For unfathomable (ahr ahr!) reasons, much is made of the association between two Fellows of the Royal Society and the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). One is left to wonder if the remaining 41 Fellows “who called for” the new Royal Society pronouncement, are just stooges of the GWPF. Who knows, perhaps Pallab Ghosh believes the whole Society including Lord Rees are zombies manipulated by Lord Lawson?
Actually, it’s not just a matter of opinion. Keep in mind that the article is titled “Royal Society launches new climate change guide“. Therefore one would expect it to be dedicated to the Royal Society and its stance on climate change. Keep also in mind that journalists are painfully aware of the importance of dedicating the right number of words to the right topic.
Now, there are 419 words in Mr Ghosh’s piece. Of those, 83 are dedicated to Bob Ward’s likely slanderous innuendos against the GWPF, a topic that is removed as far as it gets from the Royal Society and its stance on climate change:
“…Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation […] campaigns against climate researchers and promotes inaccurate and misleading information about climate change“
That’s 83/419=19.81% of the total. Now add the words in the previous paragraph in the article, just as well irrelevant to what the article was supposed to be about, and you get 125/419=29.83%.
In other words, 30% of Mr Ghosh’s writing has little to do with the Royal Society and its stance on climate change. Can anybody imagine what would happen at the BBC if, say, 30% of any political article were blatantly irrelevant?
Funny to see such a shameful behaviour in their “science” section of all places.
Talking about “Climate change scepticism is an age-old problem” Brendan Barrett and Sven Åke Bjørke at the UN University manage to be ridiculous, sublime and dangerous at the same time.
“Ridiculous” when they complain of poor communication between (catastrophic climate change) believers and skeptics after using the odious word, “denier”; and when they say that only extreme voices get audience, and at the same time label all skeptics as vaguely paranoid.
“Sublime” when they quote the thoughts of Malthus about advocates “indulging in bitter invectives” instead of being practical and solution-focused (obviously, not even Malthus could get it all wrong).
Finally, “dangerous” when they suggest there is no more time left to debate the causes of climate change. Historically, those who felt there was not enough time to save the world, went on to commit genocide.
Haven’t posted much of late. For two reason: one, a super-secrete Earth-shattering project (or rather, a smaller version of it), and two, because with the whole catastrophic climate change narrative imploding around me, I do not really find much in pleasure in flogging a comatose horse…
We have the BBC’s Richard Black severely reprimanded by the illiberals at Climate Progress. The UK Government might get rid of its Climate Department and doesn’t want to keep foraging the solar power industry no more. The New Statesman, no less, forces itself into recognising the importance of Stephen McIntyre. There’s Scientific American stating that “the leaked “Climategate” e-mails painted researchers as censorious”, whilst Lord Turnbull is allowed to write in the pages of the Financial Times that “a climate overhaul is needed to win back public trust”
If another bunch of hidden, dodgy emails shows up now, the “catastrophic climate” discourse will go the way of the Dodo.
UPDATE: Climategate keeps popping up with what a few weeks ago were unlikely comments. For example at the UN University:
“the emotive exchanges surrounding the so-called climategate affair [show] that the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia did not feel completely comfortable sharing all their data with those sceptical of their work, and intrinsically [highlight] how this situation has undermined the credibility of the science involved, to a degree”
Yes, I know it was the day of the stupidest Friedman column ever (favorite quote: “There is really no debate about climate change in China“…yessssir, there is really no debate about anything in China, it’s a dictatorship, thank you very much!).
But then something else popped up in the news, to provide a ray of optimism against the advance of rabid climate change belief. Just like in the UK, the top American cheeses don’t seem willing to walk the global warming walk. Shock, horror, “Obama backs utilities in key climate change lawsuit“.
Yes, the POTUS too, he doesn’t believe climate change as it’s known today, would be able to resist to a proper analysis.
Thank you, Mr President!
Among the few things I have learned after thirteen years of living in England, there’s an appreciation for understatements and reading between the lines.
Prurient, tight-lipped local society is in fact constantly trying to verbally channel its anger and other frustrations in “acceptable” ways, so the language is hammered day-in day-out by the search of new ways to speak the unspeakable (eg the number of objects whose names can’t be used for sexual innuendos is dwindling if not already zero).
That’s why I am developing a feeling that the botched, inconclusive, confused Climategate inquiries have actually been yelling their underlying message loud and clear.
