Reader Matthu has got hold of some tantalising new information about the financial arrangements surrounding the Russell Inquiry. UEA have released to him copies of the claims for money made by Russell and Boulton. UEA claims of this type are made on form 4/5, the former covering occasional employees and the latter self-employed contractors. It appears that this is a single form though.
Unfortunately, only page 2 of Boulton and Russell's claims have been supplied, so it is not clear whether they have claimed as temps or as self-employed contractors. However, Matthu's request covered all financial source documents, so unless the university has "overlooked" any attached invoices, it looks as though they were temps. Matthu has queried this aspect with the university to make sure.
I am still pretty overwhelmed with "stuff" at the moment. Just life things, really - IT problems (Bill Gates, you are useless), school problems (Perth & Kinross council, you are worse) and of course the day job too. This is leaving precious little time for the blog and for thinking about peace conferences.
Almost off the top of my head, therefore, is the idea that the objectives for such a peace conference should be quite limited. So when Leo Hickman suggests as a starting point...
Unimpeachable, transparent, uncorrupted science
"Clean" energy (if CO2 is not your concern, then surely reducing localised air pollution is a valid goal?)
Halting biodiversity loss
Conserving marine habitats
Avoiding economic instability
Protecting the poor and vulnerable
Ensuring global food supplies
...it seems to me that he is hopelessly overambitious. At the very most, a conference might address the first point. That would be an important objective. The rest is a wish-list, with many tradeoffs needing to be made. These are not questions to be decided at conferences.
A few weeks back I got some general ledger details from UEA and we discovered, among other things, that UEA had made a big payment to Norfolk Police Authority. The police authority is the body that oversees the constabulary, which I thought was rather odd.
I therefore put in an FOI asking them for a copy of the invoice plus any related correspondence. The immediate response was slightly strange in that I was passed straight on to Norfolk Constabulary's FOI department. At the time I assumed that Norfolk Police Authority and the Constabulary itself must share financial ledgers. I thought nothing else of it.
However, today the reponse has come back.
Leo Hickman in the Guardian muses about the possibility of peace talks to end the climate wars. Yours truly is mentioned:
I admit that I sometimes find it hard to detect the signal from all the noise when observing climate sceptics, but the most positive contribution the more moderate climate sceptics (or "luke-warmers", as they are sometimes described) such as McIntyre and Andrew Montford have brought to the debate is their dogged insistence that climate science must be transparent, open, fair and free from influence. I don't think anyone could argue that this is not a worthy goal and, even if you disagree with their motivations, tone and methodologies, we will come to thank climate sceptics in years to come for forcing these obvious improvements. So, would a "meeting of the moderate minds" within this debate be productive?
I'm in discussions about a formal response to Leo Hickman's suggestion. Watch this space.
Last week David Holland had a response to an FOI request for correspondence between UEA and Russell and Boulton. This turned up on one of my Google alerts and I have been busying myself analysing the results. David is away on holiday at the moment, but interestingly, if you go to look at the page for the request now, you see this.
I wonder what's up?
In the comments on the last thread, Pointman wonders whether there might be problems with some of the other chapters of the IPCC renewables report. This thread is for any findings on the bioenergy chapter, which can be found here.
Mark Lynas is back in the groove, relaying new allegations of bias in the renewables report - this time related to the hydropower chapter.
“The value of the IPCC report is weakened by the strongly biased treatment of hydropower,” says Peter Bosshard, policy director for International Rivers, which campaigns to raise attention of the damaging effects large dams can have on riverine ecosystems. “At least half of the lead authors of the hydropower chapter are not independent scientists, but have a vested interest in the promotion of hydropower. This creates a conflict of interest, which is reflected throughout the report.”
Some context. Over at Keith Kloor's Ray Pierrehumbert, RealClimate blog founder, left a rather rude comment ending with this about troublesome voices like McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts.
"... big as the IPCC tent may be, I hope there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns."
Which made me conclude that Ray thinks that the IPCC is a circus and it should only be populated by approved and accredited clowns. Fair enough.
Our glorious government here in the UK is considering subsidising the Irish wind industry.
THE BRITISH government could massively subsidise the Irish wind energy industry under proposals to be considered in London today.
Britain believes the west coast and the seas around Ireland can provide it with a large amount of its renewable energy and could be willing to subsidise offshore wind farms there.
Industry groups here say such a move could be worth up to €1.6 billion a year to the Irish economy.
These clowns really have to go don't they?
One academic who is untroubled by yesterday's call for adherents to the AGW hypothesis to stop calling their opponents "deniers" is Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian academic who has a somewhat offensive piece in The Conversation, the chat site for university people.
At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second — all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.
It's an interesting piece, covering a range of areas of interest to readers here, including the Hockey Stick (without mentioning McIntyre and McKitrick!), the travails of Prof Wegman, and the peer review of the Soon and Baliunas paper.