Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« Climate Politics as Manichean Paranoia by Roger Pielke Jr | Main | Spirit of inquiry »
Friday
May262017

A very bad boy

It seems that Lord Stern is a very bad boy.

Very bad indeed.

Take a look at this.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (135)

Thanks, Bish, for drawing attention to this.

May 26, 2017 at 9:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterStick Nern

You mean he's not the Messiah?

May 26, 2017 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterBloke down the pub

Lord Stern is Nick Stern, the expert economist who wrote the Stern Report, that disastrous Economic Policies have been based on, in order to prevent Climate Catastrophe

HE has found it all very profitable, and still is.

Now, his ability to do sums, appears questionable. Something does not add up very well, but all the mistakes seem to have favoured his finances.

May 26, 2017 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Gosh.... Nick Stern's tractor stats don't add up like he said they did !

cue in 5, 4, 3, 2 fast fingers Ward will be on the case with "How dare you impugn the the motives and actions of The Great Lord" and other haughty pronouncements from the ivory tower battlements of The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.

Credit where it's not due indeed....

What will happen I wonder?

Maybe the "BBC defence" - some minor errors were made by mistake but overall production values were top notch.

May 26, 2017 at 2:14 PM | Registered Commentertomo

He is a man who knows how to rake in money.

May 26, 2017 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurious George

Nearly the only time I ever got the late and well esteemed Pekka Pirila to back down was once when he invoked this dear Lord's analysis and I sneered.
================

May 26, 2017 at 3:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Apropos of nothing, it's almost worth noting that currently the only comment against that piece is something immensely stupid and unfunny from the vacuous Seitz.

May 26, 2017 at 6:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

But is it fraud when he has the nod and the wink to scam it?

He's honoured with a peerage. He's in with the in crowd.
And he's bound to know who he has to pay back, under the table.

The only losers here are the taxpayers.
And if they mattered something would be done about them.

May 26, 2017 at 9:21 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/26/crazy-litigious-climate-citizens-have-a-constitutional-right-to-a-stable-climate-system/

The Green Blob are very keen on instigating Legal Action, but Hockey Teamsters keep avoiding it.

May 26, 2017 at 9:28 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From the article,

"For the first half of that money, they appear to have exaggerated their output by a factor four."

Henceforth known as Stern Factor Four.

Of course most of the actual intellectual output is really just a case of "Beam me up, Scotty".

May 27, 2017 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I will make a complaint to the EPSRC about this.

May 27, 2017 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&twisted

Bitter&twisted

please do it....

May 27, 2017 at 3:13 PM | Registered Commentertomo

I will.

May 27, 2017 at 3:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&twisted

"You mean he's the Messiah?"

No, The Messiah has been discovered in Perth by Eric Worrall's folks on the Oz Weat Coast, , and has already editorially outperformed the Bishop himself !

https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/so-why-didnt-she-sign-oregon-petition.html

May 28, 2017 at 6:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Complaint submitted
They are supposed to acknowledge within 5 working days and respond in 20.
I will post my complaint and their response to this site.

May 28, 2017 at 12:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&twisted

A couple of other Stern and related exposés by David Rose:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html#ixzz2nV84KSiQ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html#comments-2807849

May 28, 2017 at 5:45 PM | Registered Commenterdennisa

Bish: Claiming credit under a grant for papers that didn't acknowledge receiving money from that grant is a huge problem. Nevertheless, there are some technical issues with the analysis that suggest handling the information with care:

A few authors may have forgotten to properly acknowledge their sources of funding. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy may not know how authors with multiple sources of funding account for costs.

In this analysis, 60 papers fell into a gap between the first grant and the second. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy should be able to take credit for them under one grant or the other. An application for the second grant needs to be filed before the first one expires. Accounting for "manuscripts in preparation", "manuscripts submitted", and "manuscripts in press" produces some ambiguity. It may take a year or more for a paper to be published.

