues of verity to be examined more thoroughly and the Rose article be conifrmed definitively. This article is the crack of doom for the global warmers. The pendulum is swinging the other way.

  8. Let’s not forget the Streisand effect. The complaints resolution has not given both legitimacy and publicity to Rose’s original article.

  9. The Commission explained that it had subsequently written separately to Professor Allen, providing him with the information necessary to allow him to make his own complaint, but no reply had been received. The Commission made clear that should Professor Allen decide to complain separately, then it would be happy consider the matter further.
    —————————————————-
    Happy now that’s putting it mildly.
    I’m pretty sure they would love to consider the matter further.
    They all but fill out the complaint form and send a private car to bring him to the hearing.
    cn

  10. “The PCC was just saying what most people in this country are starting to realise; that we are wasting billions of £’s combating a non-existent problem. Even worse these billions of £’s are coming out of the pockets of ordinary people. If people like Wellington wish to buy carbon credits, cycle, not fly, not drive and fit solar panels to their houses, I do not have a problem, it is when they expect me to do the same that I do have the problem!
    I read the Mail article when it was originally published and it was an excellent article!”

    Their main objective is to get the Western World to embrace Marxism. That did not work during WW1. The reason was the Western partly capitalistic ideology and the Western culture. So as the Marxist see it Western capitalism and culture is in the way for international Marxism.
    So they want to destroy them both?

  11. The greens have been spouting nonsense and outright lies for years. But no bureaucratic harassment for them. why?

  12. While it is good to see that crushing of dissent has been averted by the PCC, but: “…the continuing increase of ocean temperature…” Is it increasing? As the measurement of subsurface temperatures is a relatively new thing, and the accuracy of the original instruments taking surface temperatures (as well as the interest and competence of the person taking the reading) has to be in question, how can it be stated with such certainty that ocean temperatures are increasing?

    As with so many of the AGWist brigade, the arguments presented are shot full of holes, yet they are still so convinced that they are right that NOTHING will alter their opinions. The words of Voltaire should come to haunt them: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd

  13. Mommy! Mommy! He said mean things to me!!!! He said I was stupid!!!

    “Tell your brother you’re sorry, Johnny.”

    “Oookayy. I’m sorry you’re stupid!!”

    “WAAAAAHHHHH!!!!”

    (just a trip down nostalgia lane for me)

  14. AND even more….

    Lord Lawson’s climate-change think tank risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public
    So there is another warmist attack against skeptic science outreach that is going to the UK courts. Let’s hope they are honest.

    …Regulator the Charity Commission said it is “assessing the concerns to determine whether there is any regulatory action for the Commission to take”. The commission cautioned that the assessment was at an early stage and wouldn’t necessarily lead to a full investigation, or “statutory inquiry”….

    A link to the website the Global Warming Policy Foundation No wonder they are going after Lord Lawson!

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi

    Looks like we just went through the “ridicule you” stage (Looney Lew and cook the data Cook), and now we have fast forwarded to the “fight you” stage.

    Can’t wait for the “then you win”, hopefully BEFORE Hopey Changey changes too much here in the USA.

  15. So the PCC has given the all clear to one of its own members, even if it meant that a committee of media types has to redefine the meaning of “plotted in retrospect”, “the world’s average temperature” “Here’s what the experts say” and re-evaluate the significance of a very small number of past scientific papers suggesting global cooling.

    You will of course take this as a scientific vindication of Rose’ original article.

    But the all clear given to Phil Jones and the East Anglia unit by several committees of scientists is a whitewash in your view, is it not?

    Hmmm.

    REPLY: Dr. Richard Lawson (docrichard) If the PCC had never even asked the questions you posed, then declared Rose’s article to be OK, wouldn’t that be a whitewash? But they didn’t, they took your questions head-on, as opposed to the UEA investigations, which sidestepped actually asking the pertinent questions.

    http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/21/the-questions-that-were-never-asked/

    That’s the difference between your PCC complaint and the UEA investigation. For a learned man, it is odd that you are unable to see this difference.

