A blast at Nordhaus

There's a very interesting article at the Institute for Energy Research website, looking at Nordhaus's recent critique of the 16 optimistic scientists.

Although leading climate economist William Nordhaus tries to cast himself as the messenger of objective science, his attempt to rebut the “global warming skeptics” is itself filled with misleading arguments. The actual situation is that the physical climate models have indeed predicted more warming than has actually occurred, while the economics literature casts serious doubts on the case for immediate government mitigation efforts.

I particularly enjoyed reading about Tol's review of the economics literature on the effects of AGW. That net benefits are enjoyed for warming of less than two degrees struck me as an important, and little appreciated idea.

(H/T GWPF)

Peiser on journal and media bias

Benny Peiser's review of the way scientific journals and newspapers cover global warming is a must-read:

The integrity of the science media will depend on whether they will encourage critique and fault-finding analysis by consensus sceptics - or whether they will continue their course towards unbalanced campaign journalism. Given the well-documented reluctance of mainstream science media to accept submissions by critical scientists and the aversion to report on critical papers published elsewhere, I remain unconvinced that science journalism will moderate its blinkered attitudes in the near future.

Stocker in Oxford

Simon Anthony sends this report of Thomas Stocker's recent talk in Oxford.

Yesterday I attended a talk at Wolfson College, Oxford by Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the IPCC's AR5 WG1 on "Climate Change: Making the best use of scientific information".  He's an intelligent, well-mannered and rational man, in a position of great influence.  It's therefore all the more concerning to see the weakness of the evidence and arguments which have, it seems, convinced him of the reality and urgency of AGW and which he feels should convince everyone else.

Click to read more ...

BBC attempts to outdo Heartland

Is this an attempt to outdo the Heartland Institute? On Thought for the Day, BBC Radio 4's prime time religion slot, John Bell, a church of Scotland minister discussed men, and in particular their badness:

However the notion that men are inherently superior doesn’t stand up to empirical proof. While in physical strength they might usually have the advantage, in terms of moral fibre and human decency men don’t always come out on top.

No indeed. One aspect of their badness that is of concern to John Bell is of course, climate change:

...the people who are most vocal in denying human responsibility for the disastrous effects of climate change are mostly male.

That's bad, I must say. But there are other equally bad men around, sinners to rank alongside those who are a bit doubtful about whether we are all about to fry. Can you guess what they are?

Click to read more ...

RealClimate on Yamal

Gavin Schmidt has issued the official response to the recent excitement over Yamal. I have to say, even on a brief glance through it is a wild piece of writing.

Briffa, as we know, reprocessed data from Hantemirov and Shiyatov in his 2000 paper on Yamal. He used the same data again in his 2008 paper on regional chronologies. Schmidt says:

McIntyre is accusing Briffa of ‘deception’ in stating that he did not ‘consider’ doing a larger more regional reconstruction at that time. However, it is clear from the 2000 paper that the point was to show hemispheric coherence across multiple tree ring records, not to create regional chronologies. Nothing was being ‘deceptively’ hidden and the Yamal curve is only a small part of the paper in any case.

Click to read more ...

Non-hydraulic fracking

One of the arguments that is put forward against shale gas fracking is that it uses large quantities of water and that these are toxic. Matt Ridley put these arguments to bed in the excellent report he wrote for GWPF, but there has been a new development that may make the whole dispute redundant anyway.

A planned shale gas drilling project in New York state has drawn global attention for its aim to make use of a waterless form of hydraulic fracking – a new technique designed to reduce the pollution associated with controversial natural gas drilling processes.

According to an industry report, the project is focused on using a technology that pumps a thick gel made from propane into the ground as opposed to using traditional methods of hydraulic fracking that make use of a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals to extract natural gas reserves from deep shale formations. Unlike traditional technologies, the gel from the new liquefied propane gas (LPG) fracking method reverts to vapor while still underground, and as a result returns to the surface in a recoverable form.

The strange case of the gun licence that wasn't

In recent days, the Australian National University has released the emails at the centre of the death threats controversy. The details are discussed in this useful article at Quadrant. Here's the critical message

ANU Climate Change Institute.
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010.
URGENT AND CONFIDENTIAL.

Dear All,

Looks like we've had our first serious threat of physical violence. It has come from a participant in [the] deliberative democracy project last weekend. One of the participants left early after he took exception to my talk about climate science...[Deleted’s] exact words were:

"Moreover, before he left, he came to the Fri dinner and showed other participants his gun licence and explained to them how good a sniper he is. Because he didn't attend day 2 he will not be allowed to attend the final day. I will be notifying security to be on hand in case he turns up and causes a problem."

I think the final day is this weekend but I am not sure. Anyway, I've asked XXX to brief the VC [vice-chancellor] and the head of security ASAP. The latter will determine whether this should go to the AFP [Australian Federal Police] or not. [It didn’t]. But in the meantime, we should be careful about anyone we don't know who approaches our offices.

Click to read more ...

A reader survey

I've now finished the new book - a history of Climategate and the inquiries. I'm in the process of sending it out to various people for review.

This one is going to be self-published - Donna Laframboise has sold me on the benefits of DIY publishing and it really seems a bit of a no-brainer these days.

My mind is turning to whether to print a load of copies off or whether to go down a strict print-on-demand path. I'm reasonably confident that I will sell enough copies to make a print run worthwhile, so provided I can distribute them I think this may be the way to go. To help me in the decision, however, it would help if I could get some idea of how many people might buy a paper book versus the ebook versions. To this end I've put together a brief survey which I hope readers who reckon they might buy the book will complete for me. If you are a one of the recipients of the Bishop Hill newsletter (for subscribers and major donors) please don't complete the survey. I will be sending a signed copy to each of you.

