Friday
Oct012010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A measured view from Grantham
Oct 1, 2010 Climate: CRU The FT has given space in its letters columns for more of Jeremy Grantham's staff - this time from the other institute, at Imperial - to respond to Lord Turnbull's article the other day. Dr Simon Buckle's contribution is much more measured than Bob Ward's laughable piece the other day, as you would expect from a former diplomat. He agrees that the IAC recommendations should be put in place immediately, but rejects calls for a renewed inquiry into what went on at CRU.
The problem with a civil service insider saying that there should not be a credible investigation of CRU is that it ends up looking like Sir Humphrey sweeping problems under the carpet. Again.
[Post amended to correct Dr Buckle's affiliation]
Reader Comments (97)
Just noticed that Dr Buckle is at the other Grantham Institute. Unfortunately system problems are preventing me from amending the header post.
Which would explain why his comments are more measured....
Quite a neat idea from Buckle - I strongly disagree with merging the physical science WG1 and impacts WG2 though - they are quite different disciplines, wildly so. What does malarial spread have to do with cloud feedbacks and so on.
The impacts section is the one I have most trouble with, and actually needs two halves - impacts sans response, and likely impacts given response. As a trivial example, should sea levels rise and the Thames Barrier start to earn its corn, I dare say there will be a policy response at that time. Same in Bangladesh. There is more link between impacts and policy than there is between physical science and impacts, imho.
Bish - I've been grappling with the two Granthams, what's that all about?
"Simon originally trained and worked as a theoretical physicist in low-temperature physics and quantum optics. Simon joined the Grantham Institute as Policy Director in September 2007 after some 20 years working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Bank of England and the Ministry of Defence."
One can't help thinking, what a waste of a presumably talented scientist. But then, as those of us who worked in science and industry know, there's more money and honours (CMG) if you are paid by the taxpayer. The leap from being a physicist to joining the FCO doesn't bear thinking about.
Roddy: They are I am sure, set up to be confusing, with almost identical names. The Imperial version is more scientific. The LSE version is more political (hence Bob Ward spins from there). The two institutions are at:
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/aboutus (Grantham Institute for Climate Change)
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/About/about.aspx (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment)
The Advisory Board for both is at:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/WhosWho/Management%20Pages/AdvisoryBoard.aspx
You'll see the same familiar names of alarmists and NGOs running it (Rees, Stern, WWF, EDF etc). The list of names is very illuminating (big oil in there as well). The terms of reference is very illuminating. It's all funded by the Granthams (Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment) and taxpayers.
I'm not sure about the statement "Better to focus limited political resource on reforming the critical science policy interface – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." These, I presume are the words of a diplomat, Sir Humphrey speak. What does "limited political resource" mean? I can't see how reforming the critical science policy interface will help if the CRU is still feeding corrupt science to the interface.
Roddy Campbell is right to reject Buckle's idea of merging IPCC WGs 1 and 2. We don't yet understand the basic scientific processes, so how can we assess impacts? But is WG1 helping in this direction? I have complete, well-thumbed copies of WG1 reports 2001 and 2007 on my bookshelf. I have read most chapters of both, including the SPMs, but excluding the chapters on climate model evaluation. The volumes are in parts well-written by competent specialists, and refer to some important scientific literature, but if this was the sole source I had available I would have only a biased and limited knowledge of the field. The IPCC as it stands seems to have little interest in presenting an independent review of the state of play in scientific understanding of climate, and, particularly in its SPMs, functions essentially as an quasi-political advocate for a particular interpretation of the science. By now it has become such a massive organisation that I wonder whether reform is even possible.
Yes, that other Grantham institute that also received £12 million from Jeremy Grantham. When you look at the causes this man bankrolls, it's no surprise he gets his propaganda across.The Granthams bankroll the Union of Concerned Scientists, Greenpeace, WWF, the Environmental Defense Fund and other eco-fascist advocacy groups. They have also pumped an additional £12 million into Bob Ward's employer the Grantham Research Institute in the last couple of years. Grantham's investment company manages $100 billion in assets. Jeremy Grantham said in July 2010 "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future." He is going to make a lot of money out of it.
