Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Ads | Main | The tech fix »

Rose bares his thorns

David Rose has hit back at the Committee on Climate Change's denunciation of his climate sensitivity article.


The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.

We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.

Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions.


Yours truly gets a mention.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (39)

The Rose thorns draw blood in 3 areas:
The Hoskins "models are lousy" quote, the hindcast point and the Deben conflict of interest.

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:29 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Do DECC staff get these bribes to cover the cost of therapy to cope with cognitive dissonance?

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterFilbert Cobb

How many scientists does the UK pay to look for signs of "climate change"?

And how many scientists does the UK pay to look for signs of "climate stability"?

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

I like the caption "How the MoS reported the faulty forecast" with a tear off effect under the same graph with the wrong error bands and no attribution! One way to duck dealing with the criticisms ;)

Frankly I think the graph does a lot of communicating without words. This is good enough for me as it annoys the so called climate communicators whose real job is to obfuscate, shame and moralise.

I think just saying : "Look at this graph - there's what's actually happening and there's what they said would happen" - is enough ;)

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:56 AM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

So Brian Hoskins is the head of the Grantham institute, whose owner makes BILLIONS from green subsidies and employs people like that ward fellow eh.

Honestly, Hoskins should have stuck to acting! :)



Mar 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

Face in the trough Yeo

And so on- ad infinitum
When is this freeloader going to get the boot- or preferably the Huhne?

Mar 31, 2013 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Also this is an important bit of information that the "climate communicators" must hate to see too ;)

“…the ‘predictions’ to the left were actually plotted in retrospect”

Mar 31, 2013 at 12:32 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

There seem to be good parallels between the climate scare and the Iraq WMD scare.

Politicians claiming absolute certainty as a mandate to act quickly in an unpopular way, based on lousy paid-for information from shady chancers, opponents being denigrated, and a huge financial bill for a poor result.

Mar 31, 2013 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterRick Bradford

Need to be careful otherwise some comments may end up being used as evidence of conspiracy theory ideation.

Oh, hang on...

Mar 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

Hoskins, the chinless wonder who, amongst many others, has brought the once-good name of Imperial College, to disrepute. I always state that it was a centre of excellence when I was there. But not anymore since it left London University and started chasing easy money rather than doing first class research and teaching.

Mar 31, 2013 at 1:44 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Philip, I couldn't agree more. Over the years I have watched Imperial College go down hill and the slide to irrelevance appears to be speeding up.

Mar 31, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterivan

Of course he is angry. The Mail is treating a matter of unquestionable belief, the domain of philosophy and theology, as if it is a matter of fact, the domain of science and history to a lesser extent. CAGW wants the power of prediction given to science to gain dollars and redirections of public policy. But at its core this is really a discussion about human values and the role of the state in individual lives and economic transactions. CAGW was created to get us back towards an all-consuming state and that's what must not be questioned. Much like Marxism I might add.

CAGW is just another means of getting at the prevailing noetic system without that being apparent to gain desired power and public coffers without that being so apparent. But the weather and temps are making the non-factual nature of CAGW hard to ignore. explains why an individual and cultural noetic system is so important to stealth transformation. The 1961 book it is based on Toward a Science of Man in Society laid out the blueprint for social and economic change in the West mostly out of sight. It was written by an American prof but was published in the Netherlands so social planners would know what needed to be done. It still serves as both a guidebook of much of what went on which seemed to make no sense and what is still intended. Can't have The Mail getting in the way with a factual story.

Mar 31, 2013 at 2:18 PM | Registered Commenteresquirerobin

Rich Bradford,

On the one hand you have the fact that biological weapons were found in Iraq when they were supposed to not have had any irrespective of the age of the weapons (therefore not like Mann Made Global Warming (tm) ie. evidence exists) and then on the other hand the war against the war in Iraq was taken to by the left like a fat chick to a smarty packet (and as we all know the left has universally adopted Mann Made Global Warming (tm) without question.



Mar 31, 2013 at 3:31 PM | Unregistered Commentermailman

Attacking the Press/MSM is a losing game. Very foolish move.

Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the train carload.

Mar 31, 2013 at 3:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred from Canuckistan

Marcott's FAQs are up @ RealClimate. I don't like the excuse for re-calibrating.

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Pull, Early Bird, pull;
Out pops a baby dragon.
Noetic system.

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Saddam had the will and the way to WMD. Furthermore, he bluffed everyone, including his own armed forces. What else did he have against the Persians?

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Saddam Hussein also had a track record of using wmd, Halabja poison gas attack

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Halabja was a battle for Upper Tigris water resources and both sides used poison gas, targeting soldiers. I believe the bulk of the civilians were killed by Persian gas, accidently. Saddam did systematically use it on Kurdish villages.

Omigod, isn't that war almost over? Please, your Grace, zamboni all this.

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"Imagine an unpopular, impotent, and fragile UK Government, trying to make political capital out of a looming crisis. To avoid being embarrassed by criticism of its shallow policies, it appoints an independent panel of experts, to which it defers controversial decisions. Now imagine that the panel proposes measures from which its members and their associates will directly benefit.

It couldn't happen here, you may think. Scandal and resignations would surely follow. Who could possibly allow vested interests to profit from the legislation they are instrumental in creating?"

"Scandal and resignations would surely follow" - surely they would and we have come a long way since ... 2008 ...

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:39 PM | Unregistered Commenter3x2

Has Rose encountered a version of the The Knights Who Say "Ni!" the keepers of the sacred word who demand sacrafice?

