NOAA slips up?

Chris Horner sends details of a FOIA request he made earlier in the year. He was seeking details of correspondence between NOAA's Tom Peterson and Thomas Stocker, the head of IPCC WGI. It is hoped that this correspondence might throw some light on the mysterious email sent by Stocker to IPCC lead authors in the wake of Climategate.

Surprisingly, NOAA seemed to have slipped up rather, failing even to acknowledge Horner's request. Apparently, under US law this amounts to constructive refusal, and Horner can now move to seek an immediate judicial remedy.

As Horner comments in his email:

We will soon learn out how badly the global warming establishment wants to fight to keep this, and similar public records, from the public. Will NOAA disregard the caviling from usual suspects and promptly move to produce the record, which should take mere minutes? Or will it heed the calls and hunker down, risking a certain judicial order affirming what an inspector general has already concluded.

IPCC-related records in the possession of government employees (or accessible by them, now that we know about third-party servers established to dodge FOI laws), are indeed agency records subject to release to the taxpayers who underwrite the IPCC enterprise.

Update on Sep 6, 2012 by Bishop Hill

The complaint has now been lodged and can be seen here.

Peter Lilley on Newsnight

Peter Lilley was on Newsnight, allegedly to discuss the economics of climate change. Unfortunately he appears to have been ambushed, being called upon to discuss Professor Peter Wadhams' bid for the AGW alarmism limelight instead.

Lilley did rather well, I thought (from 35:20).

Mixing science and economics

Roger Harrabin has written another piece on the cabinet reshuffle, this time managing to leaven the criticisms of the usual suspects with a few mentions of those who are pleased with the appointments of Owen Paterson and John Hayes.

Harrabin's analysis of a quote from Hayes was rather interesting:

"We face a major challenge to keep the lights on in the most cost-effective way. In achieving this, we must not be over-reliant on any one technology, but build a balanced low-carbon mix and make the best use of Britain's domestic energy resources and skilled workforce."

Click to read more ...

Peter Lilley comments

I noted in an update to the the "Stern Exposed" thread that Chris Hope said that he had found an error in Peter Lilley's article about the Stern Report. Lilley has now added a comment pointing out what has happened. I'm reproducing it here.

I have posted this response to Chris Hope's query on his website:

Dear Chris
Thank you for querying the figures I attribute to the PAGE2002 Impact Assessment Model.
In fact the figures I quote do come from your model – Figure 5 on page of your explanatory article The Marginal Impact of CO2 from PAGE2002: An Integrated Assessment Model Incorporating the IPCC’s Five Reasons for Concern. They are line 7 and refer to India so my paragraph should have read:

“The model is given a range of assumptions of impacts on the GDP of each geographic area for a 2.5°C rise in temperature. Thus, IN INDIA a 2.5°C temperature rise is deemed to reduce GDP by between 1.5% and 4% - with a median 2% loss. The loss is then set to increase as a power of temperature ranging between linear and cube – averaging 1.3.”

The words IN INDIA somehow got erased and I will reinstate them in future versions especially as it then makes more sense.

You also single out India in your excellent presentation to the Yale Symposium – page 48 where you point out that though “adaptation reduces impacts by 90% in OECD countries” it reduces it by only “50% in India”. That was the point I was referring to in the second quote to which you refer. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your model, but as I understand it, even when India and other poor countries which constitute the bulk of the world reach current OECD levels of development they will still be deemed to adapt only by 50% not by 90%?

I am sorry if you thought I was trying to misrepresent your model. Far from it. The clarity and transparency with which you present all your assumptions and equations stood out as a model which I only wish others on all sides of this debate would emulate. So I regret all the more that a proofing error – mea culpa – led to that impression.

Best regards

Peter Lilley

Spectator debate

I'm on the panel for a Spectator debate in Edinburgh this month:

Wednesday 19 September 2012
National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh

Alex Salmond wants to generate 100 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewables by 2020. Impossible, unaffordable and just hot air? In the next few years Alex Salmond plans to turn Scotland into one huge wind farm, but does wind power really live up to the claims made by its advocates? Is the SNP heading down a route doomed to failure? Or is this in fact the start of a ‘renewable revolution'? The Spectator travels to Edinburgh for the first time to debate this important issue. Join us at the National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh on Wednesday 19 September and you decide whether Scotland's energy policy is just hot air.

Details here.

