back to article Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship

The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it. Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. lglethal Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    What a surprise?

    Is anyone else becoming increasingly desensitized to the shear level of corruption within UK parliament (on all sides of the political divide)? Perhaps thats there plan - when people no longer care they can just go about being corrupt in a much more open manner).

    There is only one way i can see to restore peoples faith in politics - ban politicians from all other roles whilst acting as politicians. Being a poli should be a full time job, so how can you possibly have time to be an executive board member, director, chairman or advisor to various company's whilst performing your primary role as a politician representing the people of britain?

    Additionally, ban polticians from working for any company which they or their department (if they were a minister) had dealings with for at least 10 years.

    Until these things come in, the politicians will continue to be corrupt and we will continue to read about it on an almost daily basis for many years to come...

    1. Gary F
      Megaphone

      Agreed - ban politicians from other jobs

      Politicians must be banned from having other jobs while they are serving in office. £65K a year salary is more than generous for an MP, most people would love to earn that much, although perhaps only a quarter would put in the hours the job requires.

      If politicians could only have 1 job then it would get rid of all the filthy rich MPs and the MPs who are only in it to ride on the gravy train. Then maybe we would see more honest, ordinary people become MPs who have at least had a decade's worth of experience in the real world and are in touch with the common people.

      1. alphaxion

        how could you title this?

        There are other obsticles to the average person getting into politics. In an age where the workforce is expected to be mobile and willing to move around the country, you're still required to live in a certain area for about 3 or 4 years before you can try to become an MP.

        This leaves a chunk of the population seething with anger at how corrupt and abusive our current set of legislators are and no way of affecting any direct change beyond voting for yet another party yes man/woman.

        I don't think any of the 3 major parties are worthy/capable of running the country and I don't like the majority of the nutjobs who make up the rest of the choices. I'd like to run myself and try to make a direct change as an independent... yet I'm locked out because I recently moved cities.

        Our system of government needs an overhaul and bringing back to the general population, if we were involved more than just the occasional worthless vote then more people might take an interest instead of the current climate of "don't talk politics here.." due to how angry/depressed/helpless it makes people feel.

        Our current lot of politico's have forgotten the reason why they exist - *To serve us, not their pockets!*

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @alphaxion

          re: Our system of government needs an overhaul and bringing back to the general population

          Its called REVOLUTION!

          It's time the peasants either revolted or voted with their feet by migration. Last taxpayer out switch off the lights please!

          1. Bill Neal
            Thumb Up

            Monty Python & Holy grail

            "O, there you go bringing class into it again."

            "but that's wot its all about!"

            etc.

        2. elderlybloke

          You want to get into Politics.

          alphaxion.

          It was your choice to move,

          If you are interested in politics then stay put for a while.

          I doubt the voters want a person who is likely to move out of the electorate.

          The way the rules seem to be, a politician can actually live outside the electorate but list his primary residence as the one in it.

          1. alphaxion

            titular connotations

            Actually, it wasn't my choice to move. My GF got a job after leaving Uni and I'm still unemployed after being made redundent last year. I wanted to stay put, she didn't want to commute on the train every day. So we moved to reduce costs and make daily life better for her.

            And what about those of us who can't afford to buy a single house never mind live elsewhere and keep a residency in another place. Tho, how is that any different to a person who moves out of an area after being voted in anyway?

            As it stands, many of the people who run as a local MP spend more of their time outside their constituancy than in it anyway.

            I can understand the thinking behind the limit - it stops people targetting weak seats, it just means circumstance can lock many people out from trying to depose their current, worthless options. Maybe a requirement to live in the area for the next 12 to 18 months after being elected with no option for the residency loophole as an alternative to having to spend 3 or 4 years before you can run?

        3. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
          Coffee/keyboard

          What else have you been reading?

          "There are other *obsticles* to the average person"

          I'd say your mind must have been, umm, elsewhere to come up with that "obsticle" type. Lower down, so to speak :-)

          Class - that's my word of the day..

          Boot note: my other favourite work of the day is Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia. Very ironic :-)

    2. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1
      FAIL

      Bring back the eunuchs

      In the good old days in order to prevent the system going to pot like this, no civil servant was allowed to profit anything that might pass on to his friends and family. These servants were referred to as eunuchs.

