Diary dates, Walport edition

On Friday, Mark Walport is giving a talk at the Natural History Museum in London on the UK's energy future.

We rely on energy to run our homes and power our cars, but the way we get this energy is changing. Sir Mark Walport, the UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor, talks us through everything you need to know about how we could power the UK in the future as part of Science Uncovered.

You'll also have the chance to ask Sir Walport about energy in the UK during a question and answer section that follows his presentation, hosted by the Museum's Head of Earth Sciences, Professor Richard Herrington.

Details here.

A rare outbreak of civility

The climate debate is not exactly renowned for civility and good manners, so it's interesting to see that the Associated Press is making an attempt to up its game on this front.

We have reviewed our entry on global warming as part of our efforts to continually update the Stylebook to reflect language usage and accuracy.

We are adding a brief description of those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces:

Our guidance is to use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science and to avoid the use of skeptics or deniers.

Click to read more ...

Why the poor should pay higher rate tax

In the crazy world of the environmentalist, the following logic holds:

Oil companies are subject to a supertax on top of corporation tax.

Oil companies operating West of Shetland do not have to pay this supertax.

Therefore oil companies operating West of Shetland are subsidised.

Therefore we should apply the supertax to all oil companies.

One can apply this logic elsewhere:

Rich people pay income tax at 40%.

Poor people pay income tax at 25%.

Therefore poor people are subsidised.

Therefore we should tax poor people at 40%.

I'm not sure our environmentalist friends have thought this through.

Shameless, shameless, shameless

Having been hanging round the energy and climate debate for a long time now, it's not often I am taken aback by the Green Blob. But this article by Carbon Tracker's Anthony Hobley really made me gasp. The whole thing is amazing, but this in particular took the biscuit.

Investors are paying dearly for the inactions of the energy incumbents who have seemingly ignored and laughed off the impact of renewables. In the last five years 26 coal companies have gone bankrupt and US coal equities are down over 76%[1].

The suggestion that the pain being felt by coal companies is caused by anything other than the shale gas revolution and the surge in production from OPEC is astonishing. Non-hydro renewables are just 7% of US energy generation. Their impact is therefore nugatory, and there is simply no way Hobley cannot know it.

Shameless, shameless, shameless.

Update on Sep 22, 2015 by Bishop Hill

On Twitter, Hobley claims that he was describing a "perfect storm" of factors doing for coal.

Unfortunately, a brief perusal of his article suggests that this is simply not true.

No other factors are mentioned. No word of "shale" or "gas".

Shameless.

The Lords on fusion

Back in July, the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee took evidence on prospects for commercial nuclear fusion in the UK, hearing from Steven Cowley of the Culham fission research centre and David Kingham of Tokamak Energy Ltd.

Reading the transcript, it's hard to avoid the impression that in the UK at least fusion research is something of a white elephant, but one that is being sustained by climate change alarm. As has always been the case with fusion, the timescales discussed run to decades and project managers try to justify themselves with talk of spin-off benefits. However, Lord Peston noted that there is something of a problem with trying to use global warming as justification for the vast expenditure:

Lord Peston: I am a bit lost again—as you can tell, I get lost all the time. How can technology that will be available in 40 to 80 years possibly influence climate change? If we have to save the planet in the next 40 years, we are doomed anyway. You cannot use the climate change argument.

It's interesting to wonder just how far spending decisions are being distorted by climate change alarm.

Click to read more ...

Computer crimes

With Professor Shukla (and Kevin Trenberth) calling for sceptics to be put in the dock last week, it is perhaps unsurprising that a Guardian article on climate and the law provoked a bit of an overreaction. The article in question, by Adam Vaughan, was about a speech by prominent lawyer Philippe Sands and was entitled "World court should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, says Philippe Sands". This was taken by many to mean that sceptics should be prosecuted, particularly as the standfirst then read "International Court of Justice ruling would settle the scientific dispute and pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, says high-profile lawyer".

However, examination of the text of Sands' speech reveals that the Guardian headline writers had actually been playing a little fast and loose with the facts. What Sands actually wants is for the international courts to rule on some of the scientific questions surrounding the global climate. He gave as examples the following:

A first tier of issues might include: is climate change underway? have sea-levels risen? Have anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions been the main cause of atmospheric warming?

Click to read more ...

Muck and brass

There is much entertainment to be had this morning from the revelation that the ringleader of a notorious gang of climate scientists has been taking home as much as $750,000 per year from his climate activities. Professor Jagadish Shukla spearheaded last week's attempt to get the Obama administration to prosecute climate sceptics under racketeering laws. These new revelations make it look as if his real motivation was to protect his own income.

The news about Shukla is just the latest in a long line of stories showing that the loudest scaremongers in the Green blob are able to command extraordinary incomes. Lord Stern's speaking fees are one example, and another was last week's reminder that the chief scientist at the Met Office earns more than the Prime Minister.

Muck and brass, you might say.

FiTs: a test of Cameron's conservatism

After Energy and Climate Change questions yesterday, several commenters wondered if the government might be about to backtrack on the swingeing cuts in feed-in-tariffs that were announced recently. MPs on both sides of the house had certainly been very vocal in their demands on behalf of their constituency energy companies and there was scarcely a voice heard in support of the proposals. MP after MP demanded that  FiTs be retained for renewables operators. Meanwhile, Aberdonian MPs wanted cash for North Sea oil operators as well. Pressure of the FiTs front continues today.