    As for “scientific vindication” no that’s in peer review, this is factual reporting vindication. – Anthony

  16. David Rose. His eyes wide, his sails unfurled. Rose and Wellington at UK Mail.

    Apologies to ST:TNG (episode “Darmok”)

  17. Sometime around the year 2050 people will ask why there was not a straightforward and open public discussion about model forecast errors and the actual data that led to public policy distortion at a time of economic slowdown and diminished growth horizons. They will look on with curiosity and disgust and then move along to the issues and news makers of 2050. It will be the same bewilderment that we have in touring monuments to ineptitude of emperors today. We need a new poem for “Ozymandias” of policy fraud with its inevitable decline, however mighty in their own time.

  18. docrichard says at July 2, 2013 at 9:58 am…
    The point is that the press is allowed to write whatever it wants so long as it is not demonstrably false.
    The activists tried to censor the freedom of expression of the press by claiming that the UK Mail was telling untruths.

    But it wasn’t telling untruths. It was telling truths that the activists didn’t want to think could be true.

    You may not like the Mail’s interpretations either but that’s not the point.
    The Mail did not tell untruths (in this case).

  19. If the rules are similar in the US Obama’s climate claims would all be wiped out, and if I could improve on the details would cost him his job, vast sums of money and a very long suspended sentence to stop him doing it again.

  20. docrichard,

    I agree with Anthony; the wrong questions were asked. The wrong questions, it seems, are always the only ones ever asked.

    This can easily be remedied: submit a list of questions from well known skeptical scientists, such as Drs. Lindzen, Curry, Spencer, and a dozen other skeptical, published climatologists. Such questions would have the result of bringing out the truth regarding the global warming scare.

    But that is the specific reason why such questions are never asked: the truth is anathema. These official kangaroo courts are designed for nothing more than to perserve the status quo, in which certain entities and individuals receive an undeserved imprimatur of legitimacy. They are, simply, an official whitewash.

    Mr. Rose has shown that the Emperor has no clothes; there no threat of runaway global warming. But there was a threat to the massive tax shift in favor of the elite, who engineered this transfer of wealth based on a fabricated false alarm.

    If I am wrong, it is still not too late to formally question people by the opposition — not questions limited only to the cronies of those pushing their self-serving man-made global warming scare — but by those who question whether there is any crisis.

    What say you? Would you be willing to sign your name to a letter demanding that both sides of the debate are fairly represented? Or are you just running interference in the hopes of a pat on the head by your betters?

  21. Sean says (July 2, 2013 at 9:21 am): “Let’s not forget the Streisand effect.”

    Exactly. I missed the article when it was first published. Now I’m off to read it.

  22. Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

    Under the terms of Clause 1, “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information”; “a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected promptly and with due prominence”; and “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”.

    Is this not treu for all MSM artikel about global warming? Misleading!

  23. I missed that article to -plan on reading it tonight. Global Warming has been a touchy subject for a long time.

    Brigitte Grisanti

  24. docrichard says:

    “the all clear given to Phil Jones and the East Anglia unit by several committees of scientists”

    actually, some of them were not scientists at all, as they stated themselves they did not look at the science. doing some basic fact checking before making bold statements is something you should be teaching your own students.

  25. So it approved the line about warming ending because it’s just fine to ignore the oceans? While that is technically true I think it’s a lie of omission that didn’t do the readers justice.

  26. The complainant, an environmentalist and the author of greenerblog.blogspot.com […]

    So, Big Green and Public funding allows one to sit around all day sending out formal complaints to one oversight body or another.

    Given the dozens of Eco Taliban nonsense propaganda pieces published every day, it is a real shame we don’t actually get any funding from ‘Big Oil’. Big funding might actually allow us to reverse the tables and have eg. ‘Grunad journalists’ spend most of their time defending their crap to a committee.