      History teaches that they were suppose to be bollock-broken but that isn't the truth. They were just ultra trustworthy.

      I can't see the people who are in command insisting on that sort of thing for the people they select to be our democratically elected leaders. It would make controlling the gravy train too difficult.

      But it would be nice if the lions den wasn't a silly programme for idiots and became a correctional programme for fools.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Nope - you simply need transparency

      They manage that in Switzerland quite well (own company + political work), but the setup there is much more cellular, so it's hard to co-opt enough people to keep abuse a secret. That's exactly the thing needed in the UK as well: transparency.

      As long as there is as much as a single aspect of government workings that is not open to public oversight (even if retrospective) you will have festering sores. The whole organisation is rife with little clubby setups where friends help each other to great dollops of tax money, whereas the people and organisations that would actually be able to do a decent job don't get as much as a look in.

      I also like what happens in Germany and the US with respect to software: if they use government funds to develop something it if often made available to industry and public. That is clever, because it (a) damn well enforces quality if everyone can take a look and (b) encourages further innovation. In an opaque setting (i.e. now), some club develops software and will then continue to bilk the taxpayers for years to come, even when the funds for such development actually came out of government (the reality of quite some public-private partnerships is that the government pays, and the private partner takes the profit - and gives some jobs).

      Lastly, if you really want to look at something I'd call criminal you should have a look at which organisations are making good money out of the economic collapse and who is "adviser" to them. Why hello, it's reformed reverend T Blair - who was in charge of that mess.. He's making good dosh out of the misery his government has caused for the UK taxpayer (and the rest of the world, let's not forget the axis of evil Blair-Bush).

      But hey, that's just my opinion. I probably have it all wrong, given that there are still newspapers out there that somehow have found an argument to support New Labour. Keep that in mind next time you buy a paper - and vote.

      /rant :-)

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    How can we deal with these people

    There must be a third way to deal with these crass stupid or dishonest actions. Whether it's cash for questions, a holiday in the Maldives, expenses or this: you're going to get caught. When it's this obvious the consequences should be dire. There should be a treatment along the lines of the way we use to test to see if someone was a witch, something so ridiculous it fits the crime.

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Joke

      Re: How can we deal with these people

      "There must be a third way..."

      Your are Nick Clegg and ICMFP!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Re: There must be a better way...

      Sure there is. But for some odd reason most governments seem to have laws against their citizens hauling their crooked arses out on the street and putting a cap in them of stringing them up from a tree with a bit of fiber nicked from the local phone company.

  3. Douglas Lowe
    FAIL

    Eh?

    So the Peer forgot to list one environmental group he's associated with, and you make out that he's hiding his allegiances; even while pointing out that he's listed his affiliations with so many other environmental groups that his interests are quite clear to everyone. Sure, it's interesting to see what the Peer's connections are, but this story isn't even a storm in a teacup.

    1. seanj

      <Title>

      I bet you'd be shouting your little bollocks off about "conflict of interest" if he was currently (I say currently, as he clearly spent some time in the past at Shell) in bed with an oil company though, wouldn't you?

      Regardless, "forgot" to declare interests isn't an excuse, much the same way as "forgetting" to pay your taxes would get you off the hook with HMRC (unless you're a politician called Hazel Blears and you've scammed the taxpayer of several thousand pounds!)...

    2. Paul 4

      Forgot?

      There is not forgot. Forgot is not an excuse. The other groups are not ones based on recruting poiticos to lobby.

      1. Geoff 25

        forgot or didn't have to register?

        I'm biased because I've generally only heard good things about Lord Oxburgh but reading this 'story' I did have to wonder about a couple of things. GLOBE has in it's listing 'Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 9132 - Political organisations' - I wonder if peers have to declare in the register of interests every political affiliation they have? I don't know the rules... I'm just asking.

        Also the thing about him being one of 23 key legislators just means he's (a) a legislator and (b) people find him worth listening to.

        Anyway, like I say, I'm biased but this doesn't strike me as a huge deal.

        (for the record, while I hate the term, I'd fall on the 'climate sceptic' side of the debate and I rarely hug trees).

  4. SuperTim

    Vampire reference.....

    If we are going there...why not mention "Lord" Mandelson? seems he has altogether too many fingers in too many pies for it to be "for the good of the people".