He's clearly extremely rich, but alas equally deluded, hence his delusional statements this last summer in his article 'Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes', trotting out nonsense, lies and discredited greenie conspiracy theories:
"Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers...Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results.
"Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down.” "
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf
I wonder whether this guy lives on the same planet as the rest of us. With people like Jeremy Grantham bankrolling the eco-fascists and spouting such nonsense I would have thought that most journalists would see this aggressive advocacy for what it is - out-and-out propaganda. But sadly not. There are far too many prepared to take the Grantham shilling.
But if the science is really settled, as Grantham likes to think, how come so much more money is flowing into the coffers of climate change scientists and institutes - the science is settled, isn't it?
Oh, it's THAT Grantham?
A friend sent me his 'everything in 5 minutes' piece a while back, and I wrote a refutation.
Bishop, I'll send you the piece, Grantham's one I mean not mine, maybe you can have some fun with it.
The aparatchik's are resisting an actual review of CRU in a rather telling manner.
Off topic, but this piece of eco-terrorism was apparently produced in the UK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0&feature=player_embedded
I think it is a worthy milestone in how low the AGW social movement has fallen and how AW true believers think about skeptics.
hunter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0&feature=player_embedded
I think it is a worthy milestone in how low the AGW social movement has fallen and how AW true believers think about skeptics.
Tried to view it but I got "!This video is private."
Martin, I hit that problem too, you have to go to the 10/10 website and invite yourself by email to view it. When I had worked that out I dropped it as it looks like they are harvesting email addresses for warm spam ;)
So will not be watching it.
Sounds like the 10/10 people are about to become Eco-Taliban.
This is really sick. And I suppose the authorities are saying: "They are just expressing themselves." A couple weeks ago we had that nut case in New Jersey at the Discovery Channel. He appears to have not been alone.
As for the topic, they are just trying to delay, delay, delay. It is sad that there are trained scientist playing their game. However, money does strange things to people.
This 10:10.org group fascinated me, so I went looking at their web site. Their history is summarized here HERE
But the real gist is in the first two paragraphs.
Clearly, there is a connection between the esteemed Dr Simon Buckle and Fanny. There is big money behind this all and now with 10:10, they are trying to subvert the minds of our children. This is the same thing Hitler did with the Hitler Youth and Stalin did with the Red Pioneers.
My concern is someone might pick up on their barely hidden violence (and not hidden at all in The Red Button). If this were a right wing group, we would be hearing all about the nasty Nazis on the evening press, but here it floats along, unnoticed.
It's been re-uploaded so that the world can see what a bunch of genocidal maniacs these 10:10 eco-fascists are
See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKgtWWCGQZ8
Now the whole world can see how evil and stupid these fascists are.
You can see the video at WUWT. I watched the first kids blown up and was too sickened to watch further. What it could do to kids who see it, I dread to imagine.
Roddy says: "The impacts section [...] actually needs two halves - impacts sans response, and likely impacts given response."
In fact WG2 distinguishes between potential impacts (without considering adaptation or response) and residual impacts once adaptation is considered.
This distinction may make sense for exogenous responses, such as building stronger coastal defences to alleviate the impact of sea level rise, or taking measures to protect wild fauna endangered by climate change.
However, in other cases the response is endogenous, in the sense that the phenomenon itself involves human activity that is expected to change in the face of climate change. The most egregious example is agriculture. Agriculture is not a natural phenomenon but a human activity interacting with nature. You cannot have an effect of climate on agriculture by 2100 unless farmers at that time decide to grow crops and choose the varieties and technologies they would use.