Finally, in many areas of science, young researchers never receive a grant without having already obtained some preliminary evidence suggesting that their proposed project will be successful. By the time the grant has been reviewed (often revised and resubmitted) and approved, the initial studies the grant were meant to fund may already have been submitted for publication and the grant will actually be supporting vaguely outlined followed up studies, not the original proposal. Or the project could have failed despite promising initial results. It may sound stupid, but that is how the game is often played. Large grants given to organizations like the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy are supposed to allow funds to be quickly assigned to where they are most needed.

For this reason, it would make sense to focus on the big picture and not precise numbers.

May 28, 2017 at 8:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrank

For this reason, it would make sense to focus on the big picture and not precise numbers.

May 28, 2017 at 8:24 PM | Frank

Just how big is the fraud if the bigger picture is looked at?

Accountancy errors always seem to favour the person making the error.

May 28, 2017 at 8:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

As usual VV Russell gets it wrong. Everyone knows that "St Francis'" worships Goreblimyism and recently visited his 'leader' in the wilderness. No loaves or fishes - no cigars either.

Messiah in wilderness

May 29, 2017 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

May 29, 2017 at 12:34 AM | Kleinefeldmaus

Close associations between Climate Science and the Vatican are not benefitting either Faith. The Vatican has survived worse scandals

May 29, 2017 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The core of the 'deep state' fight in the US. Bureaucrats should enforce the law, not BE the law.

Of course at the time of the first grant at least he was operating in what the military would call a permissive environment so claiming he could have claimed to have developed 'Thomas the Tank Engine' and still gotten the grant.

May 29, 2017 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

JEM

Yet more evidence that the garden of academia is chaotically overgrown - there seems to be hardly a subject untouched by the pervasive effect of AGW policy handed down by those riding the mania.

May 29, 2017 at 2:26 PM | Registered Commentertomo

It would seem that the weeds over growing academia are anything but chaotic or random. As we say in the US, follow the money.

May 30, 2017 at 12:04 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Well the so called elites have been taken in by this 'Agore-ism' and led into the wilderness - but - there are always 'wide boys' - our Nick qualifies on that score. So - my take.

Bad Boy Stern nicks the loot

May 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Frank said:

Finally, in many areas of science, young researchers never receive a grant without having already obtained some preliminary evidence suggesting that their proposed project will be successful. ... It may sound stupid, but that is how the game is often played. Large grants given to organizations like the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy are supposed to allow funds to be quickly assigned to where they are most needed.

This does not sound stupid. This sounds like a corrupting influence on science that promotes policy based evidence making, if it is not actual corruption as well. It would not be right to claim funding is for specific projects when it is in reality more like a general fund.

May 30, 2017 at 10:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Gareth, Frank. Success breeds success. With limited research funds, money goes to individuals and organizations that have produced results. The reasoning is that previously successful applicants that have produced acceptable results before are more likely to do so again.
There is one possible advantage to block grants to institutions, monies can be directed toward blue-sky research done by individuals that otherwise would never be funded in today's policy of catering to stakeholders. Also new researchers of promise but no track record can be supported. The obvious disadvantage is that managers of institutions awarded block funds can become overly powerful, making the whole system subject to bias and abuse.

May 30, 2017 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

"Gareth, Frank. Success breeds success. With limited research funds, money goes to individuals and organizations that have produced results. The reasoning is that previously successful applicants that have produced acceptable results before are more likely to do so again."

May 30, 2017 at 11:57 AM | Supertroll

What are you defining as "acceptable results"? Surely the problem is that funding for results that support the 97% Consensus is available. Results that contradict the 97% Consensus are deemed undesirable by the 97% Consensus that decides on who gets funding.

This also requires that conclusions are drafted as part of the application for funding, before any research is actually done.

I therefore agree with your final sentence!.

May 31, 2017 at 12:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golfCharlie. Results are judged acceptable by the granting bodies or rather by panels of experts. Thus climate science grants will be awarded by (largely) climate scientists or panel members will be influenced by evaluations of previous funded work with the evaluations done by climate scientists. Sceptical studies will only rarely be funded. Climategate exposed why and how.