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      Plagiarising Sensation .... the Bold Sniffer Lord

      "If we are going there...why not mention "Lord" Mandelson? " .... SuperTim Posted Wednesday 24th March 2010 10:00 GMT

      Err, would that be Lord Mandelson, SuperTim, the newly self appointed “Secretary of State for Outer Space” ...... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7072707.ece

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Alien

        Mandelson?

        "Secretary of State for Outer Space"?

        So the reason he's a Lord is that even Space Aliens won't vote for him? Can't say I'm surprised.

        1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

          amfM Knock Knocking on the Secretary of State for Outer Space Doors ?!. ..... or Lord Drayson's

          ""Secretary of State for Outer Space"?

          So the reason he's a Lord is that even Space Aliens won't vote for him? Can't say I'm surprised." .... TeeCee Posted Wednesday 24th March 2010 12:23 GMT

          Space Aliens are Much Bigger Picture Players, TeeCee, and would expect any Lord worth a Title to be similarly attuned to Fabulous Growth in Innovative Fields.

          And I wonder what GCHQ and British Intelligence Services make of the communication here ..... [Posted by: amanfromMars | 03/24/10 | 8:09 am | .... http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/st_essay_nsa] ..... which is as much a Test of their Fitness for Future Purpose as anyone elses.

          And you would be absolutely amazed at what can be learnt from whatever response is given, wheteher positive, negative, indifferent or non existent.

    2. iRadiate

      Vampire reference ..... 2

      >> If we are going there...why not mention "Lord" Mandelson? seems he has altogether too many fingers in too many pies for it to be "for the good of the people".

      Lord Mandelson prefers not to put his fingers in 'pies' .......

    3. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1
      Coat

      He's been outed 3 times so far

      You can't bugger him he's immune.

  5. Ministry of Truth
    Boffin

    It went like this...

    Scientist in need of funding - Can I have some money please? It's for science!

    Politician - No, piss off little man

    Scientist in need of funding - Ahhh, how about if I say that if you fund my research, I'll fiddle the figures so you can justify TAXING AIR!

    Politician - Ahhh, now you put it like that! Have some cash! I'll just claim it back on expenses anyway... More port? It is rather excellent, and it's not like I'll have to pay for it...

    Until the data is verified by a genuinely independent body, this is a farce.

    And a total waste of money. Who will have to pay for the corrupt investigation we've been insulted with to date? Sadly it won't be the one who is milking the system and has his snout in the trough.

    Stop the spin, stop the bickering in the media, stop the accusations of denialism or cultist, and look at the data. If it can't speak for itself then it's a pile of shit. Climate models can't explain observed behaviour and should never be included in this.

    But fabrication of a story to justify another round of tax on an already overburdened population, whilst making a mockery of our country's institutions in the eyes of the rest of the world; clubbing our industry back into the stone age with draconian legislation and taxation; pretending that all is rosy as our currency tanks against all the rest - stop fooling yourselves.

    The science isn't settled. It's about time it was laid out in a genuinely open manner so it can be.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    All this on the same day as...

    The United Nations is going to reinvestigate its claim that meat production accounts for more harmful emmisions that road transport.

    When they made this bold statement in 2006, they took everything involved, including transport, but when it came to calculating transport's impact, they only took into one set of figures.

    How the hell can you trust these environmental, vegetarian, technology hating deniers of the truth, which is we are actually approaching another ice age which are always preceded by a rise in the earth's mean temperature.

    I for one cannot wait for their findings, which I'm sure will find just what the politicians wish to hear, enabling them to beat down on the common man once again while still feathering their own nests.

    1. dervheid

      Another Ice Age?

      And they'll STILL say " we told you so" and blame it on the 'tipping point'.

      Climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down, climate warms up, climate cools down. You see the pattern...

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Troll

    Look at the data

    "Stop the spin, stop the bickering in the media, stop the accusations of denialism or cultist, and look at the data. If it can't speak for itself then it's a pile of shit. Climate models can't explain observed behaviour and should never be included in this."

    As far as anyone can tell, that's what happened. It's the people that share your viewpoint that demanded there be an investigation in the first place.

    And to everyone else in this thread complaining of corruption - having a related interest doesn't mean you are corrupt, we just choose those who do not have related interests to try and ensure there cannot be any.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Partially true...