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterWindy

Kim they've done a great job of answering all the questions nobody was asking.

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterredc

(Kim) they've done a great job of answering all the questions nobody was asking.

The very definition of a Politician.

Mar 31, 2013 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered Commenter3x2

Please keep to the subject of this post.
Iraq war to the discussion page, if you must.

Mar 31, 2013 at 5:32 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Will those that Rose criticizes address his criticisms? No. Will they vilify Rose? Yes. Will they address the same criticisms that are based on the same graph that is found in the Economist? No. Will they vilify the Economist? Reluctantly, but yes though they most likely will use surrogates. Will Lord Deben’s conflict of interest become an issue that attracts the attention of the public? Because I am not British I can only guess. In the US, such a conflict of interest would ignite a firestorm.

Mar 31, 2013 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

Is it common for similar committees in other areas to issue criticisms of specific articles in the popular press?

Mar 31, 2013 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I've always had the impression that the Americans are a lot more politically savvy than the British.
The reaction you'd get here from 95+% of the population is (1) Lord Who?; (2) a glazed look before you're half-way through explaining what and why, (3) a shrug of the shoulders signifying "they're all at it so what?"

michael hart
There are no similar committees. There is not another Department of State that has any comparable advisory committee or body to tell it how to behave. The parliamentary committees have some sort of oversight of the Departments but this is to all intents and purposes a completely independent quango with an extraordinary remit which means it is in no way responsible to anyone for the advice it gives.
Doubtless Bryony had that in mind when she drafted the Bill that gave it birth.
I'd need to look but I'm not at all sure that even repealing the Climate Change Act would kill it.

Mar 31, 2013 at 6:42 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Expect more revelations of scientists admitting their work should never have been relied on for policy formation by politicians soon.

I think we have already started to witness this!

Mar 31, 2013 at 6:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Theo - read this:

It is clear he is simply a diligent public servant, much misunderstood. The second to last para is particularly moving.

If we need any further evidence we can see here (item 6) that he is busy even now trying to build vital links to Clean Energy Initiatives in Australia. I'm looking forward to the inter hemispherical super grid in the very near future.

Mar 31, 2013 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Michael Hart and Mike Jackson,

Britain has it worse than we do - so far. I am very sad for Britain.

Mar 31, 2013 at 7:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheo Goodwin

The irony of the AGW fanatics going into denial mode in defense of their obsession is entertainment beyond price.

Mar 31, 2013 at 7:20 PM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing

Does anyone really expect the Committee on Climate Change (ake Committee on Public Safety) to deny that there is strong AGW? The Committee on Climate Change will go down with the AGW ship.

Mar 31, 2013 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterNoblesse Oblige

I also was at Imperial College of Science and Technology in the 70s and cannot believe how far it has degenerated. It needs to restore it's earlier reputation and get rid of things like the nonsensical non-scientific Climate Change Institute. So glad that I emigrated to Canada in the 80s and don't have to contribute to the UK climate change stupidity and all the idiocy that goes along with it.

Mar 31, 2013 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlan Davdson

We are run by a Con-Man, and alarm-ism is a convenient cover....The Con-Man Cartoon here...

Mar 31, 2013 at 10:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterfenbeagle

So.... it seems the Met Office is now openly calling for "global governance"...

""The massive complexities associated with geoengineering, and the potential for winners and losers, means that some form of global governance is essential," said Jim Haywood at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter."

but wasn't this the whole purpose of our global warming scare in the first place and why our politicians have invested so much money in it.

And the reasons why our careerist politicians ignore the best interests of UK citizens in seeking to advance their own careers on the global stage.

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarion

Welcome to the GLOBE International and World Summit of Legislators new Website.

There is a growing realisation that national legislation and scrutiny, and therefore the role of legislators, are the critical elements of any successful strategy to set the world on a path to sustainable development.Recent votes in the Mexican Congress and South Korean National Assembly and efforts by China show clearly that national parliaments are at the heart of driving the response to climate change and more broadly giving the green economy real meaning.
You will find more information about GLOBE's activities, our national chapters, policy work and events as well as direct contributions to the policy debates from legislators across GLOBE's network. I hope you enjoy reading the website, blog and newsletter. Please use the comments facility on the blog to let us have your feedback.
Rt Hon. John Gummer, Lord Deben
GLOBE International

Mar 31, 2013 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Phillip Bratby and Alan Davidson - Imperial was certainly a centre of excellence in physics some years ago with Abdus Salam and Tom Kibble researching and teaching. Hopefully it still is. I was not at Imperial but was strongly advised (by John Charap) to attend Professor Kibble's post-grad lectures on QCD, which I did in the early 80's. A wonderful series of lectures (on blackboard with chalk). I still retain my handwritten notes.

If the the Higgs boson and consequently the field is ever verified then Tom Kibble must at least stand a chance of a shared Nobel. Pretty much like Al Gore and Michael Mann in another field.

I note that Imperial have just held a symposium to celebrate his 80th birthday.

Apr 1, 2013 at 1:21 AM | Registered CommenterGrantB

Just looked at global sea ice coverage....a fraction over 22 million square kilometres.......which is about the same as 1980.
Inconvenient data.

Apr 1, 2013 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Griffin

'The Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions...'
What did you expect..? For them to produce a statement along the lines of: 'The reason for our existence no longer applies, in which case we are applying to the government to be disbanded..'...?
Not a hope...

Apr 1, 2013 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>