May 31, 2017 at 5:26 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Frank:

Note that, for the first grant, 185 papers explicitly acknowledge their funding source. Only 51 of these mention the ESRC or the CCCEP.

There are 259 papers for which I do not know, either because I could not access the paper (113 papers) or because the paper does not acknowledge any funding (146 papers).

May 31, 2017 at 9:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterStick Nern

Bitter&Twisted:
Please complain to the ESRC. The EPSRC has nothing to do with this.

May 31, 2017 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterStick Nern

May 31, 2017 at 5:26 AM | Supertroll

It would seem that 97% of Climate Scientists have caused many other academics to look stupid, compromise their professionalism, and bring shame upon their Universities and Professional Institutions.

Some form of "Truth and Reconciliation" Committees are going to be required, but how does one prevent the Committees from being loaded with 97% of people with their own ruined reputations to protect?

Would you be prepared to assist at UEA?

May 31, 2017 at 1:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

His new report is out, summarised over at WUWT.

$4 Trillion will do nicely, thanks.

May 31, 2017 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSchrodinger's Cat

GolfCharlie.
"It would seem that 97% of Climate Scientists have caused many other academics to look stupid, compromise their professionalism, and bring shame upon their Universities and Professional Institutions".

I'm sorry to say that this is only your view, and it is overwhelmingly a minority view. Most of the scientific community either agree and support the consensus view or are apathetic about it. In contrast to your view climate scientists remain respected and highly valued members of academia. I am now out of the loop, but I don't really see much change in the academic science establishment. Given statements from non USA politicians, any changes resulting from Trump's action will be bitterly opposed in the political and scientific establishment.

May 31, 2017 at 4:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

My complaint to the ESRC has been acknowledged (below).

My view is that each and every time a potential climate "scam" is exposed official complaints should be made.
I have had some success in the past....
But it shouldn't be just down to a few individuals- we need to deluge alleged climate scamsters with complaints.

"Thank you for your email dated 28th May 2017, regarding the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy - exaggerating outputs? . We acknowledge receipt of your email and can confirm that this has been passed to the appropriate Deputy Director , who will look into this matter further and will respond to your letter within 20 days of receipt of this email. Any future correspondence on this matter should be addressed to [complaints@esrc.ac.uk]"

May 31, 2017 at 5:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitter&twisted

May 31, 2017 at 4:49 PM | Supertroll

Would my "minority" view be representative of about 3% of the technical/scientific world?

Climate Science has always involved exaggeration of the scale of everything bad that definitely will happen.

Climate Science has always depended on rigging the Peer Review process.

Climate Science has always failed to self correct itself, relying on largely unthanked and unpaid outsiders, and non Climate Scientists.

IF Trump cuts off the money supply (details awaited) how is Science going to cleanse itself of bogus Climate Science, if Climate Scientists still defend everything they have ever Peer Reviewed and Approved? Who will be the honest broker?

I have previously suggested to EM and Phil Clarke that they might want to consider which bits of Climate Science ARE worth defending, in case it is ALL threatened with the shredder.

How many more proofs of Mann's Hockey Stick do we need?

May 31, 2017 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Think on the bright side: all that fused carbon ink is Carbon Capture and Storage on an epic scale.

Jun 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

Jun 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM | AlecM

I would be pleased if the majority of the actual scientific research, carried out with Taxpayer funding, in the name of "Climate" can be recycled, however what percentage has been abused by Climate Scientists to support a predetermined conclusion? I do not know.

Nor does Trump. Trump may simply "bomb the hell" out of Climate Science, which, given the amount of abuse he has taken, and the costs US Taxpayers have endured, would seem reasonable.

What should he do if Climate Science cannot get honest about the bad bits? Disinvesting from the UN to reflect the amount of US money the UN has wasted on the IPCC?