      I agree that it doesnt mean your corrupt if you have related interests. And its true that if the government then chooses the poli's without related interests then all is well and good and the system works. But the facts are that this parliament has proven itself, repeatedly, to be unable to be trusted to a) declare all of its related interests and b) to choose those politicians which dont have related interests to a particular position (even when they are fully declared).

      Thats why in my opinion the only way to return some trust to parliament is to remove the ability for a politician to have a vested interest. Ban all politicans from having second, third, fourth jobs; Ban them from being members of lobby groups; Ban them from accepting free trips, dinners, invites; and Ban them from being able to work for any company that they have had dealings with for 10 years. Any breach of the rules equals hard time.

      Only when politicians are reminded that they are in parliament ot serve the BRITISH PUBLIC and ONLY the BRITISH PUBLIC will you see then end of the current endemic corruption to be found in the Houses of Parliament.

    2. Ministry of Truth
      Stop

      Sadly no it's not

      Sadly so far the data that has been released has been shown to be incomplete. Russia - the largest land mass in the world, and potentially a massive impact to any climate change model - have complained that the data that has been included from that which they submitted has been highly selective.

      What hasn't been explained, and needs desperately to be, is the corrective methodology that has been applied apparently arbitrarily to the raw data, seemingly to back up the arguments of the pro-AGW scientists.

      It's not just a question of raw data, but the methodology of the manipulations and the justifications behind these. And they are sadly lacking at the moment.

      I'm actually a climate agnostic - before you try to lump me in with "us" or "them" - I am angry at the apparent manipulation of the facts to fit a model, or a theory. I am scientist enough to know that "the science is settled" is hubristic - people said that about Newton, and they were wrong.

      The system that we are talking about is about as complex as it's possible to be. To assume that any existing model covers all the bases is foolish.

      But to assess the actual observed RAW data against the models we have will allow a sensible view of which ones are best suited to be developed further. It's almost a Darwinistic process, and would be used in any other branch of science, and openly, in properly peer reviewed journals.

      If this is done - and it has NOT been done - and the data shows that this is not some blip in solar output, or some extension of the Atlantic Oscillation, or the various Nino/Ninas, then I'll give it my full support. But right now, it's just looking like a old boys club in cohoots with a government obsessed with greed and self interest.

      When it comes down to "who has the best science" rather than "who has the best PR", we can all judge for ourselves as to which theory is right.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Difficult

    It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find somebody to chair this enquiry who wasn't biased in one way or another. So possibly the best solution would be to have the inquiry chaired jointly by two people from opposite sides of the debate. Sure it would cost more and take longer, but it would mean that neither side could complain of bias.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Stop

      except

      that the split between the scientific camps isn't a convenient 50:50

      it's more like 70:25:5

      so on a commitee of 20, there should be 14 pros, 5 hmm not sures and 1 anti

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other news

    Pope shits in the woods, bears are catholic, climate scientists have snouts in trough.

  10. jon 72
    Grenade

    Try This..

    Lower the pay and perks for an MP to around say, 20K a year. Force them to use only public transport and services, their office staff can assigned by some faceless civil service dept who will oversee all activity and expenditure. (if there is a god let it be the DSS)

    Stop the nonsense of having a second home in the constituency, if they serve the area then they should live in said area to start with. Mandatory attedence at the Hof P should be required for all debates, death being the only excuse for abscence and then a note from the GP will be required in advance.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Joke

      On a side note...

      ... i do love the rule that it is illegal to die in the houses of parliament... and should you die you will be whisked out a side entrance under the pretence that your ill but not dead ("what do you mean he's dead?" "His heads come off!" "happens all the time, doesnt your head come off too?") until you get to a hospital outside of the houses of parliament where you will be declared to have died on the way to the hospital...

      Brilliantly barmy rule that one! =P

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

  12. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    FAIL

    So of the GLOBE figures listed

    3 played the HoC Expenses system.

    2 of which did so to the point that criminal charges have been bought.

    And the His Lordship has several other directorships (Remember Non Executive does *not* mean unpaid. Think £3-5k a day).

    Honest perhaps. Impartial, *highly* unlikely.

    And why a geologist? Is it Impossible to find *anyone* with a background in statistics (let's face it a *lot* of the issues in this hinge around likely hood, chance etc), atmospheric or ocean physics.

