Climategate and the exclusionary principle

A new paper by Garud et al (Social Studies of Science, forthcoming) reviews Climategate and analyses some of the sociology involved. The authors conclude that while climatologists - or at least the Hockey Team - were seeking to protect the space in which they operated, their actions actually led to the destabilisation of that space.

In the case of climate science, as concerns multiplied, the approach taken was one of exclusion, which in hindsight appears to be puzzling given that the post-Climategate investigations failed to find evidence of ‘scientific misconduct’ or fraud. In other words, despite having nothing to hide, those involved employed numerous exclusionary tactics, which later misfired.

Click to read more ...

Tunnelling for money

Christopher Booker has uncovered some important new information about Tim Yeo's financial interests. Until recently Yeo's interests in Eurotunnel looked rather odd next to his array of interests in green businesses. Now the connecting link has been revealed:

Attention has lately been drawn to the declared business interests of both Lord Deben and Mr Yeo – who last year earned more than £200,000, on top of his MP’s salary of £80,000, working for companies mostly involved in “green” energy schemes. The apparent exception was his role as “environmental adviser” to Eurotunnel, by whom he was paid up to £1,000 an hour. But Eurotunnel, it turns out, is planning to run a £220 million “interconnector” power cable through its service tunnel, to provide back-up from French nuclear power stations for the times when our wind turbines don’t supply enough power to the national grid.

Fighting mad

Another interesting set of emails from the University of Arizona release. These ones date back to 2001, eight or nine months after the publication of the Third Assessment Report. The thread starts on 7 September, just days before 9/11, and reference is made to those attacks in the thread.

The emails show how the Hockey Team came together to attempt to thwart criticism of their field from a German geological institute. The message is from Stefan Rahmstorf to Overpeck:

Subject: Sceptics attack! [Title inferred from later emails in thread]

Hi Jonathan,

I thought the subject line might capture your attention ... but seriously, we're facing a concerted action here at the moment, a German geological institute has launched a well-orchestrated challenge to IPCC including a book launch, cover articles in major newspapers, a simultaneous official request in the Bundestag, etc. They have the coal industry on their side. Not surprising to you in the US I'm sure but a novelty for germany, where so far the sceptics had no ground to stand on.

Click to read more ...

The car crash of energy policy

Gerard Wynn, writing at Reuters, tries to explain the effect that wind generation will have on electricity grids in Europe. The point he's getting at is that because wind and solar (a) have zero marginal cost and (b) are vastly subsised, they will displace gas (and coal) when they are available. That means that gas and coal have to recover their fixed costs and make their profit at times when wind and solar are not available, rather than 24/7 as previously.

The effects could be scary. No, make that terrifying:

Britain's Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has estimated that prices would have to rise to as high as 10,000 pounds ($15,700) per megawatt hour (MWh) for short periods, from an average of around 45 pounds. Prices in Britain have historically never exceeded 938 pounds per MWh.

More litigation

This press release has just been issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Penn State Climate Scientist Michael Mann Demands Apology From CEI

CEI Refuses to Retract Commentary

Washington, D.C., August 24, 2012 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a letter on August 21 from an attorney representing Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann that demands that CEI retract and apologize for a post on CEI’s blog, OpenMarket.org, written by CEI adjunct scholar Rand Simberg. The letter also threatens that they "intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann."

Click to read more ...

More emails

Chris Horner has just had another batch of emails released to him, this time from the University of Arizona, where Hockey Team members Overpeck and Hughes are based. It's early days on the analysis of the content, but one message was sufficiently amusing for him to forward it to me.

Remember this picture?

Click to read more ...

Timmy on Mann

Tim Worstall writes about the (allegedly) forthcoming libel case:

The lawyers defending NR get to crawl all over all those documents that he’s been so careful about making sure have not been released. Now, as we know absolutely, Dr. Mann has not been hiding anything at all, not even the odd decline, in his academic work. All his papers, emails, research and workings are entirely without blemish as is only right and proper for one who has awoken the world to the grave dangers posed by climate change. But it is still true that NR’s lawyers get access to them in order to defend the magazine against the charges that Dr. Mann is bringing. Those entirely righteous charges, you recall, to defend his reputation and honour from the stains being flung at it.

Five degrees

So much reading to do and so little time to do it.

Bob Watson interview with Pallab Ghosh yesterday was interesting on many levels, not least the fact that the BBC put the great man up against their science journalist rather than the usual greens.  Not that it appears to have made very much difference.

