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
[ 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.