Suppose current research shows that at a certain location an increase of 3°C would cause maize yield to decrease by 30%. This is evaluated today, creating an artificial warmer climate and verifying the yield of current varieties of maize, cultivated with today's farming techniques. This difference in yields, however, is not identical with a change in yields over time, from here to 2100 say. Farmers plant maize now in that location, and specifically that variety of maize, precisely because the location and climate is adequate for it. If climate gradually changes along 100 years agriculture would change towards other varieties of maize, or other crops altogether, or different cultivation techniques (e.g. more water), or a different land use (e.g. livestock). Besides, up to 2100 new varieties of maize and other crops will be developed (they are, all the time), and general technical progress in agriculture would raise yields as it has done during the latest 100/200 years. There is no such thing as the potential impact of climate change on agriculture: just as plant physiology "responds" to changes in climate, so does farmer behavior.
@ Hector M.
Quite so, and this is the deceptiveness of the AGW case. It is really bad science to be resorting to 'ceteris paribus' arguments ('all other things being equal') since all other things will never be equal, so the projection only applies in a different universe from ours - not a very useful result. Nobody interested in the real world will care a fig about projections under 'ceteris paribus' conditions. Companies that operate in the real world will exploit as best they can the environment they find themselves in, not one that might occur in another universe.
In 100 years agriculture will have made great strides, and cultivars will have been developed that can take great advantage of higher levels of CO2. All crops have been benefiting from that for some time anyway and will do so even without further breeding and genetic engineering.
Wishing that unbelievers can be converted into unwilling suicide bombers, nice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKgtWWCGQZ8
I guess the logical arguments weren't holding up to well!
Seems the 10:10 video was taken down by 10:10 when they realised the mistake they had made, but it is being put back up multiple times to ensure its lack of sense is continually displayed.
And strangely the Guardian has posted the new links and underneath we have
2pm update: Please note that 10:10 took down the original video and the version above is a copy uploaded elsewhere on YouTube.
Must be desperate to keep their copy relevant.
You can see the video at WUWT. I watched the first kids blown up and was too sickened to watch further. What it could do to kids who see it, I dread to imagine.--Phillip Bratby
If the public executions in China after WWII are any indicator, at first the children will be sickened. After repeated exposure, they will laugh hysterically. After a day, they'll cheer.
sorry bish, i know its off topic but wanted sceptics to see:
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5-Mw5_EBk0g?fs=1&hl=en_GB&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param></object>
sorry again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
Who is behind 1010? I read somewhere that it is supported by Sony and other corporations. Perhaps a boycott is in order against this propaganda.
The 10:10 people seem to be shy about the world seeing their true feelings and intentions.
Here is a link that will resist their Orwellian efforts to rewrite their history:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/10/1/crazy-offensive-10-10-global-warming-video-1925116
I showed the video to my wife without any introduction. She is I think fairly typical in her views.
She was totally silent watching it, and then anger. She is still taking about it now. All without any input from me. Some authority figure is going to kill her husband and sons? She grew up under communism, so she recognises exactly what this video is about.
It makes you wonder what alternative universe they occupy. The only defence on the Guardian was "lighten up it is humour". Well if you are Einsatzkommando material you might find it funny.
What possible groupthink could arise to allow that video to happen? because it is a classic case of groupthink.
Fred:
James Delingpole says:
Now you’ve seen the video, prepare not to be surprised that your taxes helped pay for it.
The 10:10 Campaign is supported by:
ActionAid (Govt of UK 2nd largest funder in 2009);
The Carbon Trust (surely #1 on the list of quangos-to-go);
The Energy Saving Trust.
Be not surprised that The Guardian is their ‘media partner’.
On the other hand, if you’re outraged by the video, you might be interested to know that they also have a small number of genuine commercial sponsors: O2, Sony and Kyocera all have helped fund the 10:10 Campaign.
I suggest that the first thing to do is to make your outrage known to O2, Sony and Kyocera, suggesting that their commercial interests might not be furthered by funding murderous nazi will-fulfillment propaganda.
