The Irish Examiner takes a look at the climate world post-Cancun and sees a changed landscape. The author sees campaigning against economic growth as a vote loser in the current circumstances. There is also this:
The talk about a "climate change consensus" never was a scientific consensus about climate change but at most as a political agreement to act and speak as if the major questions surrounding climate change had already been answered.
The Guardian is reporting that the proposed green bank for the UK is to be scaled back, starting life as a mere "fund". This means that it will be unable to raise capital on the markets.
In an interview with the Guardian, Huhne said the government remained committed to setting up a bank and an initial fund was only one option. But the prospect of a delay on implementing this key green policy will dismay environmentalists.
Who knows, maybe reality is slowly dawning.
Stephen Budiansky wonders why environmentalists dislike economic activity so much. In passing he notes Prof Kevin Anderson's contribution to this blog the other day, and is very amused.
There is an excellent and very thoughtful analysis of Prof Brian Cox's RTS lecture over at Climate Resistance.
Brian Cox is a great science communicator. That is to say, he makes very effective TV programmes, which do not condescend, and do much to encourage an interest in science. But there is surely science as process, and there’s ‘science’ as an institution. It’s not clear which one Cox – who gave this year’s Royal Television Society Huw Wheldon Lecture – was speaking for. His lecture, given the title, ‘Science: a challenge to TV Orthodoxy’ was disappointing given his previous arguments for scientific research, and didn’t challenge orthodoxy as much as it reproduced it, almost entirely uncritically.
I thoroughly enjoyed all the helpful comments on both your blogs about Kev's 4 legged climate table. I have tried to put a few of them in... the result was of course entirely predicted by my own highly sophisticated computerised climate cartoon model...as you can see.
David Holland mentioned that he may appear on BBC Ten o'clock News tonight, talking about the Russell review. His appearance appears to be a backup for the Beeb, to fill a gap if nothing interesting comes out of Cancun. So it may not happen.
My review of Tim Worstall's book, Chasing Rainbows, has been slightly delayed, the reason being that my copy has been purloined by the missus. Now this is a rather remarkable thing, as 'er indoors more normally reads Aga-sagas and other genres of girl book. Economics just isn't really her thing.
But that's the nice thing about Chasing Rainbows - as a primer in environmental economics, it's wonderfully approachable, with Tim's good humour and good sense suffusing the whole thing. It's also admirably concise, running to little over a hundred pages, so few people are likely to be frightened off on that score.
From Jo Nova
Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.
This looks gobsmacking. Needs careful checking though.
The new chairman of the House of Representatives' SciTech Committee has now been appointed. Ralph Hall (R-CA) is the man in the hotseat, and is interviewed at Politico.com, much of the discussion relating to Climategate:
Hall told POLITICO in a recent interview he’s not a climate skeptic. “If they quote me correctly, I've never said it's outrageous to even think about global warming. I want some proof,” he said. “If I get the chair and have the gavel, I'm going to subpoena people from both sides and try to put them under oath and try to find out what the real facts are.”
But he said he does want to question all sides of the issue, including the scientists at the center of the so-called “Climategate” controversy surrounding e-mails stolen from climate researchers last year in England. He said at a hearing last month that the documents exposed a “dishonest undercurrent” within the scientific community. Investigators in the United States and Britain have cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing.
Hat tip - Benny Peiser.