Bishop Hill Write in haste, repent at leisure
May 16, 2013 Climate: Parliament Energy: gas When the PM received a briefing on shale, Cuadrilla was excluded.
...bizarrely, [Lilley] claims that Cuadrilla were excluded from an inquiry on shale gas conducted by the select committee of which he is a member.
The reason Will Straw has gone astray is that Lilley's next sentence was "The select committee instead had to listen to an array of bodies from the Committee on Climate Change to the WWF". You can see how confusion would arise. But I think Straw can be taken to task for firing off a letter without checking his facts.
Bishop Hill
Anybody notice the other letter about Lilley's article? Here's Lilley:
...state bodies are egged on by powerful environmental NGOs, which are heavily financed by the EU (WWF receives €600,000 and Friends of the Earth Europe €1.2 million) and our government (we pay WWF £4.1 million) to create the semblance of popular support.
and here's David Nussbaum of WWF:
Peter Lilley is incorrect when he implies in his recent article that WWF-UK receives funding from the UK government for public lobbying
Also hugely amusing that Nussbaum would claim that the LSE isn't in the pay of big green. Grantham Institute, anyone?
Reader Comments (21)
"nomina sunt..."
That this is the last Straw is unfortunately unproven.
The definitive strawman arguments.
Another one with a PPE degree from Oxford. It appears that at no stage did his education contain comprehension exercises.
The WWF says it all about where the Government priorities lie.
The WWF should buy the drilling licenses so "evil" cuadrilla cannot.
Seems fair to me.
Will straw will now be familiar with the Rubyat even if he wasn't, before.
"The moving finger writes" etc
Will Straw " worked for four years at HM Treasury, primarily on enterprise and growth policy."
http://www.ippr.org/staff-profiles/58/606/will-straw
Might help explain some of the recession
Re-reading the Lilley article, the confusion may be justified. The wording was:
<< When the PM received a briefing on shale, Cuadrilla was excluded. The select committee instead had to listen to an array of bodies from the Committee on Climate Change to the WWF — none best known for their geological expertise.>>
It may be that an editor clipped out a few sentences because this could be read as if the briefing to the PM and the select committee were the same event. That "instead" does rather make it sound as if the SC did not hear from Cuadrilla either.
That said, while Joe Public may have been confused, an experienced hand like Jack Straw could be expected to realise that there were two events being described - and to check the facts.
Check the facts .... such as the name of the person who wrote the letter!
Tom
I think you should take your own advice!
Huhne, before he was jailed, used to spend hours closeted with WWF and Greenpeace to help them justify some of the millions of our money they get from the EU for lobbying and for his own instructions.
Since WWF already pretty much runs the IPCC,the BBC and DECC, of course Select Committees should be within its remit.
These pandas have a lot to answer for.
Jeremy Grantham, a big funder of LSE's Grantham Institute, has it completely backwards on climate sensitivity. While many climate scientists edge towards lower sensitivity, he wrote this in his recent letter to clients:
"The January 23 New York Times science section, for example, had an article on rising sea levels that said that the
authors – scientists all – “share an emerging consensus that the increase in ocean level in this century will probably be
on the order of three feet, perhaps as much as six feet,” requiring many millions to evacuate. “But many scientists,”
they add “are plagued by a nagging fear… that their calculations will turn out to have been too conservative, and
social stability will eventually be threatened.” “At every point as our knowledge increases,” Dr. Raymo, the leader of
the project, is quoted as saying, “we’ve always discovered that the climate system is more sensitive than we thought
it could be, not less.” To be perhaps a little cruel, a statistician might suggest that after serial
underestimations, expectations might be adjusted."
According to David Nussbaum, the WWF does NOT "receive funding from the UK government for public lobbying".
Well, quite. That would be stupendously scandalous.
The UK Government provides the WWF with funding for "overseassd projects". Presumably the public lobbying is presumably thrown in as free bonus.
Anderson failed this "read carefully before blowing a fuse" test too.
I find the habit, or is it a tactic, of denying something which was never asserted, to be tantamount to dishonesty. Of course this is deniable, but every time you bring them up on it they can repeat the tactic and never ever say the truth.
Someone called 'cardigan' has just posted a cracker in the comments below the Spectator letters page.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/letters/8909011/letters-283/
Pharos
Thanks for the pointer, Nussbaum in particular well and truly shredded.
If my memory serves me correctly did not the LSE get rather a lot of money from a previous president of Libya, doling out sham doctorates to various relations?
Pharos
That letter from "Cardigan" is a cracker.
I don't know the rules regarding reproduction but it is well worth posting here if the rules (of engagement) allow it..
Inciteful to say the least.
Thank you Cardigan if you are a visitor to BH
Tom MJ; guilty as charged - hoist by my own petard, again!
(Grabs conical hat and shuffles off to mope in corner)