I'm grateful to Amelia's Magazine for mentioning the Hockey Stick Illusion on her blog today - even if she says she's not going to read it. Amelia came across the book at the London Book Fair where my tome was placed just above hers.
The US House of Representatives Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming has been having hearings on Climategate and more particularly the Oxburgh report. In the words of the committee's web page.
The scientists addressed the claims of deniers head-on. Thursday’s panel featured a member of the investigative panel convened by the University of East Anglia and led by Lord Ron Oxburgh to review the stolen emails from that school’s Climactic Research Unit. The “Oxburgh Inquiry” exonerated the scientists who were attacked following the emails, saying they “saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work.”
Joe Farman, the scientist who discovered the hole in the ozone layer was interviewed on BBC radio's Today programme this morning and made some trenchant remarks that will be of great interest to readers here.
Farman seems to have a pretty low opinion of climatology and how it spends its money..
Too much too much money is going into expensive climate modelling computers, and not enough into basic observational science, he says.
and he thinks sceptics have been ritually ignored...
Dr Farman also blamed the science establishment for "brushing aside" specific criticisms of climate science.
Farman seems similarly underwhelmed by Lord Oxburgh's review of the probity of CRU's work.
He said the teams investigating the controversy at the University of East Anglia should have invited some climate sceptics on board. "Lord Oxburgh's review (which cleared researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of any wrong-doing) was not convincing, he said.
Lord Oxburgh has been criticised for completing his review too quickly. But he stressed at the time that his remit was to determine whether the researchers had conducted their work honestly, not to make judgements on the quality of their science.
He told me he had not chosen to put a climate sceptic on his review team because their meetings would have degenerated into polar arguments on the science, rather than concentrating on the key issue of probity.
It's remarkable to compare these remarks with the way Lord Oxburgh's report was relayed to the public by the media, who portrayed the report as complete exoneration for Jones et al. Scientists know the Oxburgh report was a farce. Why not environment correspondents?
In his presentation to the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Hans von Storch outlines a number of issues with the IPCC and suggests possible solutions. I thought these were pretty interesting, particularly the bit where he discusses dealing with dissent - I've added emphasis to the "ouch" bit.
This is a translation of an article in the Norwegian newspaper Forskning. The original article was by Bjørnar Kjensli and the machine translation was tidied and corrected by readers Messenger and Geir Hasnes.
A German climate researcher says that people are beginning to lose faith in climate research, pointing to the IPPC as one of the main causes. Norwegian IPCC veterans disagree about what the organization should do about it.
This is a guest post by Simon Anthony.
Why do we disagree about climate change?
Lecture on 29th April at School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
MH’s talk was based on his book of the same title. His aim is not to investigate climate change via models, analysis etc but to discuss other ways of seeing the world, for example, through the work of Mary Douglas, an anthropologist who originated the field of “Cultural Theory of Risk”, to try to understand the underlying source of disagreement.
Under the leadership of Lord Rees, the Royal Society's reputation has sunk dramatically, with this once august body now widely seen as a political body and a surrogate arm of the government, more interested in the next tranche of funding than truth. Their role in Lord Oxburgh's whitewashing may well hang over them for a long time to come.
A report in the Belfast Telegraph has Queen's University Belfast as saying they have published their tree ring data, as required by the Information Commissioner in response to Doug Keenan's request.
QUB said it has abided by the Information Commissioner’s ruling.
“The university has now published electronic data relating to its tree ring research in line with the Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner,” a spokeswoman said.
This is a guest post by Geir Hasnes.
In 2006, the Norwegian government embarked on the world’s most ambitious carbon capture project – a system that would capture the CO2 produced at gas-fired power stations. The system had a projected cost of 27 billion NoK, roughly equivalent to US$5 billion. The two power stations concerned are situated at Mongstad near Bergen on the west coast and Kårstø, somewhat further to the south. Mongstad had been chosen as the starting point.