See? Neither Parliament or Lord Oxburgh or Sir Muir Russell of the “independent” UEA commissions tried to deal with climate science as such: to the point that Oxburgh himself wrote:
“The panel was not concerned with whether the conclusions of the published research were correct”
And what made them all think unwise to touch climate science with a long pole? Why, it’s all easy to understand under the hypothesis that very few people, either in Parliament, or at the UEA, or among the top echelons of British Science, have got the confidence that climate science would survive any serious scrutiny…
Couple of year-old clippings from the NYT “Green Inc” blog. All humor as unintended as ever.
Nov 29, 2009:
[…] few failed to recognize that the Copenhagen plot line — after years, really, of stalemate, lowered expectations and continued scientific bickering — appeared to be moving forward. “As we head towards Copenhagen, the world’s two largest emitters have stepped up to the plate at the highest political level,” Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, said in a statement. “This shows that international engagement on climate change can produce real results.”
Dec 8, 2009:
“The U.N. Climate Convention meeting needs to be a show‐stopper and a chart‐topper in the annals of international cooperation,” said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nation’s Environment Program, according to the Seal the Deal Web site. “As the negotiations kick off in Copenhagen, Dance for Climate Change can help energize action towards ensuring that nations hit the highest of high notes on the climate change challenge.” […] As show time approached, in fact, so few tickets had been sold that the price dropped to $15. And according to some local reports, tickets were actually handed out for free at the gates when the music began to play. Various reports put attendance at about 2,000. Amanda Orlanda, a spokeswoman for the Water for Life concerts, told the Danish music magazine Gaffa that about 10,000 tickets had been sold, though she conceded that somewhat fewer showed up, noting that many of the foreign delegates in town for the negotiations may have had a hard time figuring out how to find Parken Stadium, a communications breakdown on the organizers’ part, she said. “We could have done better,” she said.
Follow @mmorabito67 on Twitter for live updates from 10am GMT
UPDATE: here the relevant Twitter entries in chronological order
- Delingpole, Warehouse in attendance
- Lord Lawson, Benny Peer, Lord Turnbull, Andrew Montford ready to go
- Benny Peiser of course – curse you, Android!
- And that was Whitehouse 😛
- Starts right on time. Turnbull first
- Turnbull: so far boys-will-be-boys defence. ButBritish science reputation important.
- Turnbull: climate policy ipcc-based in UK demands almost complete decarbonisation
- People questions if science is solid enough to warrant these sacrifices
- Climategate enquiries timely but did they answer the original questions? New parliam commit looking at things again
- Missing is review of science that select committee thought would be done by Oxburgh and was not
- Montford reads. Starts with lack of independence
- Panels full of campaigners, no skeptic selected
- Serious allegations overlooked, selected papers by UEA and Jones themselves
- Known fraud evidence not considered at all
- Sir Muir Russell informed of FOI breach but did nothing about it
- Curry, von Storch critical of the enquiries too. Reputation of British science is on the line
- Peiser underlines it’s the enquiries that are under scrutiny, not the original allegations
- Times journo challenges Montford on Jones’ selection claim. Good answer.
- Turnbull: flaws from day one, prejudicial remarks, little representativity, flawed processes
- I asked: enquiries give free hands to fraudsters as long as it’s not too serious a fraud: Bishop is more optimistic
- Telegraph journalist asks Lords’ own opinion. Lawson mentions huge cloud of doubt when emails came out
- Inquiries are the expertise of Lord Turnbull -these ones failed to close the debate on Climategate
- They may be right about the science, so why did UEA engage on disreputable behaviour?
- Guardian journalist asks how report was written (desktop job)
- Why the Bishop? Lawson asks to judge report on merits
- Turnbull: parliament is listening to Sir Muir and the others too
- Montford: plenty of citations in my report if anybody is looking for them
- Telegraph: new info? Russell minutes on website, recently available
- UEA head of IT: Briffa took home some emails. Russell did not even mention this
- Turnbull: can we really do AR5 as if nothing had happened
- Lawson: there is no indication the ipcc will implement the recommendations
- The ipcc hid the decline – very disreputable – even if Jones mentioned it in the original articles
- Montford: only mention of hiding at the very last moment in AR4
- Whither the IPCC? Lawson: doubts undermine its purpose
- MP already in Sci Tech committee: our outcome not influenced by our chairman remarks
- Continues: surprise by huge gaps when we asked none there would be
- More: Jones and Briffa cannot reproduce their work. “Very disturbing”
- Meeting closes at 10:53am Gmt