28gate hits the MSM

David Rose has a big spread in the Mail on Sunday in which he gives the 28gate story a good going over. (If you haven't read it before, get yourself a copy of my pamphlet on how Tony Newbery and I uncovered the story.)

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming,  The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

The new attention on the 28gate seminar has been prompted by disclosure of documents showing how the Department for International Development responded to a funding request for funding from the International Broadcasting Trust a body that lobbies broadcasters on behalf of green NGOs. What we have, in essence, appears to be government paying for subversion of the state broadcaster.

Which is pretty appalling when you think about it.

Update on Jan 12, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Tony Newbery has more at his blog, together with links to the FOI release.

As what has happened becomes more widely known, perhaps now is the time to consider writing to those in a position to do something about the bias. The Culture Secretary and the chairman of the Commons Culture and Media Select Committee are obvious candidates.

What better way to spend an evening in January?

Shout out for Donna

Donna Laframboise has been invited to give evidence to the Commons' Energy and Climate Change Committee's inquiry on the Fifth Assessment Report and is looking for help in paying her way over. It goes without saying that to get a sceptic in front of the inquiry is a major step forward, so it's an excellent use for your spare tenners.

Donate early and donate often, here.

Flooding flak

Inside the Environment Agency has collated a fascinating collection of stories in the local media about the floods. You get the impression that outside the insular world of London liberal media folk the story is about the performance of the agency rather than Owen Paterson's belief or otherwise in climate change.

Click to read more ...

Diggin' in the dirt

On the website of somthing called "Project Dirt" I find this job advertisement offered by our old friend Brendan Montague who, readers will recall, has been conning his way into the homes of more or less prominent sceptics and raking through their bins looking for who knows what:

We've been running a two year investigation into climate change and how policy is formulated and influenced by special interest groups. We've collated a comprehensive database of facts, figures and key quotes and now we are trying to open up the results of our investigation in a searchable online database. In order to make the database searchable, we'll need your help to tag and categorise each of the records we've collected.

Friday funny

According to Peter Stott of the Hadley Centre, it was fair of David Cameron to suspect that the recent UK storms were linked to climate change.  Myles Allen agrees.

Cameron may not be right, but he has the right suspicions.

Daily Politics returns to climate

Green Party leader Natalie Bennett was up against Matt Ridley on the Daily Politics today, discussing - inevitably - the floods.

The self-awareness of the green

The sad fact is that quite often legitimate camps can be a magnet for alcoholics, people with severe mental health disorders, people who have no genuine interest in the issues and people who simply think it funny to disrupt other people's hard work.

A Barton Moss protestor, busy disrupting the hard work of iGas employees, muses on those firing flares at the police.

Fracking flares up

A few days ago a flare was allegedly fired at a police helicopter which was landing near the Barton Moss anti-fracking protests. At the time the allegations were strenuously denied by the organisers.

Rachel Thompson from Frack Free Greater Manchester said: “We refute this claim. Greater Manchester Police have refused to show any evidence of this alleged incident."

However, James Verdon has been looking around the activists' social media and has discovered that the identity of the culprit is well known to those in the camp including, apparently, Rachel Thompson, the organiser who issued the original denial.

Well Rachel Thompson can in her words "refute absolutely these claims" but the cruel truth is that several of us know who did this, why it was done and the reasons behind the present cover up (bad PR in short).

There are simply too many people who saw it happen to try and claim it was a cop fit up when it wasn't. I'm not in any way defending what the cops did and I was one of those who had their tent turned over by them but IMHO we are better off telling the truth, booting out the twat who did it (without informing cops of course) and moving on. This issue is too important to let it become another 'Us v Cops' slanging match (climate camp ! ) that obscures the important reason for the protesting.

Read James' article and the activists' website.

A survey

Brandon Shollenberger is doing a survey of climate sceptics.

Take part here.

More BBC balance

This morning's Today show feature the very epitome of a BBC interview on matters green. We had an environmentalist - Mark Lynas - an IPCC scientist - Rowan Sutton - and a credulous interviewer in the shape of Evan Davis. And not a dissenting view in sight.

The lack of self-awareness of the participants is hilarious. We have the pie-throwing green calling for a higher standard of discourse and the scientist saying perhaps the greens had been overstating things a bit (and not, presumably IPCC scientists - like the one who described global warming as a barrage of ballistic missiles).

Enjoy.

listen to ‘Is there a 'green hush'?’ on Audioboo

<div class="ab-player" data-boourl="https://audioboo.fm/boos/1842827-is-there-a-green-hush/embed?eid=AQAAAOzEz1KLHhwA" ><a href="https://audioboo.fm/boos/1842827-is-there-a-green-hush">listen to &#x2018;Is there a &#39;green hush&#39;?&#x2019; on Audioboo</a></div><script type="text/javascript">(function() { var po = document.createElement("script"); po.type = "text/javascript"; po.async = true; po.src = "https://d15mj6e6qmt1na.cloudfront.net/assets/embed.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();</script>

Inside mathematics

Updated on Jan 10, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Jan 10, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Jan 10, 2014 by Bishop Hill

The BBC's Inside Science programme looked at the Ship of Fools expedition yesterday. We were treated to the unedifying sound of presenter wondering about whether what he called "deniers'" views on sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere carried any weight. We were led to beleive that they did not. Normal BBC fare I hear you say.

Some of what was said was bizarre though. Interviewee Professor John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey said the rise in Antarctic sea ice extent was less than 1% and was therefore well within the bounds of natural variability. I have no problem with the second part of that statement, but 1% seemed very low to me. Here is the relevant graph from the Cryosphere Today website.

Click to read more ...

Paterson stands by science

David Cameron's foolish linking of the recent floods to climate change has left him in a bit of a pickle. With the Met Office having already said there is no evidence of an increase in flooding storminess the Prime Minister finds himself having to oppose the massed guns of mainstream science.

I have no problem with arguing with mainstream scientists of course, but it's fun to watch Mr C's discomfort as he tries to extricate himself from the mire into which he has blundered. Owen Paterson must be feeling rather smug now, and has refused to change his tune and back the PM's position. This has created all sorts of problems for the greens, who have been running a rather active Twitter campaign to unseat Paterson in recent weeks. If they argue on the one hand that we should trust the scientists on global warming then they are going to struggle to say we should jettison their views on the floods.

Interesting times.

Flooding risk

A reader sent me this. Take a look at the Environment Agency flood risk map. Zoom in on a bit of coastline of your choice. My reader points out that the areas between a the high and low tide marks appear to be flagged up as being at risk of flooding.

True, but misleading?

Met bashes Cameron

The Met Office, ever ready to knock back climate alarmism, has taken issue with David Cameron's linking of floods and climate change yesterday.

Nicola Maxey from the Met Office said the Prime Minister failed to draw the crucial distinction between weather and climate change.

“What happened at the end of December and at the beginning of January is weather,” she said.

“Climate change happens on a global scale, and weather happens at a local scale. Climate scientists have been saying that for quite a while.

“It’s impossible to say that these storms are more intense because of climate change.”

Deben and 'the deniers'

In yesterday's exchanges in the Energy and Climate Change Committee there was an interesting exchange between Peter Lilley and Lord Deben, with the latter expressing outrage at the suggestion that a scientist might have said that their results had no effect on the broader global warming hypothesis simply so as to ensure they didn't lose their grant funding.

Deben's outrage quickly switched onto a subtly different point, namely the idea that scientists might be motivated solely by the need to keep grant funding moving on. He then sought to occupy the moral high ground by saying that he didn't engage in such behaviour himself:

Click to read more ...