    Just who, beyond the taxpayer, was funding “an environmentalist and the author of greenerblog.blogspot.com”? I really don’t mind the cut and thrust of Democracy except when I am forced, by law, to pay for my opposition. That isn’t ‘Democracy’ now is it?

  27. UK Editors’ Code of Practice … Clause 1, “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information” … etc.
    I think the world should have a PCC. Maybe the UN could run it…. no, that would put the UN itself out of business. Maybe the EU could run it…. no, that would be the final nail in the coffin for the EU. Okay, maybe just here in the US, the “what’s his name” administration could run it under – the EPA? the IRS? How about NSA? All right, stop laughing.
    You lucky blokes in the UK – you’ve got all the good stuff.
    But seriously, IF it’s a con by legal deffinition, (and i believe it is) and it appears the PCC indirectly has said it is, shouldn’t a whole lot of people be brought-up on charges of fraud? Considering the amounts of money involved, the whole AGW “scam” makes Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

  28. “The complainant was concerned that the article’s reference to the “global cooling” theories of the 1970s was misleading as the idea was only put out by a very small group of scientists at that time. The Commission noted his position that just seven scientific papers from the era suggested cooling, while six times that number suggested warming. He had argued that the prevalence of global warming theories meant that it was wrong for the newspaper to state that “in the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming”. This was plainly a matter of interpretation of scientific papers (which the complainant did not dispute existed) and the Commission considered that the newspaper was entitled to set out its editorial stance that historical concerns about global cooling are comparable to modern day fears about global warming.”

    This is something that seems to be brought up more these days…that the 70’s Ice Age scare was some sort of minor write up in some obscure journals… When the SMITHSONIAN Institute has a large and prominent display on the 70’s cooling that wasn’t dismantled until the early 2000’s…I think there was something more to it than that…

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/08/59698/smithsonian-cooling/

    AGWers continue to try to rewrite history and we must be diligent

  29. KNR….excellent. Seeing as I am now retired, after celebrating Canada Day, you have given me something to research, seeing as I am all ready bored….”actually, some of them were not scientists at all, as they stated themselves they did not look at the science. doing some basic fact checking before making bold statements is something you should be teaching your own students”
    Will be going through Anthony’s archives, and checking a lot of names on both sides of the debate.
    Just who are the true scientists? After all, I can go on the web and get a “Doctor” certificate for less then 10 bucks.

  30. Re: M Courtney 10:21 am:
    The point is that the press is allowed to write whatever it wants so long as it is not demonstrably false. …. But it wasn’t telling untruths. It was telling truths that the activist didn’t want to think could be true.

    The crucial element missing is that the press has free reign in publishing the parts of truth that are of interest to the editors. “Half-Truths” are 100% true, they just leave out many other truths that can change the picture. “Half-Truths” do not violate

    “An A-380 can fly on one engine.” This is a true statement.
    That one engine will fly you all the way to the crash site.

    Clause 1: “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information”;
    Obama’s Climate Change speech, Georgetown, June 15, 2013, is an interesting example.
    The Press could publish the whole thing with a clear concience. The President of the U.S. did in fact say every word. Any inaccurate, misleading, or distorted information uttered by the President are clearly the President’s problem.

    Also from Clause 1: “the press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact”. The fact is the President said these things. The press, “free to be partisan” can choose what to comment upon.

  31. andrewmharding says “…If people like Wellington wish to buy carbon credits, cycle, not fly, not drive and fit solar panels to their houses, I do not have a problem, it is when they expect me to do the same that I do have the problem!”

    In their minds, their cause is so noble they become holy by advancing it. Making others live short, brutish, third-world lives gives them an abundance of “consecration credits,” more than enough to excuse their non-compliance with the abysmal standard of living they intend to impose on everyone else.

