Friday
Oct252013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Honing his hypocrisy
Oct 25, 2013 Climate: Sceptics ;)
Last week, Shell's climate change adviser David Hone issued a complaint that I had appeared on the BBC to discuss the Fifth Assessment Report.
[The BBC] explained the issue quite well, but then offered two contrasting views of the science. One was an interview with a leading UK climate scientist who is also a contributing author to the IPCC report, the other was with a blogger who lacks credible credentials and objectivity on the issue.
If only I could aspire to match Mr Hone's credentials (he is a chemical engineer) and objectivity (he is chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association).
Do these people have no sense of how foolish they make themselves look?
Reader Comments (94)
There was a follow up earlier this afternoon on the feedback show which wasn't exactly inspiring.
John Shade.
Bullseye. Exactly right.
And if only such self-evident truths could be more widely disseminated.
How can any even semi-sentient being not look on at the works of the Climate Change brigade, their credulous, vicious followers, their astonishing funding, their capture of the political and media high-ground, and the staggeringly stupid support then enjoy among almost the entirety of the Western world's political elite and not be dismayed at so relentless a display of abject, craven stupidity.
As a footnote, from the 60s onwards, the 'protest movement', high-minded, anti-establishment, increasingly certain of its rightness, was able to establish itself as a properly 'alternative' vision for all our futures in the West. It is hugely ironic that these self-same strivers after human freedoms have now, in turn, become a new establishment, as blinkered, intolerant and self-satisfied as those who, in their youthful idealism, they sought to over-turn.
Not much changes.
MIKE SINGLETON
Where did you leave your comment.
My experience is that Hone only leaves up those he can answer.
Try saying 'Jim Hansen is the greatest thing ever to happen to 'Climate Science'
It might stay up !
I wonder how Hone advised Shell when they signed their strategic partnership with Putin in April this year, to explore for oil with Gazprom, in the Pechora Seas, in the Russian Arctic. An area which includes the site of the Prirazlomnaya oil rig. The very rig which Greenpeace failed to storm in September this year.
Has Hone complained to Shell or Putin for exploring for oil in the Arctic? Has he even written about it on his blog?
Perhaps he could explain where his priorities lie.
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130918/183548105.html
Right enough, what's an accountant doing as a climate change media pundit?
a wonderful ad hom from EM - I could not hope for a better example of an irrelevant argument. How about asking whether the abbott of a monastery could ever hope to discover anything about genetics?
EM Right enough, what's an accountant doing as a climate change media pundit?
Analytical brain, good with numbers, used to plotting forecast v actuals so can see the obvious gaping flaws in the CAGW theory?
The bigger mystery is surely why the "climate scientists" can't see through it? How do you explain that, (serious question)?
(also a qualified accountant)
(dual post)
Funny how 'experts ' supporting 'the cause ' can be failed politicians and railway engineers and rubbish cartoonists , but AGW sceptics have to be climate 'scientists' to have anything worthwhile to say.
Right enough, what's an accountant doing as a climate change media pundit?
Oct 25, 2013 at 6:56 PM entropic man
He has a chemistry degree. And you?
"AGW sceptics have to be climate 'scientists' to have anything worthwhile to say."
Don't be silly, that's not enough!
They need to be 'respectable' climate scientists.
They need to have published on climate change.
Recently.
In a peer-reviewed climate-change journal.
A 'credible' peer-reviewed climate-change journal. By which I mean, one that isn't a mouthpiece for skeptics.
Many times per annum. They have to be climate-change obsessives.
Essentially, they have to not be skeptical.
Then they might, just might, qualify as a credible skeptical voice.
Provided they aren't industry-linked. Or geology-linked. Or Creationists. Or deniers. Or well-known contrarians. Or so-called "skeptics."
And as long as their work hasn't been non-specifically described as "flawed" in the non-scientific press by one or more alarmist scientists.
Or Bob Ward.
Brad Keyes @ Oct 25, 2013 at 8:49 PM
A classic, cheers!
Big oil
Biology
"Funny how 'experts ' supporting 'the cause ' can be failed politicians and railway engineer's and rubbish cartoonists"
or Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/New+mission+for+Jorma+Ollila+fighting+climate+change/1135224678250
Analytical brain, good with numbers, used to plotting forecast v actuals so can see the obvious gaping flaws in the CAGW theory?