I'd like to compare carbon footprints with Richard Curtis, Peter Crouch and the director of Age of Stupid.
I bet I'd ‘win’.
Does that mean I should be able to press the big red button?
I think the 10:10 campaign people should read this:
http://knol.google.com/k/carbon-footprint-reduction-in-mining-and-blasting-operation#GHG_emissions_and_its_intensity_with_Explosives_and_blasting_in_mines_(2D)
Have they really thought through the carbon footprint implications of explosives?
I wonder what Ed Milliband thinks about this film considering his recent speech?
"referring to the label some newspapers have given him, he said "Red Ed? Come off it," and urged a "grown-up debate" on politics."
"He struck a very personal tone at the start of his speech, talking about his upbringing and how his parents' experience as refugees fleeing the Nazis had shaped his values "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11417906
I wonder if he authorised the Action Aid etc. funding, the irony!
Divorced from reality in making, divorced from reality in removing it... this is not an apology...
Sorry.
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure'.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis - writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website.
We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.
At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
I bet Bob Ward thought it was funny...
It also shows the Guardian is part of the same groupthink. They actually claimed credit for breaking this scoop. It will be interesting if they run an article of the reaction. They should. I doubt they will.
There environmental desk did not just make a mistake, they were willing participants...
"At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn."
Translation: God! What is wrong with you people? You're so small-minded. You'd think we made some kind of advert where we advocated killing people who didn't agree with us, or something. It's so, like, totally unfair! We'll have another go at this when I get back from skiing with Tarquin and Melissa.
Dr Simon Buckle, speaking at an event in 2007 on dedveloping new green technologies, "Making the transition to a low-carbon economy is absolutely critical and this event was a welcome contribution to the debate on how we make that happen. But as Lord Oxborough stressed, we don't have much time. Climate change is already happening."
It would appear that Dr Buckle and Lord Oxburgh live in the same small world.
Next we should see a video instructing the young "True Believers" on how to build suicide vests and use them against those who are not willing to save the planet.
Haven't we see this before? 10:10 is definitely over the top. Make sure your MP knows about this and what you think.
And if it were right wingers doing it, there would be a two hours Exposé on BBC tonight.
I thought Eugenie, Franny (and Zooey), Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team played well. I won't lie to you, the end result wasa a disappointment, but the team showed commitment, invention, they gave 110pc, and as a calm, rational, cautious sceptic you can't ask for more than that to be honest. They played great.
I commend this for being a far more scientific and balanced expression of climate science than the previous. However, the following is typical of a residual bias:
"a colder-than-average winter in the UK does not mean that colder-than-average conditions are experienced globally."
Of course, but why not also mention that a drought here or a forest fire there 'does not mean that hotter-than-average conditins are experienced globally'. Back to: cold weather is weather, but hot weather is climate change.
Here is what FOE thought (well one of them)
My first comment ws removed for consideration at the BBC RB Earthwatch, I hope thye putthis on...
This is the story of the day....
We have this good article about environmentalists, using there PR skils to save the Great bear and the natuarl habitats. Reasonably responsibly, with the conflict of economic develpment...
10:10 release the video, with clearly shows a'group think of a dangerous kind..
Please allow this..
A comment from a FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Board Member - in the Guardian..
He was so upset with 10:10 that he came back a second time...
I know this is only just on topic.. BUT it is the story of the day, and will have repurcussion for all green groups (who by and large are very cross with 10:10) We should be discussing , what made a larhe group of intellegent, rich, caringcreative people, make such a spectacular mistake. Green Groupthink..
PLease allow this... (it is totally in the Public Domain)
From the Guardian comments (I’ve put some asterisks in….)http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth - Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:27AM
God knows I'm on your side but this just panders to the morons who think we're 'Eco-fascists' - own goal, guys.
Kill it and do something better.
