Seen elsewhere

Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

SciTech peer review inquiry

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have started to publish the submissions of evidence on their website.

A number of familiar names are there, and I'll try to read these when I get a chance:

  • Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature who had to resign from the Russell inquiry after prejudging the findings (not to mention his conflict of interest)
  • Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, who replaced Campbell and whose advice was ignored where Russell found in convenient to do so
  • Michael Kelly, of the Oxburgh panel, whose observations on the indequacies of CRU's work was not reported by Oxburgh
  • Nic Lewis, of O'Donnell et al fame
  • Prominent sceptics, McLean, de Freitas and Carter

There are also two from UEA and one each from the big learned societies, including the Royal Society.


IJoC - business as usual

Long-term readers may remember my efforts to get the International Journal of Climatology to adopt a sensible policy on data and materials - this was prompted by Steve McIntyre's attempts to extract information from the journal and one of its authors, Ben Santer.

At that point the journal had no policy, simply referring requesters to the author, and apparently happy to let the authors refuse if they wished. IJOC is a journal of the Royal Meterological Society, and the society's head, Paul Hardaker, was initially very favourable, with an undertaking to instigate a review. However, as months turned into years it became fairly clear that the society was caught between a rock and a hard place. If their policy was tough enough to ensure that data became disclosable then mainstream climatologists would not publish there. Climategate brought some confirmation of this, with the revelation of an email in which Santer and Jones discussed a boycott of the journal over a future data policy. Santer's words:

If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available - raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations - I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.

Click to read more ...


Vested interests

Rob Schneider emails to say that BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine has today been discussing public reactions to nuclear power experts - namely to distrust their advice because of their vested interests.

And quite right too.

So why does the BBC treat this same argument as risible when it is raised about the advice given by global warming scientists?


Scottish Sceptic

A new blog for your attention - Scottish Sceptic is the site of Mike Haseler, a former Green party candidate, who has now seen the error of his ways...


McKitrick on Earth Hour

Ross McKitrick has posted some thoughts on Earth Hour, as told to a journalist last year:

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity. People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.


Commenting part 25

I've been asked to get more details of the commenting problems. If you are affected again could you

1. Note exactly what you were doing

2. Give details of the error message

3. Give browser type and version, OS and version and IP address


Did the IAC "lose" some submissions

Hilary Ostrov continues her dogged pursuit of the IAC (Update: Not forgetting Donna Laframboise too!). She has been analysing the submissions of evidence to their inquiry into the IPCC and, as regular readers of her site know, she has found some amazing things.

The latest revelation is that while the IAC announced that there had been over 400 submissions of evidence, only two hundred or so have been published. The inquiry chairman, Harold Shapiro, is not answering his email.

Stranger and stranger.

Read the whole thing.


Hastings notices energy gap

Max Hastings, writing in the Mail, notices that we may have a bit of a problem with our energy supplies here in the UK.

To be sure, if Fukushima releases lethal radiation affecting thousands of people, it will become much harder politically for any government to push through a new nuclear programme. But, today, this still seems unlikely.

What could be a catastrophe for Britain, however, is the crisis that will fall upon us ten years hence unless this Government comes to its senses, and starts to plan for a credible energy future which must include nuclear power.

If it continues to duck the issues and leaves policy in the hands of Chris Huhne and his foolish green friends, start hoarding candles.

H/T Breath of Fresh Air


Is commenting fixed?

Now the new domain host has been in place for a few days, has anyone noticed an improvement in the commenting problems?


Skinny hockey

Another review of the Hockey Stick Illusion, this time in The Skinny. I thought this was interesting in that it is treads a middle ground between all-out praise and all-out condemnation. It ends on a good note though...

Montford's account of the development of different scientific arguments on both sides of a very complicated argument is extremely well handled, and as such it’s hugely impressive.


Stringer on climate and MMR

Graham Stringer has an interesting article in Manchester Confidential. It looks at parallels between the inquiries into the MMR scare and Climategate.

Let me be clear I am not accusing Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit of the UEA of Wakefield-style fraud but I am concerned that the two investigations into the leaked e-mails suffered from the same flaws as the medical and scientific investigations into Wakefield.

Read the whole thing.


More splicing, more hiding the decline

Updated on Mar 13, 2011 by Registered CommenterBishop Hill

I'm grateful to a reader for this excerpt from The Hot Topic: How To Tackle Climate Change and Still Keep the Lights On, a book by King and Walker published in 2008.

King is Sir David King, the former government chief scientist who is now what you might call one of the great and the good. Here's Wikipedia's take on his current positions:

Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, Director of Research in Physical Chemistry at the University of Cambridge, Director of the Collegio Carlo Alberto, Chancellor of the University of Liverpool and a senior scientific adviser to UBS.

Click to read more ...


Quote of the day

This was apparently posted to the comments on Christopher Booker's article today:
I have worked in government for 28 years as an economist, and for the last 20 years I have worked on environmental programs. In that time I have not seen a shred of evidence to justify global warming, let alone man made global warming and I have not seen a shred of evidence that there is going to be a green economic boom. The only evidence I have seen is that there is a green economic bust, that money invested in green technologies is usually wasted and simply consumes investment that could be better used elsewhere. I think that anybody in government or industry who can not understand this is either dishonest, stupid, or both. That applies to Cameron - I think he is both.
H/T Messenger

Climate cuttings 50

A few interesting bits and pieces this morning, as the Climate Cuttings series reaches its half century.

Bryan Appleyard has an article in the Sunday Times on sceptics, namechecking Piers Corbyn, Lord Monckton, Graham Stringer and Fay Kelly-Tuncay (who is campaigning to repeal the Climate Change Act here in the UK). The article can be seen at Appleyard's site or here.

Neither side is winning this fight, though the greens are on the ropes. As they slug it out, the language grows ever more vicious and the claims of both sides ever more extreme. To the sceptics the greens are lying, cheating, catastrophe-crazed group thinkers; to the warmists, the sceptics are mad, bad, neo-fascist defenders of Big Oil.

At the margins it is, admittedly, all too easy to find evidence for all these charges. But in the middle, the ground occupied by the reasonable person, there is only confusion and uncertainty. Meanwhile, the planet cycles on regardless. In time, it will make its own decisions about the viability of our troublesome species.

As if to emphasise the tottering of the global warming edifice, Ford are getting out of the electric vehicle market.

We still don’t know what the winning technology is going to be…We’re continuing to invest in hydrogen, we’re continuing to invest in biofuels.”

It's not hard to see why greens are struggling when they take desperate steps like calling for action on global warming because of the tsunami in Japan.

Jonathan Adler of everybody's favourite US law blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, looks at alternatives to regulation of carbon dioxide. Judy Curry responds.


Joe Bastardi's new home

Joe Bastardi has set up his new online home at

Welcome back Joe.