The book is very similar in length to the Hockey Stick Illusion, so one should assume pricing that is roughly in line with last time round.

There are some new revelations too.

Click here for the survey.

Thanks!

The 'not so great and not so good' - Josh 167

It is not really acceptable, is it?

Cartoons by Josh with a H/t to mydogsgotnonose for the inspiring Melton Mowbray comment.

The administrators' view

Fifteen national scientific academies, including the Royal Society, have issued the latest in a long line of doom-laden millenarianist pronouncements.

National science academies from 15 countries issued joint statements today calling on world leaders who are about to meet at the upcoming G8 Summit and other international gatherings this year to give greater consideration to the vital role science and technology could play in addressing some of the planet's most pressing challenges.  The "G-Science" statements recommend that governments engage the international research community in developing systematic, innovative solutions to three global dilemmas: how to simultaneously meet water and energy needs; how to build resilience to natural and technological disasters; and how to more accurately gauge countries' greenhouse gas emissions to verify progress toward national goals or international commitments.

As we know, the Royal Society does not consult its fellows before issuing these dramatic statements. No doubt the other academies are the same. We can safely say therefore that these words represent the view of the academies' adminstrators and not their scientists.

The academies traditionally issue one of these statements before major international summit meetings. They normally involve demands for money and/or political action in line with the philosophical views of the academy administrators. Clearly this one is no exception.

Acton and parliamentary privilege

Steve McIntyre notes UEA's recent submission to an Information Tribunal hearing. McIntyre had pointed out that UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, had told the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee that the emails relating to the Wahl and Ammann affair were available. However, they told McIntyre that they no longer existed.

In their defence, the university invokes the principle of Parliamentary Privilege.

Mr Mclntyre makes allegations to the effect that evidence given by UEA’s Vice-Chancellor, Professor Acton, to the STC as part of its inquiry into climategate was untrue. UEA does not accept that these allegations are well-founded. However, the doctrine of Parliamentary privilege in any event means that these are not allegations which can or should be countenanced by the Tribunal.

According the Guide for witnesses giving written or oral evidence to a House of Commons select committee, witnesses to select committee hearings are indeed covered by Parliamentary Privilege (emphasis in original).

Witnesses to select committees enjoy absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give, whether written or oral, provided that it is formally accepted as such by the Committee. Absolute privilege protects freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings; it is enshrined in statutory form in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, which prohibits proceedings in Parliament from being called in question in any court. In practical terms this means that select committee witnesses are immune from civil or criminal proceedings founded upon that evidence; nor can their evidence be relied upon in civil or criminal proceedings against any other person.

Absolute privilege does not apply to written submissions which have been distributed or made available prior to being published by a committee.

However, the protections involved also appear to be something of a double-edged sword.

The protection which absolute privilege gives to those preparing written evidence and to witnesses must not be abused. In particular, witnesses should answer questions put to them by a committee carefully, fully and honestly. Deliberately attempting to mislead a committee is a contempt of the House, which the House has the power to punish.

Interesting times.

Update on May 10, 2012 by Bishop Hill

This Guardian article on contempt of Parliament is interesting, and helps explain why the committee might be in difficulties here.

Give us a clouseau - Josh 166

Cartoons by Josh

The Yamal deception

As many readers are probably aware, there has been an important new posting at Climate Audit about the Yamal affair. This posting is an attempt to set out the whole story of Yamal. It reworks an article I did in 2009 and incorporates new developments since that time. I hope readers find it useful. I have also prepared a Kindle version of the post, for which there is a small charge - click here:

Please also consider hitting the tip jar.

The story of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick reconstruction, its statistical bias and the influence of the bristlecone pines is well known. Steve McIntyre's research into the other reconstructions of the temperatures of the last millennium has received less publicity, however. The story of the Yamal chronology may change that.

Click to read more ...

Fulmination in Oz

Andrew Bolt casts a weary eye over the antics of Professor Clive Hamilton, a hyperactive supporter of the AGW orthodoxy:

Former Greens candidate Professor Clive Hamilton is furious:

Who would have thought the Melbourne Theatre Company would get into bed with Andrew Bolt?

But here’s the thing. Hamilton is a professional moralist - a Professor of Public Ethics, no less. Standing for goodness, he denounces ‘the highly personal attacks”, “vituperation” , “vilification of individuals” .and “angry ridicule” that he detects from sceptics.

Yet in response to the MTC staging a play with the sceptic as a hero, Hamilton lets fly with a truly extraordinary stream of abuse:

...discredited ... rat-bags ... denier .. conspiracy theorists ... fossil-fuel industry hatchet men ... cyber-bullies ... shit-spreaders ...  shock jocks ... bullshit ...  insidious ... grubbier ... distortion ...  cowardly ... artistic wanking ... poison ... slippery falsehoods ... travesty

Please avoid responding in kind to Professor Hamilton and please avoid merely venting.

'Ello, 'ello, 'ello

From Scottish Sceptic:

So, it is with deep regret that I feel I have:

• Informed the Norfolk police of a likely crime at the UEA.
• Asked my MP (Jo Swinson) to inform the appropriate parliamentary authorities that they appear to have been lied to.
• Written to Sir Muir Russell (by way of the judicial appointments board) making him aware of these allegations.
• Initiated a complaint with the UK civil service against Sir John Beddington.

Interesting. Particularly the first point. I wonder what crime is alleged?