  32. Oh – can it be? A small beachhead of reason rises from the seas of political correctness? This needs to be nurtured and supported! Suggest we all send a heart-felt note of ‘Thanks’ to the Press Commission, via Rebecca Hale’s email address: rebecca.hales@pcc.org.uk

  33. Re: ‘ghost whistler’s’ snip:

    I thought, “Good! Another dope we can set straight.” I was just composing a pointed reply when his comment was snipped.

    But I suppose it’s just as well that the genuine wackos aren’t given a forum if they can’t follow the site’s written Policy. He blanket-labeled everyone who disagreed with him as “deniers”.

    I’ve noticed that calling someone a ‘denier’ takes the place of thinking. But skeptics know that the climate always changes; we don’t deny that fact. Only Michael Mann’s acolytes deny that the global temperature had never varied until the industrial revolution, thus they are the actual deniers. Of course, that belief is patently silly.

    What skeptics deny is that there is any scientific evidence proving that human activity is the cause of changing global temperatures. That is something we can easily argue, using verifiable, testable facts. So I hope ‘ghost whistler’ comes back and gives it a try. I am happy to educate folks like him, using verifiable scientific facts.

  34. I notice that the green lunatic has not played his trump card.
    A forecast would be a prediction. The IPCC only makes projections, never predictions. CO2AGW science, being a post-normal science, likewise.
    Therefore the headline is wrong. The warmunists have never made a forecast of rising temperatures.

  35. “He said that when the continuing increase of ocean temperature is included, a statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature has continued since 1997.”

    The complainant’s claim is utterly misleading.

    According to NOAA NODC OCL,
    annual vertical mean temperature of the upper 2000 m of oceans has increased at a rate of 36.5 mK/decade between 1997 & 2012.

    In the same period global average surface temperature had a trend of 48.7 mK/decade, according to HadCRUT 4.2.

    That is, if ocean temperature is brought into the average, the trend becomes even smaller, contrary to what was implied.

    True, the result depends on the dataset chosen, because RSS lower troposphere temperature, as measured by satellites, shows a -8.5 mK/decade cooling.

    However, none of these rates are to be taken seriously, because each one is indistinguishable from zero (less than 0.5 K on a century scale).

  36. docrichard says:
    July 2, 2013 at 9:58 am

    You’re the loser that made the complaint, aren’t you?

  37. Isn’t it time for British skeptics to start filing this type of complaint for every newspaper article in Britain that misrepresents the AGW “facts?” Even if they don’t win, they make the warmists spend time and money, generate some publicity, and eventually, the reporters will wince before they hit send on dubious articles.

  38. I am leaping around my studio like a demented kangaroo. The birds on the little rail I erected so they could watch WUWT over my shoulder are twittering in joy. I have been saying for a long time that the global warming scam is dying. It is. I was right. So I am filled with joy.
    This ruling is the first where a “main stream” body has slapped down the warmists. Unlike past “whitewashes” this group has considered the facts and found correctly. The significance of this ruling is simple; it may embolden other regularity bodies to rule on the facts and not the emotional appeal from the greens. Oh, joy, joy, joy.

  39. dbstealey says:
    July 2, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    “I am happy to educate folks like him, using verifiable scientific facts.” You have my unequivocal permission and backing to try, brother, but having seen others doing so, and having tried myself, over and over again, it is a fruitless task, as they are bound to their faith in the CAGW religion to such an extent, that both reason and facts are quite foreign to their thinking. One might as well attempt to convince a dog that it is not a cat! a) It won’t understand you, and b), even if it did, you will find that it has been educated as from puppy-hood, to believe that all puppies are really kittens. Yes it is as ridiculous as that, No, REALLY!!

  40. Well, there is a complaints commission which does it’s work thoroughly!

    I am very impressed with that detailed response.