    Not encouraging.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Um

    Yes, he should have declared it, I don't think there's any question of that.

    I'm surprised the climate change skeptics are making so much fuss about it though. I very much doubt most skeptical scientists want their links to organisations looked at in the same way (cough. oil. cough)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Um...

      Well good ole Ron also worked for Shell... so he's biased both ways?

      1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Um...

        Beginners error.

        You seem to think that an association with Shell would make Oxburgh inclined to be a sceptic. Energy companies are now amongst the biggest promoters of the manmade global warming theory, and have a huge investment in ensuring that it's "true".

        Follow the money.

    2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Um

      When you've cleared your throat, have a look at the oil companies' exposure to carbon trading. Large oil companies have a considerable stake in global warming being manmade. As does your employer, funnily enough.

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

  15. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    Second jobs

    Actually, I'm in favour of second jobs for MPs. I want my MP to have made something of a sucess of himself in the real world, rather than being one of these troughing career politicians with no clue how things work outside the Westminster bubble. Conflicts of interest can be dealt with through greater transparency.

    1. dervheid

      Successful People as MP's?

      Yes, definitely. However, once they become an MP, that should be their one and only 'job'. No pay from other quarters, and absolutely NO PAY from lobbying / 'consultation'. The 'gravy-train' needs to be permanently derailed.

  16. Flame Boar
    Alert

    This is supposed to be an investigation

    In politics, it is the appearance of impropriety that counts. When the head investigator has connections to groups which are pushing the same agenda as the CRU at UEA, then the appearance is not one of impartiality. It would appear that this is a pre-arranged exoneration of UEA rather than an investigation.

  17. Michael M
    Thumb Down

    Did you check?

    Is it required that this has to be listed in the Members Interests? Stephen Byers MP is the President & Chairman of the board of GLOBE International and he does not see fit to list that, only that 2 trips abroad were paid for by GLOBE. Maybe his Lordship didn't fly anywhere.

    Non story.

    1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Did you check?

      Welcome Michael, it's always nice to see new readers signing up to Comment.

      Are you suggesting he has no interest in Climate Change? Merely directorship of a large international environmental lobbying network, chairmanship of a windmill company and chairmanship of a renewable energy company, and is an advisor to a green lobby group, and two green companies.

      To me, it sounds like he's very interested indeed.

      1. Flame Boar
        Alert

        Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship

        Andrew,

        That seems to have the appearance of impropriety to me.

  18. Michael M
    Happy

    Thank you Andrew

    Very kind of you to reply.

    The first paragraph of the story :-

    "The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it."

    If the Register of Lords Interests does not require this directorship to be listed where is your story?

    The Register is not there to say he is interested in Climate Change, stamp collecting and long walks on the beach. The Register has rules and if he broken none where is your story.

    He may be pro-AGW but I think you would be hard pressed to find any qualified person who has no views on the topic. All the major scientific societies in the UK have issued pro-AGW statements. If you wish to dispute the mans professional integrity and inability to be even handed you will need more than this.

    "like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank" - you could have used "set a thief to catch a thief" or possibly a "poacher turned gamekeeper" as suggested by my "inside source" aka a mate of mine and when I mean inside I mean we are both not outside.

  19. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects 1
    Linux

    Wos so many deletes

    No text; I'm neutral.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      just a wild guess

      but given Andrew's track record on climate change articles and the comments section there of, I'd suggest that any comments that suggest that Andrew isn't entirely unbias in his reporting are made to disappear, (probably along with one very shortly).

      Given that the orginal article is about an alleged bias in an investigation, some should call the irony police in.

      1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: just a wild guess

        So you're commenting on one of my climate articles about how you can't comment on my climate articles?

        The irony police have called in reinforcements.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          it's one of those rules

          the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this "adding the words 'this'll never get published' onto any posting on a comments board, will result in the comments automatically being published". But if it works to get around the "only opinions that agree with the author are valid" filter, what do I care?

  20. Francis Irving

    It's about risk, not certainty

    @Ministry of Truth "To assume that any existing model covers all the bases is foolish." - Climate scientists have never claimed that. Their papers, and the summary reports from the IPCC, are full of risk analyses, of probabilities, of self-criticism.

    The Climate Science is and always has been our current best knowledge. Yes, we should try and improve that knowledge. Yes, that means funding more science, doing more checking. It means paying for more temperature stations (see recent article in the Economist about lack of funding for that).