Oct 25, 2013 at 7:42 PM | SimonW
This would be the same analytical brain that recently put up a post on Arctic sea ice extent, hoping you will believe that short term variation =long term trend?
Re: Oct 25, 2013 at 3:20 PM | eSmiff
"ETA is the biggest industry lobby group present at the Copenhagen negotiations, bringing in 486 lobbyists. Their aim is the creation of a global market for greenhouse gas emissions, including the use of highly controversial offsetting projects through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). However, current carbon trading schemes like the ETS have proven not to reduce emissions, but largely generate profits for these companies.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/15/18632658.php
"
Ironic isn't it Smiffy, the likes of Naomi Klein demonstrating against IETA and the 'free market', wanting more 'Big Govt' to legislate against the 'free market'. What they don't seem to realise is that it's very far from being a free market and it was 'Big Govt' in partnership with the 'Big Corporates', 'Big Finance' and 'Big Oil' (their 'stakeholders') that spawned IETA in the first place.
"The International Emissions Trading Association emerged from the United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) Policy Forums on greenhouse gas emissions trading in 1999. It started as a result of cooperation between UNCTAD and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)."
http://www.ieta.org/governance
"IETA was founded in June 1999 by a group of international companies and business associations keen to build on the economic mechanisms created by the Kyoto Protocol in order to achieve climate objectives with minimal economic damage. Among the companies were Shell, Transalta, BP, ABB, Rio Tinto, Natsource, Mitsubishi, KPMG, Norsk Hydro and Ecosecurities. The associations included the Emissions Trading Association of Australia, and the International Primary Aluminium Association. United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) provided the first secretariat and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) provided support and the first headquarters accommodation. The Earth Council provided strong support and impetus to the founding of IETA."
http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=19%3Adefault&id=166%3Ahistory&Itemid=86
The UN is at the centre of a massive web of patronage, cronyism and profiteering.
It's the rest of us who pay.
EM - what is the link please...otherwise we might think that you are talking out your customary orifice
Toad,
As you note, the comment was either removed or didn't make it through moderation or should I say assassination. It was on the "Thoughts on CCS coming from the European Parliament" here http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/category/ccs/
I continuously shake my head at the hypocrisy and or short sightedness of those proposing CCS. They don't seem prepared to face up to the horrendous waste of valuable resources.
EM
Is Pachauri worthy of respect?
Diogenes
**
Pachauri was on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (January 1999 to September 2003
On 20 April 2002, Pachauri was elected Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations panel established by the WMO and UNEP to assess information relevant for understanding climate change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri
Marion
Yes, both sides are frightened to face the truth. Banks and oil companies run the world, not environmentalists and peasant wage slaves like Michael Mann and James Hansen.
The Americans own the UN. Kofi Annan was their good little boy.
Re: Oct 26, 2013 at 12:05 AM | eSmiff
"The Americans own the UN."
Oh, I hardly think it's in the domain of any one country, Smiffy, nor the product of 'banks' and 'oil companies' - it's the tool of a global elite with their fingers in many such pies!
What we need is SMALL govt. to limit their power.
The Yanks own the UN because they threatened to stop funding it. They put their puppet on the throne.
Name the global elite for me. Thanks.
Re: Oct 26, 2013 at 12:20 AM | eSmiff
"The Yanks own the UN because they threatened to stop funding it. They put their puppet on the throne. "
Remind me again, exactly when this was? I think you need to study the chronology a little.
"Name the global elite for me."
So glib, Smiffy, it doesn't become you. Do you really think such a powerful cartel would be there for the 'naming'
What are Shell and Hone playing at? Shell produce oil and gas yet say CO2 is damaging the World. Shell appear to be running with the fox and hunting with the hounds.
Marion
On 13 December 1996, the United Nations Security Council recommended Annan to replace the previous Secretary-General, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt, whose second term faced the veto of the United States.
Not even one name for the elite ?
Smiffy, you and Dr Loo need to get together.
Your shared belief in conspiracist ideation should give you a lot to talk about.
EM
And precisely what sort of "analytical mind" is it that thinks 30 years out of several millennia is "long-term"?
EM Biology. That's good. So is a degree in Chemistry
And yours - Ordinary degree? Honours (1, 2, 3)?, Postgrad Diploma, DIC, Masters? Doctorate?