  41. While it’s great to see the PCC take an objective and nonpartisan view of the ‘complaints’ raised by ‘Mr Wellington’ and arrive at an eminently sensible, level-headed conclusion, the whole thing serves as timely reminder to us all that evangelical green zealots will stop at nothing to try and stifle legitimate voices who dare to dissent from their approved CAGW narrative. I thank the PCC, as UK citizen, for basically telling this berk (and his toxic doctrinal nonsense) to ‘get stuffed’. We really do need more that kind of thing. Bravo, PCC.

  42. a rate of 36.5 mK/decade….
    a trend of 48.7 mK/decade…..
    shows a -8.5 mK/decade cooling…..
    is indistinguishable from zero (less than 0.5 K on a century scale).

    At the risk of being a “numerical grammar Nazi”, I’d like to urge people not to unnecessarily mix units and scales within a paragraph or post. The impact of the message is lost if the reader must be distracted with mental unit conversions. A lot of political tomfoolery is camouflaged by liberal mixing of trillions, billions, and millions and per year and per 10-year budget window. Why add to that?

    The point of using a common set of units was driven home to me by an excellent presentation by Dr. Howard Hayden at April 2009 APS conference from which I recommend his PPT: A Conspectus on US Energy. (2.4 MB PPT) His slides: 15, 17, 18 are:

    Note on Hydro and wind:
    EIA / Doe recons heat in BTU
    EIA / DOE recons electricity in millions (or Billions) of kWh.
    1 kWh = 3413 BTU (direct conversion)
    But steam engines typically require about 10,000 BTU to get 1 kWh.
    For wind and hydro, EIA / DOE multiplies kWh by = 3 for “replacement” purposes.

    Solar Math: find the largest:
    A. 11,700 calories per square centimeter during one month
    B. 254 BTU per square foot per minute
    C. 2 Mwe generated per 130 acres of solar collector
    D. 1/2 cord of white oak per acre per year
    E. 397 Langley per day

    Which is the largest?
    A: 45 W/m^2
    B: 89 W/m^2
    C: 800 W/m^2
    D: 15 W/m^2
    E: 0.05 W/m^2
    N.B. use a consistent system of units.

    His slide 33: Solar PV replaces Nuclear? Is not to be missed either.
    900 MW Rancho Seco plant (removed from service June 1989) and a
    2 MW (peak) PV solar farm next door covering the same size plot of land.
    Also slide 24: graphs of Wind Power (% [of nameplate]) 1 – hr intervals [over 4500 hours]

  43. “No breach of Clause 1 (accuracy) was established by the complainant” (aka alarmist moaner).
    Therefore there were no inaccuracies, misleading statements or distortions identified in the article.

    Your complaint was rubbished. : > )

  44. This is what happens when you put CAGW on trial. The truth seeps out and those with an objective mind are often stunned. This is why they lose most of the debates. LOL.

    The Commission could not agree that the phrase “world’s average temperature” would automatically be understood to include ocean temperature.

    Of course the “Commission could not agree” because for years they focused mostly on surface temps (while they were rising). LOL.

    IPCC
    Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
    Scenarios for GHG emissions from 2000 to 2100 (in the absence of additional climate policies) and projections of surface temperatures

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html

  45. The omission of details about the political motivations of the Global Warming Policy Foundation did not render the article misleading or significantly inaccurate in such a way that would necessitate subsequent correction under the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

    Political motivations!!!! Haaaa, haaaa, haaaaaaaaaaa.

    “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    – Timothy Wirth,
    President of the UN Foundation
    _______
    “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
    – Christine Stewart,
    former Canadian Minister of the Environment
    _______
    “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”
    – Dr David Frame,
    climate modeler, Oxford University
    _______
    “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
    – Al Gore,
    Climate Change activist

    more…

    Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace

    There is so much more to add my friends. LOL.

  46. The Commission explained that it had subsequently written separately to Professor Allen, providing him with the information necessary to allow him to make his own complaint, but no reply had been received.

    Too funny. LOL.