It's a vicious circle of course and the government risks getting generating a spiral of subsidy, with money having to be thrown at all market participants simply to keep them afloat.

This is going to be a test of Cameron's resolve. Is he going to play the Conservative, and put the consumer interest first, or is he going to cave into the producer interest?

We watch with interest.

Where are DECC's numbers coming from?

Last week, DECC responded to a question from Labour MP Jim Cunningham about the carbon emissions savings from using "biomass energy crops". Minister of State Andrea Leadsom said this:

The 2013/14 Renewables Obligation sustainability data [1] indicate that, for data available, the average greenhouse gas saving from energy crops on the European Union fossil fuel electricity average, by consignment, was approximately 90% (within a range of 85-94%).

This looks jolly impressive (or should I say "completely implausible"?), but less so when you read in the Renewables Obligation Annual Report that operators of biomass stations self-report this information. Even less so when you actually look for the figures given in the dataset linked. I certainly can't find it.

Can anyone throw any light on where the figures come from?

Naughty Slingo

The Mail reports that the Met Office created a post for the daughter of its chief scientist Julia Slingo. It seems that the position was not advertised but was merely handed over to Dame Julia's sprog, a newly qualified graduate.

What is it with senior civil servants and integrity?

Monksbane

Back when they were opposing the extension of the coalbed methane operation in Falkirk, I remarked upon the evidence from witnesses for Friends of the Earth, which didn't echo any of the claims the group was making in public about health and environmental impacts of unconventional gas operations. Indeed, as Dart's QC noted at the time, neither of FoE's witnesses even opposed permission to drill being given.

It's one thing giving evidence to a fully lawyered inquiry, but quite another to sound off in public, and today Friends of the Earth have returned to the fracking fray, trying to persuade the SNP to turn the moratorium on new developments into an outright ban, backed up with lurid claims about what gas wells mean for health and environment. Interestingly, FoE Scotland boss Richard Dixon seems to have delegated the task to a young lady who is barely out of her teens.

Flick Monk, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, added: “Local communities do not want their health and environment damaged by energy companies aiming to extract gas at any cost."

I suppose Dr Dixon wouldn't want to get caught misleading the political classes himself. Still, it doesn't seem very chivalrous to me.

Update on Sep 18, 2015 by Bishop Hill

This just in from INEOS's PR people:

While we don’t see eye to eye with Flick’s position on very many things she at least came along to the INEOS Grangemouth public exhibition and engaged with us. INEOS would much rather have a civilised event, even if at times the conversation gets spirited, with Flick or anyone from Friends of the Earth Scotland, regardless of their age, than no conversation at all.

ECC work plan

The Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has just published its work plan for the autumn. Two of the inquiries look rather dull - lessons learned from attempts to improve energy efficiency and making the grid more welcoming for windfarms. (This is not precisely how they are described, but I think this is about the measure of what MPs are trying to achieve.)

One inquiry could be revealing, however.

Investor confidence in the UK energy sector. Stakeholders called for greater coherence, transparency, consistency and evidence in the policies coming from DECC. As a result, the Committee is now seeking views on the energy investment landscape in the UK and steps that DECC could take to increase investor confidence.

I'm not sure they are going to like the answer though.

The Monsoon, variability & climate change - Cartoon sketchnotes by Josh

Click image for a larger version

Last night Dr Madhav Khandekar, a former Environment Canada scientist and expert reviewer for the 2007 IPCC Report, gave a talk on the Indian monsoon, variability and climate change. The talk was organised by the GWPF and held at the House of Commons in London.  Madhav is also the author of the GWPF report on 'Global Warming - Extreme Weather Link'.

The main message seemed to be that the monsoon impacts 4 billion people and yet is the biggest climate anomaly on the planet. The variability of the monsoon is not well understood and the current climate models are not as useful as the older statistical-empirical model which uses large-scale atmosphere-ocean circulation patterns.

You can download the Powerpoint slides here. 

Please do let me know if I got something wrong on the sketchnotes above and I will amend - it was a challenge to keep up!

Cartoons by Josh

Another Lew paper

Updated on Sep 16, 2015 by Bishop Hill

Stefan Lewandowsky's latest paper is out today in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and features none other than Naomi Oreskes as a co-author, with the scientific oomph coming from CSIRO's James Risbey. With a roster of authors like that I think it's fair to say that one knows what to expect.

The paper is about the pause in surface temperature rises and is an attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't exist. Not very interesting I hear you say. However, the paper is not without its moments of controversy. In particular, this paragraph jumped out at me.

...some researchers (albeit a minority) have taken the “pause” to imply that the climate system may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought (Lewis 2013; Otto et al. 2013; Curry 2014; Lewis and Curry 2014).

Click to read more ...

The academy is broken

Joe Duarte is co-author of a new paper about political bias in the social sciences. It's paywalled, but there is a summary here. I recommend it.

Featuring well-known names such as Jonathan Haidt and Philip Tetlock the paper looks as though it might create something of a stir, especially as it essentially concludes that social psychology is so dominated by woolly liberals as to make its findings untrustworthy:

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

The authors reckon that there is a golden opportunity at hand to correct this bias within the academy. I must say I'm entirely unconvinced. I think the rot, and the bigotry, are so ingrained as to make the system unreformable. I have often wondered if the future is not in independent scholars and independent funding streams, secure from the depredations of the liberal left. Certainly, it's hard to see why the public should be paying for the academy in its current state.