By strange coincidence, the story of an another attack on the Sunday Times' Jonathan Leake. An organisation called the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) has emailed a number of journliasts claiming that Leake breached an embargo.
Richard North has managed to get hold of two different versions of the IPAM report, which, you may remember, is the one the WWF says contains the scientific evidence for the claim that 40% of the Amazon is sensitive to slight changes in rainfall.
Neither of the two documents even mention the subject of the Amazon's sensitivity to rainfall.
This appears to be problematic for many people party to the row - Nepstad the scientist-cum-activist responsible for the claims, the WWF and of course dear old George Monbiot.
Sara in the comments asks whether I can set up the blog to have more comments per page. I certainly can, but what do others think? There's a balance to be struck between quick loading and having to go to a new page too often.
Mann et al have submitted a (very late) tale of woe to Sir Muir Russell's emails review. The signatories are a veritable who's who of hockey and this team's pucks are considerably out of kilter.
They need Sir Muir to protect them from harassment, they need Sir Muir to defend the "consensus" and they want Sir Muir to write off some of the evidence completely as not being in good faith. Oh yes, and does Sir Muir know they were harassed?
Give me strength.
Read it here.
Via Farrah Bhatti's Twitter page come three more Labour party appointments to the Science and Technology Select Committee in the House of Commons. There has apparently been something of a struggle to find anyone else who is interested and the three late appointees are all from the new intake. Finally joining Andrew Miller and Graham Stringer are:
- Pamela Nash (a former parliamentary researcher)
- Gregg McClymont (a historian)
- Jonathan Reynolds (professional politician)
The LibDems have yet to make their appointments to the panel.
(See also this interview with new committee chairman Andrew Miller, who says his priority for the new committee will be to maintain expenditure on science).
Reading more like a something from PR Week than a premier scientific journal, Jeff Tollefson's article in Nature describes how better PR is going to do the trick for the global warming movement.
At Climate Central, a non-profit organization based in Princeton, New Jersey, scientists work with journalists and writers to develop climate stories in partnership with media outlets. The idea came together in 2008, backed by high-profile scientists such as Jane Lubchenco, who oversees much of the nation's climate science as head the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
See also the accompanying editorial.
Fiona Fox, who runs the (big-oil funded!) Science Media Centre has an article up at the BBC College of Journalism website. The thrust of the piece is that sceptics should be ignored. Nothing new there, I hear you say. However, her argument includes this take on the Hockey Stick.
The Guardian is to host a debate on the Climategate affair on 14th July at RIBA in London. It will be presided over by George Monbiot and the speakers announced so far announced are:
- Bob Watson
- Fred Pearce
- Doug Keenan
There are apparently more speakers to be confirmed.
If anyone would like to post a report, please drop me line.
Atomic Hairdryer has volunteered to do the match report.
Some written questions have been tabled for DECC ministers by our old friend Graham Stringer.
Graham Stringer: If the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change planning session in October 2010 will be conducted under the terms of the Aarhus Convention.
Graham Stringer: What proposed changes in the conduct of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments and procedures he plans at the IPCC planning session in October 2010.
Graham Stringer: What the name was of each representative of the Government who will attend the plenary session of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change in October 2010.
These questions are all up for answer on 1 July 2010.
For those who don't know, the Aarhus Convention is an EU-wide agreement on the public availability of environmental information and which underpins the UK's Environmental Information Regulations.
Some interesting analysis of the temperature records in the State of Victoria in Australia from Ken Stewart. The analysis seems to have been prompted by a statement by Australia's Bureau of Meteorology that adjustments to the raw station data should be random because they were fixing random station moves:
On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).
Stewart has tested this and foundsomething rather different:
By these calculations (averaging the trend at each site) the raw trend is 0.35 degrees C per 100 years, and the [corrected] state trend is 0.83C. That’s a warming bias of 133%!
Worth a look, I would say.
(H/T David Stockwell)
Fred Pearce in New Scientist looks at some recent developments in the ongoing battle between Tamino and the Hockey Team on the one side and sceptics deFreitas and McLean on the other. Judy Curry gets quoted.
With hard times truly upon us, the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has announced that he is seeking savings from the Foreign Office's budget by cutting back on green spending.
What is remarkable is that the Low Carbon, High Growth programme is going to survive at all. Does anyone in government seriously think that this is a sensible thing to be spending money on?