Watson is retiring soon, although I don't doubt that he will continue to make his voice heard. The BBC interview seems to be his parting shot, and of course it is on climate change. When your legacy is the industrialisation of the British countryside, I guess you would want to get some justification on the table.

Click to read more ...

Court-bound

Michael Mann's has issued a response to the NRO's "Get Lost" statement the other day:

People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O'Connor:

********
The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.
*********

We intend to file a lawsuit.

Well it should be interesting. Meanwhile, Jonathan Adler, an editor at the National Review and also a lawyer by trade, reckons that Mann's case will not stack up.

Turning the blind Eye

Apparently the hitherto entirely unquestioning Private Eye has published a letter that is supportive of the sceptic position (H/T Philip Foster).

Warming signs

Sir,

Whatever the shortcomings of the parliamentary commission on banking standards (Eye 1320), it's outrageous to claim that the presence of climate change sceptics, such as Lord Lawson, gives it a 'bonkers' feel.

Like or dislike him as a politician, Lawson's book on global warming like that penned by former Eye writer Christopher Booker is well researched, pointing out that the climate change debate is not over and that the "remedies" for global warming may well cause more damage than the condition itself. Given such factors as the other side's doctoring of emails, the flawed "hockey stick" graph, and the wild inaccuracies of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, it doesn't seem bonkers to request an informed, open, calm discussion of the whole subject.

This is all that Lawson has done, and Private Eye, with its usual healthy cynicism, should do the same, instead of toeing the current trendy orthodox line.

Whether this represents a gentle shift in the magazine's position or just an attempt to drum up a bit of an argument is unclear. Interesting, nevertheless.

London BH pub meet

This from Paul Maynard

After the excellent Steve McIntyre talk last week, a considerable crowd repaired to the pub.

I would be happy to organise a repeat gathering at least as far as picking a location is concerned. There is a similar gathering being organised in Oxford next week but I won't be able to attend that.

No formality, except to say that the invite is open to all opinions not just the sceptical variety.

Let me know geographic preference, e.g. Covent Garden, West End or City.

Regards

Paul

US reaction to Climategate

Most readers will know from Watts Up With That? that Chris Horner has obtained a substantial quantity of emails from NOAA. Of particular interest are the ones relating to the immediate aftermath of Climategate - they can be seen below.

Of particular interest is the role of the White House in coordinating the US reaction.

All communications on this issue are being coordinated with the White House. Therefore no communications with Hill or Press should go out without [Department of Commerce] coordinating with [White House].

The release also includes emails from Myles Allen and Emily Shuckburgh regarding the open letter from climate scientists that was widely publicised after Climategate.

NOAA re CG

Calling Dr Mann

Michael Mann's threat to sue the National Review over its quoting of a fairly rude Competitive Enterprise Institute article has elicited a fairly blunt response from the Review's lawyers.

Our review reveals that the magazine has published statements that are fully protected under the First Amendment. There is no need for National Review to remove or retract the post.

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1) that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster ofthe threering circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither ofthese statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.

Click to read more ...

See you in court

This press release, issued by Communities Against Turbines Scotland, has just been sent to me.

In respect of the Scottish Government's target based renewable energy programme, a serious complaint has been filed to hold both the UK and the Scottish Government to account via the United Nations. It should be appreciated that both the EU and the UK are now being held to account by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in respect of their non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

A Communication lodged by a Scottish Community Council with UNECE’s Aarhus Convention Compliance team has been accepted as valid for consideration (Ref. ACCC/C/2012/68). This is important because it strikes at the flawed consultation process at the heart of the Government's renewables programme. Also, Ref. ACCC/C/2010/54 has found public participation arrangements related to the NREAP (Nation Renewable Energy Action Plan) to be deficient.

This Communication has been filed on behalf of the Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council, under the Aarhus Convention which provides for access to information in environmental matters. Broadly, it requires Governments to make available the scientific justifications for programmes which are said to affect the environment in which we all live. Again broadly, the Scottish and UK Governments have not done this.

Click to read more ...

McIntyre for Maddox

BH reader Paul Matthews has nominated Steve McIntyre for the Maddox Prize, an award for someone who has stood up for science in the face of adversity.

I nominate Stephen McIntyre for the John Maddox Prize for standing up for science. He meets the requirements of the prize – he has raised concerns about misleading information about climate change, spoken up for rigorous evidence backed up by publicly available data, aided understanding of this complex issue through his papers, blog and talks, and faced difficulty and hostility with admirable equanimity.

The full nomination paper is here.