Anyone can play silly buggers
Roy Spencer has an interesting post about the University of Lincoln, Nebraska where researchers are refusing to apply for a grant to do climate research because it does not insist on attributing it to man's actions: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/nebraska-climate-scientists-heads-stuck-in-the-topsoil/
Readers might wish to scroll down to a post by another grizzled engineer who like me has seen through the IPCC scam, being used by confidence trickster Hone to confuse the public on behalf of his Corporatist Masters.
Big oil
Biology
Oct 25, 2013 at 11:08 PM entropic man
Thanks. Say no more.
johanna:
You mean they're not the same person? Blow me down!
If your central theory, on which your Royal Society kudos depends, demands mad conspiracism from deniers, and the barrier to entry to becoming a denier in the mind of the world is simply to make up a name on a blog like Bishop Hill and shoot, why wouldn't you?
This would of course imply total cynicism and moral bankruptcy from Dr Loo and those that use him.
So it cannot possibly be true. As we all were.
Oh the irony.
Hone has got his own self-interest at heart, if there’s no climate change drama to advise on then he’s out of a job.
I have been puzzled as to why the large oil companies like Shell and BP support the green/climate change lobby to cut carbon emissions. The reason is obvious.
The higher the price for "green" energy gets so the higher the price of Oil and Gas will rise. Furthermore the demand for Oil and Gas can only increase because renewables can never work, thereby causing the price to rise even further.
It really does makes a lot of sense for shareholders.
Clive Best
Yes, Exactly. Plus there is carbon trading
http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro
IMHO someone needs to write more, formally, about the petrochemical bankrolling of alarmist climate science. I'd love to have a one-stop resource about this. It's a killer argument against catastrophism. Well, actually, it's not—it's nothing but the genetic fallacy—but that's the language catastrophists tend to speak, isn't it? When reason fails, and it always does, simply pointing out that Big Oil is laughing at them ("all the way to the bank") because their would-be protests *against* fossil fuel are just free advertising for the other items in the multinational corporate product lineup tends to reduce the 'passionate intensity' of even the 'worst' of them (Yeats) to a kind of sickened silence. A light seems to go on (or off—whatever) when it dawns on them that they're on the same side as their own worst enemy. Imagine telling a Hutu that his DNA is 60% Tutsi.
Do others share my view on the rhetorical efficacy of this true story?
So who's up for writing it?
That is my website http://www.scrapthetrade.com/intro
So is this
http://tinyurl.com/yabzfrk
A lot of it is here
Opposing Views on Global Warming: The Corporate Climate Coup
by Prof. David F. Noble - York University, Toronto, Canada
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5568
I find this amazing, because the most important things have been researched and discovered by sceptics or non conformist scientists, such as
- CO2 sensitivity
- climate of the past 1000+ years
- failure of climate models
- hiatus
- weather station corruption / UHI
- importance of ocean current cycles
- solar non TSI effects
- missing link between warmer temperatures and extreme weather
- florishing biosphere
Very, very good point Manfred. While the boys have been playing with their models, and themselves, a great deal of good and substantive work has been done by underfunded, unloved and uncredited "sceptics." Bob Tisdale comes to mind, one of many.
In an earlier post I posted a link to this document http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Climate_Change_Consensus_Report_.pdf and it’s been playing on my mind somewhat. Is a cross-party consensus on any issue democratic? I may be dumb but shouldn’t the political parties be plural? Should they not compete and present policies that allow the electorate to make a decision based on choice?
The document contains some serious issues for me:
Letters to the Independent from greenpeace taken as fact. The whole document is scary stuff we came close to national identity cards with personal carbon limits.
Can I just again say a big thank you to Mr FOIA, Bishop Hill, Steve McIntyre and every other sceptical blog outside of the MSM for being diligent, steadfast and preventing the full extent of this rubbish taking hold.
Some excellent comments have now been added to David Hone's recent censor the sceptics thread.
A bit late to the party here, but in case anyone missed it way up at the top, I think agouts' posting is one to be saved! VERY perceptive and perfectly stated. Sentiments and thoughts I've had many times over in reference to a similar topic, although not nearly as well formulated. Agouts, I hope you won't mind me quoting you with attribution/explanation at some points in the future!
- MJM
My apologies. My comment above should have pointed to agouts' Oct. 25th 5:54pm comment at the top of the second page here. I'd forgotten there was a first page. Duh. Sorry!