Jun 1, 2017 at 12:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Offensive post and follow up removed. PDNFTT

TM

Jun 5, 2017 at 9:06 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I put this diagram on another post to provide some visual measurement of the (in)significance of the anthropogenic contribution of co2 to the atmosphere.

Perspective
To get a little perspective I have made this scale drawing that represents the volume of the atmosphere and the volume of co2 at 400ppm.
The volume of the atmosphere is the grey square while the volume of co2 in it is the red square where the arrow points.

Then you need to appreciate that all of the human contribution to the co2 volume is as stated in the diagram 3.75% of the total co2..

Sheesh! All that huffing and puffing over so very little.


CO2 in atmosphere diagram

Jun 5, 2017 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Kleinefeldmaus. I do hope that diagram of the atmosphere and its CO2 content didn't take you too long after BH banned your earlier effort as an "offensive post" (and one having nothing to do with your nemesis Russell.

Jun 6, 2017 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Jun 6, 2017 at 2:51 PM | Supertroll

I expect it took about as long as it took Mann to iron out, all but one of the Inconvenient creases in his Hockey Stick.

Made-to-measure Climate Science results are very lucrative and fashionable, cutting out all that profit wasted on genuine research.

Jun 6, 2017 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@Jun 6, 2017 at 2:51 PM Supertroll
Nope - it was done for another blog and copied here - so no time at all. But I was not disturbed by the 'banning' of my post as I believe it was done as a consequence to response to a particularly offensive missiff from ZedsDeadBed. This (I assume) was the cause of this little flurry of activity by the moderator.

Jun 6, 2017 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

We have been prevented from seeing a message from ZedsDeadBed? Oh what a shame, the moderators are acting far too quickly. Their precipitous action has removed the joy we feel from a ZedsDeadBed visitation (it's been so long), the storm of outrage it engenders from the good folks here, followed by our righteous indignation when the offending post is finally plucked out. All this we have lost from the overzealousness of our moral guardians.

Jun 7, 2017 at 5:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

@ supertroll
With apologies to Kevin Kline and G&S Zed has been 'orphaned but given a wonderful send off ......what could be better. So Supertroll lament not!

https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html

Jun 7, 2017 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

@ Golf Charlie May 31st

You say 'Nor does Trump. Trump may simply "bomb the hell" out of Climate Science, which, given the amount of abuse he has taken, and the costs US Taxpayers have endured, would seem reasonable.'
It seems that Trump has more urgent issues on his mind with the Comey affair while May is in disarray with Brexit to focus upon climate or energy matters. As the saying goes - it's on the back burner now and will be for some time.

Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff

Suck it in mouse - can't you count molecules?

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/06/004-is-lot-of-molecules.html


An infrared photon trying to get from the ground to the top of the atmosphere bangs into hundreds of vibrationally active CO2 molecules per wavelength traveled-- do the calculus for Newton's sake - they even teach it in Dunedin nowadays.

Jun 10, 2017 at 6:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Oh dear poor old VV can't help trying to demonstrate his intellectual prowess - sadly got a gobful of swamp weed.- kinda mangled stuff a bit.
Nevermind - Trumpy will soon drain it.

VV Troll emerges from swamp”

Jun 10, 2017 at 9:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM | Geoff

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/french-president-offers-us-climate-scientists-e1-5-million-each-to-move-to-france/

It seems that Trump does not need to bomb the hell out of US Climate Science. France is making them an offer, that they should not refuse. Claiming to be refugees would give them the opportunity of French and effectively EU Citizenship.

Jun 11, 2017 at 12:05 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

@ Golf
Maybe Macron is attempting to redress the imbalance of refugees taken in by France since it is almost bottom of the European 'league table'.
Then again - maybe not. Perhaps he would make the Americans take notice if he demanded the return of the statue of liberty. Now that would grab the attention of POTUS

Here

Jun 11, 2017 at 4:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterGeoff

Congratulations to the mouse on his mass media debut.

Jun 12, 2017 at 12:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>