Disturbing!
He came back for some more. 2nd coment..
JohnHalladay (Friends of the Earth - Board Member)
1 October 2010 1:33AM
Actually, I have to say something stronger,
this film is ****ing ridiculous.
I am a local Greenpeace coordinator, and a Board member of Friends of the Earth and I just can’t believe that you have produced a film that is so ****ing stupid.
There, I’ve sworn on the Guardian.
Jesus, where is your common sense. We’re trying to win hearts and minds.
This is just ludicrous.
Presumably this is John…..http://www.foe.co.uk/what_we_do/about_us/board/board_members.html
John Halladay
Friends of the Earth Trust and Limited Elected Board member for South Central Member of: Engagement Committee
Elected: 2008
Due for re-election: 2011
John’s particular interests in the environmental field include recycling, the concept of individual carbon allowances and the effect of increasing world population on the environment. He works as a Human Resources consultant greening the employment practices in UK companies and is also the joint co-ordinator of Bracknell & District Friends of the Earth.
Please BBC mods this shows groupthink at work..
Did not ONE person, involved in this (there must have been hundreds) not think to say: 'hang on, is this really a good idea..'
Or was, it 'NO pressure' preventing anybody saying it was daft
This is the Activists, 'that lady is a bigot' (Gordon Brown moment)
What is interesting, is not the crass video itself, but the thought processes behind IT!
It was going to be shown in CINEMAS..
If we can't discuss it here, where can we discuss it at the BBC, surely in the public interest.
Richard North has the vid...
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/enemys-true-face.html
John Halladay, we salute you.
==========
These charmers can be contacted: 'hello@1010uk.org'
I wasted a few electrons:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark" ...
By several zillion light years. Do you understand *nothing* about human nature in the real world? 1000% FAIL. Idiots.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I wonder if the Optimum Population Trust have considered employing Richard Curtis?
(not for advertising - but general 'Trust' duties)
Who needs big oil funding when we've got 10:10 doing PR for us? But what would Bob say? Suprised there's no reaction from the go-to guy of global warming yet.
Bob 'slow hand' Ward is calling around to get himself a button box.
@barry woods
Can I respectfully suggest that you run your comments past an experienced editor before posting them?
I fear that the impact of your impressive persistence, knowledge and research skills is much diluted by your rather 'scattergun' approach to writing them down. Perhaps your enthusiasm and commitment means that you are sometimes so close to the detail, that you fail to sketch the big picture for the less well-informed.
Best Wishes LA
Barry, can I endorse Latimer's comments. The persistence with which you put your case is admirable, but too often requires equal persistence on the part of the reader. Just run a draft past someone fresh to the matter, before posting.
And stop fretting about the Grauniad, mate - it debauched its own currency long since. I never expect to get my postings published, but at least I know that one craven warmy has read and objected to what I had to say.
The Guardian are silent... if we change the context of the video, gays, blacks, feminists, arabs, jews then it would be front page indignation.
Silence.
The Guardian set up their environmental desk last year in a serious way - 6 journalists with a big push within the the paper and the website.
And this is the result... it says everything about what the Guardian has become. And you just get this feeling that they were laughing at this video right up until the first comments were posted.
Well worth a look ...
and you have to wonder if a possible leader of the country should really be seen as "equal" with this type of person, and also being seen as driven by her agenda. The whole "body "langauge" (chummy side by side) and interaction (she leads, he toes in behind) of this video paints Ed is a poor light. These two are equals in this video. Then Franny makes the 10:10 video? makes you winder of the mind sets of these people...
Franny and Ed
And... bearing in mind the subject matter... the Foreign and Commonwealth Office may not be so happy with the subject matter of blowing people up for their beliefs...
Guardian 10:10 and the FCO
"The Brits criticise us for our lack of respect for human life, yet look what they find funny..."
@Barry Woods
I value your comments here. (And on the beeb as well)