Paterson and the dash for gas

Benny Peiser, writing at City AM, reckons the appointment of Paterson clears the way for shale gas exploitation to begin in earnest:

...the appointment of Owen Paterson as the UK’s new environment secretary is fuelling concerns among environmental campaigners. They fear that the government’s green agenda is being scaled back in order to refocus on economic recovery.

Yesterday, environmental journalists warned that the reshuffle has effectively terminated “the greenest government ever.” Some have argued that Paterson’s appointment marks a sharp turn from the green policies that had previously found a home in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

In the past, Paterson has proposed an end to all energy subsidies and a speedy development of domestic shale gas reserves. His endorsement of shale exploration is particularly pertinent, since DEFRA is responsible for the Environment Agency, which is in charge of regulating and policing shale gas ventures.

Most crucially, the government intends to publish a new Economy Bill in the next few days, detailing a major deregulation of the planning system. Paterson will be responsible for the deregulation of environmental assessments, allowing fast-tracked developments.

Paterson may well be able to ensure that regulation does not stand in the way of the shale revolution. But whether that is sufficient for the revolution to go ahead remains unclear. There are still the deep greens at DECC to contend with.

Biodiversity and the education system

My daughter started at high school a few weeks back and the prospect of doing proper lessons in specialised subjects has been a welcome prospect for her. However, her introduction to science has been interesting to say the least.

The Scottish curriculum is now entirely project-based so, where my first high-school science lesson took in atomic theory and the periodic table, first-years at our local high school will be learning about biodiversity.

This will be the focus for the whole of the first term.

The idea of the project-based curriculum is that different skills and techniques can be hung off the topic - so far they have made a trap for creepy-crawlies and they look as if they are going to look at sampling techniques in coming days. But from my admittedly somewhat distant perspective it looks as if systematic knowledge is going to be largely absent from the school day. Children will learn skills but will have less of a grasp of the science. It is perhaps a curriculum that will produce laboratory technicians rather than scientists.

What do readers here think?

More Deben conflicts

In the comments to yesterday's Deben thread, Lord Beaverbrook notes that Deben's chairmanship of Veolia - a company that he says is mainly involved in installation of water meters - is doubly problematic. Lord B notes two statements on the website of the Committee on Climate Change:

Based on the application of the assessment toolkit in the ASC's third report, the ASC advises that the Government and water companies should take further steps to increase efficiency in water use, including through water metering and pricing. Increased uptake of meters will be particularly important in locations with current and future risks of supply-demand deficits.[Link]

and

We must take adaptation more seriously if we are to manage the growing risks of floods and droughts. This can be done by investing more in flood defences, faster roll-out of water meters and giving serious consideration to where and how we build our housing and infrastructure. Without action by households and businesses to prepare for these inevitable weather extremes the country faces rising costs, unnecessary damage and future disruption.[Link]

One wonders about the utility of a letter to the chairman of the E&CC committee, Tim Yeo. Given that his own interests are just as problematic, it is unlikely that any reaction would be forthcoming.

More Lew

Interestinger and interestinger.

I noted yesterday that McIntyre had unearthed an invitation to take part in the Lewandowsky survey. However, there is much about the survey that still appears problematic. Firstly, the invitation was sent on 6 September 2010, but upholder blogs like Deltoid had received the link more than a week earlier on 28 August.

McIntyre received a reminder two weeks later. Just three days after that, Lewandowsky was discussing preliminary results in public, which seems rather odd.

Click to read more ...

More bad news for greens

The latest from the government reshuffle brings another piece of bad news for those who would sacrifice everything to Gaia.

In a surprise move, Energy Minister Charles Hendry has been axed in the government's reshuffle to be replaced by Tory MP John Hayes.

Writing on Twitter, Labour Peer Lady Bryony Worthington revealed earlier this afternoon that she had "just bumped in to Charles Hendry who is back to being a back bencher", adding that the demotion was "a real shame."

Number 10 later confirmed Hendry had been replaced by MP for South Holland and the Deepings, John Hayes, who has moved from his role as Minister for Skills at the Department for Business.

Hayes appointment will cause concern amongst renewable energy firms given his opposition to wind farms in his constituency, having previously describing wind turbines as a "terrible intrusion on our flat fenland landscape".

Hendry was not one of the MPs who called on David Cameron to reverse policy on wind farms, although as a minister this is perhaps not surprising.