    Now Professor Allen, please complain. You have the facts and the ‘mountain’s of pal peer reviewed evidence on your side. The science is with you. The consensus is 97% (or is that 98%?). The world is overheating. It’s hotter than we previously thought. The evidence is compelling. COMPLAIN!

  47. This whole Co2 con job has been driven by:

    1) An agenda to shut down the fossil fuel industry. [main aim]
    2) Shutting it down would lead to many third world deaths & reduce their populations. [DDT reduction was first strike but failed.]
    3) Meeting the agenda of greens to de-industrialize the world, with an emphasis on the West.
    4) Remove environmentalists’ pangs of comfortable lifestyle guilt.
    5) Raise taxes for governments while hiding behind an imaginary emergency (people more likely to accept).
    5) Increased power and control by politicians on their populace.

    Once all the above is achieved they then blame sceptics, the fossil fuel industry, the tobacco industry, right wingers, child molesters, George Bush for all the problems experienced as a result of numbers 1 to 5. Wash, spin, repeat.

  48. docrichard says: blah, blah, booo hooo, blah, booo hoo, sob, sob, sob, sniff, sob.

    Why complain on WUWT? Go complain to the PCC. Now run along and find something better to do. Observations trump theory every time. Observations are not on your side, so go sob some more. LOL.

  49. docrichard says:…
    “the all clear given to Phil Jones and the East Anglia unit by several committees of scientists”

    But of course.
    Breaking: Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry

    docrichard, you know as well as I do that whitewash was extremely hard to find in any of the hardware stores around the inquiry office.

    Here is the real Dr. Phil Jones. He is a snake.

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
    __________
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    __________
    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
    __________
    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
    them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

    Cheers
    Phil

    Phil Jones was given the all clear by his fellow snake oil salesmen. Do you buy??? :)

  50. I would not celebrate the finding of the Commission, principally because the whole process is rather Orwellian. Eventually, as the Commission becomes more and more idealogical, free speech in the UK will be suppressed, as sure as night follows day. This is scary to me.

  51. andrewmharding says:……….If people like Wellington wish to buy carbon credits, cycle, not fly, not drive and fit solar panels to their houses, I do not have a problem, it is when they expect me to do the same that I do have the problem!


    Tut, tut, tut. Wake up and smell the coffee. They have no intention of doing what they say, but want you to do what they say. They just can’t stop flying. Why??? Because they don’t believe that carbon dioxide will destroy the biosphere. Simple as that.

    “Some 15,000 delegates gather at the Mexican resort of Cancun on Monday for an annual UN conference on climate change.”
    france24.com – 29 November 2010

    George Monbiot
    Canada Book Tour – November 12th – 15th 2006 – Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver
    Monbiot.com – 2006

    “Maldives to Construct Two New Airports and Resorts”
    maldives.net.mv – 10 July 2011

    “Nasa scientist Dr James Hansen was speaking to BBC Scotland ahead of being awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal at the city’s Science Festival.”
    BBC – 11 April 2012

    “Al Gore kicks off book tour for ‘The Future'”
    mnn.com – January 2013

    “In a special three part series on the imminent crisis, the Guardian has visited Newtok and spoken to the villagers, politicians and climate scientists about their plight…”
    Guardian – 13 May 2013

    “Now the tour is going global — first to Australia, then to New Zealand, Fiji, and beyond!”
    maths.350.org – Found 30 May 2013

    Further reading:
    “The climate campaigners who fly the most” (28 January 2007)

    http://www.robedwards.com/2007/01/the_climate_cam.html

  52. DirkH says:
    July 2, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    I notice that the green lunatic has not played his trump card.
    A forecast would be a prediction. The IPCC only makes projections, never predictions. CO2AGW science, being a post-normal science, likewise.
    Therefore the headline is wrong. The warmunists have never made a forecast of rising temperatures.

    WHAT!???