Deben's closet "water" interests

Lord Deben is currently being questioned by the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee about his appointment as chairman of the "independent" Climate Change Committee. Questioning eventually came round to his much-discussed conflicts of interest and Deben was keen to explain that he had resigned from any positions in which there was even a hint of conflict of interest, with shareholdings being liquidated at the same time.

He was pressed on his remaining interests and in particular his interest in a water company. Deben's reply was that this company was involved in installing meters for other companies and that there was therefore no conflict of interest:

Click to read more ...

More holes in the IPPR report

Gerard Wynn's article points out the differing views on wind intermittency of the green subsidy junkies at IPPR and those who have to deal with the problem, namely National Grid.

Regarding day-ahead variability, the [IPPR] study did not anticipate problems: "Wind power, at penetrations likely in the UK by 2020, is variable and predictable in much the same way as demand," it said.

That confidence is not matched by Britain's transmission operator, National Grid, which published a consultation earlier this year on whether to upgrade its wind power forecasting.

"The main challenge associated with wind power is its variability; wind power output is highly dependent on weather conditions and carries a high degree of uncertainty," it said.

"As the volume of wind power capacity increases, so will the effect of wind variability and hence the accuracy of the wind power forecasts will become more important for both National Grid and the industry in terms of balancing their own position."

The National Grid highlighted the problem of cut-out, for example, where high wind conditions force turbines to switch off, removing output suddenly: "These events are difficult to forecast accurately in terms of magnitude of impact and timing."

There's more on these lines in the article. Read the whole thing.

Reshuffle

Among the reshuffle news today is this interesting switch at Defra:

Owen Paterson has been appointed DEFRA secretary, according to reports.

Mr Paterson will replace the outgoing Caroline Spelman as David Cameron carries out a major reshuffle of his Cabinet.

Apparently those of a green persuasion are not impressed by the switch, with Paterson seen as being much more hostile to environmentalists than his predecessor.

Other changes are being viewed equally dimly in green quarters:

Downing Street also confirmed this morning that former chief whip Patrick McLoughlin will take over as Transport Secretary from Justine Greening, who has been moved to the Department for International Development.

McLoughlin has in the past voted against Heathrow expansion, but green groups have already voiced concerns that the removal of Greening and Transport Minister Theresa Villiers from the Department for Transport appears designed to enable a Conservatvie U-turn on its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow before the next election.

Paterson is widely seen as being on the right of the Conservative Party and green groups were quick to highlight his previous hostility to environmental campaigns.

Update on Sep 4, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Damian Carrington is worried:

Paterson is no treehugger. In May, he reportedly told the Cabinet that it should end all energy subsidies, such as those for wind and solar power, and fast-track shale gas exploitation...As MP for North Shropshire, Paterson has spoken against wind farms and the new pylons needed to carry their power to the national grid.

Stern exposed

Updated on Sep 4, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Updated on Sep 4, 2012 by Bishop Hill

Nicholas Stern is to blame.

When you see wind farms covering every hill and mountain and most of the valleys too, you can blame Stern. If you can't pay your heating bills, ask Stern why this has happened. When children are indoctrinated and dissenting voices crushed, it is at Nicholas Stern that you should point an accusing finger. When the lights start to go out in a few years time, it's Stern who will have to explain why.

Despite years of having mainstream economists pointing to the flaws in the Stern Review there has been an almost unanimous collective shrug from the media, more interested in climate porn than the wellbeing of their neighbours.

Click to read more ...

Nurse raises eyebrows

The New York Times carries a profile of Paul Nurse, and mentions my GWPF report in the process.

Of late, too, conservative critics have attached themselves like barnacles to the society’s hull. The Global Warming Policy Foundation treated the society as a nest of alarmists in a recent report, “Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change.” (The Latin expression is the society’s motto; it translates roughly as “Take nobody’s word for it.”) James Delingpole, the waggishly influential conservative blogger for The Telegraph, lampoons Dr. Nurse as “easily my favorite Nobel Prize winner after Yasir Arafat, Al Gore and Barack Obama.”It’s fair to say his mortar shots have not rattled the windows of the Royal Society. Dr. Nurse hiked his eyebrows and shrugged: “We can’t sit by without exposing bunkum.”

I can't actually think of any occasion when the Royal Society has "exposed bunkum" on the subject of climate change. There was obviously a certain amount of covering up for those implicated in the Climategate affair and those very silly and unscientific papers that went out in the bad old days. But apart from that they have just acted as cheerleaders.