    IPCC – Fourth Assessment Report – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
    Tebaldi et al. (2005) present a Bayesian approach to regional climate prediction, developed from the ideas of Giorgi and Mearns (2002, 2003)….Key assumptions are that each model and the observations differ randomly and independently from the true climate, and that the weight given to a model prediction should depend on the bias in its present-day simulation and its degree of convergence with the weighted ensemble mean of the predicted future change.
    —–
    Dr. Judith L. Lean et. al. – Geophys. Res. Lett. – 2009
    “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature 0.15 ± 0.03°C, at a rate 50% greater than predicted by IPCC. ”
    doi:10.1029/2009GL038932

  53. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve been told that climate scientists don’t make predictions but projections / scenarios. Yet I am confused by what they say. Can someone please help me understand how prediction is actually projection? For that matter how warm winters actually means colder winters? Why up is now down? Help!

    Dr. James Hansen et. al. – Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres – 1988
    “….spatial and temporal distribution of predicted warming are clearly model-dependent, implying the possibility of model discrimination by the 1990s and thus improved predictions, if appropriate observations are acquired.”
    doi:10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
    —–
    Dr. Filippo Giorgi – Climate Change – December 2005
    Climate Change Prediction
    The concept of climate change prediction in response to anthropogenic forcings at multi-decadal time scales is reviewed. This is identified as a predictability problem…As a result, climate change prediction needs to be approached in a probabilistic way….A review is presented of different approaches recently proposed to produce probabilistic climate change predictions. The additional difficulties found when extending the prediction from the global to the regional scale…
    doi:10.1007/s10584-005-6857-4
    —–
    Dr. Virginie Guemas et. al. – Nature Climate Change – 2013
    The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.
    doi:10.1038/nclimate1863
    —–
    Professor Thomas J. Crowley – Science – 22 June 2000
    Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the -1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.
    doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

  54. What a great thread! WONDERFUL comments all you WUWT Truth in Science people!

    Loved this sub-theme, especially, LOL:

    Lawson (DocRichard): “So … You will of course take this as a scientific vindication of Rose’s original article. … .”

    Jimbo: “docrichard says: blah, blah, booo hooo, blah, booo hoo, sob, sob, sob, sniff, sob.” ]

    Gail Combs: “Lord Lawson’s climate-change think tank risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public… .”

    Lawson: [sniff] “So the PCC has given the all clear to one of its own members… .”

    Billy Liar: “You’re the loser that made the complaint, aren’t you?”

    JM: No, but one of his cronies DID — Bingo!
    **************************

    Gail Combs — wasn’t that SO COOL that your post appeared just above Lawson’s? God is on our side! — excellent research.

    @ Mr. Jimbo, Researcher Extraordinaire — terrific cites to evidence — AS USUAL.

    And, Mr. Stendera, your post was THE BEST. A “joy” to read.

  55. And, I just read this — bears repeating and with emphasis:

    “They just can’t stop flying. Why??? Because they don’t believe that carbon dioxide will destroy the biosphere.”
    [Jimbo 5:11PM]

  56. @David Spurgeon –
    Priceless, and oh so true. A hat tippo.
    @Janice Moore –
    I have a set of songs for voice and piano, of which the lead number is “Government is the Enemy of the People.” You might enjoy the words, bur as you might guess, the music is sufficiently and intentionally dissonant – to fit the subject matter of the texts. These were written more than 30 years ago, but sure seem to fit today.

  57. @Jimbo –
    Let’s make Al Gore disclose the carbon footprint of all his jet-setting around. I can smell the hypocrisy and kleptomania form here, can you?

  58. A climate scaremonger flops on his back, flails his arms and shouts and people tell him to get lost. The Times They Are A-Changing. Would this have been the outcome even a year ago?

  59. Society is doomed if it has decided that we need government agencies with rooms full of people doing these sorts of evaluations.

  60. At least with the Internet, opinion publishers, too, can relocate out from under Britain’s outrageous press regulation (and libel law) and still reach their audience. I wonder how the commission would react to an article predicting that?

  61. To clarify on my previous post –
    I am not an anarchist, just a realist as to the likely behavior of any co90llection of people capable of exercising power.
    Concentrated sulfuric acid is an enemy, too – it can do some hellacious harm, if not handled carefully and restrained from attacking you, but it has its uses. I would compare government tk a deadly chemical that yes, has its uses, but if not controlled will also do you hellacious harm. Der Fuehrer’s regime, with is obsession with AGW, is such a deadly chemical, and one that has gotten out of control.

  62. Mister (gotta be) Niff. I-beg-your-pardon.

    Women do not need “cojones.”

    Our strength lies in our backbone. #[:)]

  63. Hey, Chad. I’ll bet I WOULD like the lyrics to your above-mentioned songs. Government is like salt, a little goes a long way. Nice analogy to sulphuric acid. Not inherently harmful, but, if misused, like salt, deadly.

    I was thinking about posting a rock video of something heading toward heavy metal (that I could stand, that is), to show you just how “ugly” some music is that I like (funny, I don’t listen to it, now, though…). But, thought better of it. There’s one guy who says that all the videos I post (no one else’s, apparently) AUTO-start as he scrolls down a thread. He was steamed. And understandably. LOL, I thought of him and decided, “Meh, not this time.”

    Thanks for sharing about your music. Sorry so curt, but, I’m trying to be better about going OT.

  64. Talking of the UEA and Phil Jones investigations, didn’t Jones get to chose the questions to be asked and the work to be analysed?

  65. That ”greenerblog” person implied that the article was written choosing cherry picked data. The Alarmists would not do that of course. (sarc off)

  66. For what it’s worth, here in the US, it seems to me that this hobby horse of human driven climate change pushes a big global agenda of business but hasn’t done diddly for actually getting new –cleaner—coal burners built. Selling the carbon tax was the goal.

    The usefulness of our delayed solar magnetic reversal that has left us with a sun with two polarity and an altered magnetosheath that constantly baths Earth in radiation—same thing last reversal–has been an ‘i told you so’ for all the reluctant participants. Reminds me of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court. They know the polarity will correct itself—or they hope they do—so why not use the results as a scare tactic to get what they want while the weather is wild?

  67. Jimbo says:
    July 2, 2013 at 5:16 pm
    “DirkH says:
    July 2, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    I notice that the green lunatic has not played his trump card.
    A forecast would be a prediction. The IPCC only makes projections, never predictions. CO2AGW science, being a post-normal science, likewise.
    Therefore the headline is wrong. The warmunists have never made a forecast of rising temperatures.

    WHAT!???

    IPCC – Fourth Assessment Report – Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
    Tebaldi et al. (2005) present a Bayesian approach to regional climate prediction, developed from the ideas of Giorgi and Mearns (2002, 2003)….Key assumptions are that each model and the observations differ randomly and independently from the true climate, and that the weight given to a model prediction should depend on the bias in its present-day simulation and its degree of convergence with the weighted ensemble mean of the predicted future change.”

    Ok, they’ll have to run a thorough search and replace on their next IPCC report.

  68. The most worrying aspect of this episode is the systemic bias it reveals in the BBC’s handling of climate change evidence. The BBC has taken the position that the views of ‘climate sceptics’ will not be given airtime since the science has been settled by the IPCC. That does not affect me personally since my challenge is to the economics not the science. Nonetheless the BBC should be even handed. Most climate sceptics do not deny either that the climate has warmed or that increasing levels of CO2 will raise the global temperature other things being equal. They merely argue that the increase will be smaller than the IPCC suggests, is less certain and that other things may not be equal.

  69. However, today @Beeb … “TEMMMMMMMMMperaturrrrrrrrrre EXXXXXXXXXXtreeeeeeeemessssssssssssss! UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNpresssssssssidennnnnnted! (in a bazillion years)

Comments are closed.