    But meanwhile, we have to decide what to do next given what we know so far. We can decide to geoengineer the climate by digging up fossil fuels and burning them. Or we can decide to become more efficient and to use nuclear power, to use various sorts of solar power and wind power.

    The current best peer-reviewed evidence we have, and economic analyses associated with it, show that the latter is the wise course in terms of sustaining our civilisation.

    You will never have certainty about predicting the future. But it doesn't matter, you still have to choose an action.

    1. Ministry of Truth

      I don't disagree, but...

      To say Climate science is and always has been our current best knowledge is exactly my point. The problem is when vested interests, either due to scientific funding constraints, or perhaps more worryingly political taxation schemes cause institutions which should be aiming to provide as unbiased as possible view of the world to withhold data from peer review etc.

      It's really hard to actually give a historical analogy to this situation without sounding extreme, because what was probably cutting edge debate at the time now seems so utterly banal or frankly insane.

      But - two examples spring to mind.

      The first is a little spat between the papacy and Copernicus over whether or not the earth was the centre of the universe. Without getting into the philosophy of sophistric viewpoints, it now seems crazy to us to think that it could be seen as any other way than the Earth revolving around the sun.

      The second is more relevant - relativity showed that the clockwork universe of Newtonian mechanics was a flawed model, and thankfully provided some of the solutions to the flaws. To quote an old physics adage - it might have been Feynman who said it, I can't be bothered to google it, "anyone who claims to understand relativity, doesn't" - it's complex, it's hard to explain, but it's right. The average Joe in the street will have heard of e=mc2, and will no doubt feel better for it, but won't be able to apply it, or understand the consequences of it.

      Both of these examples apply to the climate debate, in that someone has proposed a model - it may be from conventional wisdom, it may be from an understanding created by only having access to part of the picture, but to actively attempt to discourage peer review, to attack through PR and media routes those who would disagree with it, and to not open up methodology and data to examination by other scientists, is malfeasance.

      Your proposal is based on the idea that we now have to jump to correct any consequences of AGW, and that it's a safer bet to assume that AGW is happening than not.

      I would argue that this is an opinion based on dogma, and that the data and the integrity of the body that produced/analysed it needs to be challenged. If it survives the challenge then I'm delighted, and will back the measures that are introduced to combat the emission of CO2.

      On the other hand, if the data in inconclusive, it is a squanderous waste of money and resources to pursue that route.

      They could be spent far more effectively on combating poverty, on improving the sanitation in third world countries, on curing disease. Changing the world is not impossible, but it's a question of what you want to tackle, and where the money and resources you have can be best spent.

      I'm not a luddite - in fact I am very pro efficiency (which any greeny will agree is the best way to reduce carbon emmissions anyway). I'm very pro towards cutting pollution. But ultimately the atmosphere has been in long periods of higher temperatures than it has been today, just as we have experienced ice ages. It is a chaotic system, and attempting to impose order on a chaotic system is impossible in the long term.

      Delightfully ironic as I feel saying it, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Get the data, and the methodology that has been used in "correcting" it, and lay it all out in the open. Let everyone have a look at it. Restore the integrity of the IPCC and the UAE by actually letting more than the selected sympathetic peers review it.

      Until that is done, saying "the current best peer-reviewed evidence we have" is unfortunately a worthless prospect.

      Shouting louder than another party, or attempting to cut them out of the debate, doesn't make what the IPCC and the UAE are saying right.

      The one quote that came up from the leaked emails that rang so true, was the embarassment of the creators of the various climate models that showed large deviation from observed climatic behaviour just a few short years out from inception. To use them to predict out decades, or centuries, to grab sensationalist headlines, it's about as useful as trying to predict the stock market. And that's something which allegedly is in human control, if in a very widely distributed form.

      1. Mark Davies

        Crazy analogies

        I would argue that the Copernicus/Catholic Church analogy really applies the other way around.

        On one side you have many Churches, many politicians and many big businesses saying "man can't be responsible for global warming" all with their own reasons, in the case of many religious people simply because it is "arrogant to believe man can have this power over God's world". This group wheel out "scientific" experts and use personal attacks to try and discredit the theories of AGW, in the same way they did against Galileo or Newton, the same way they did to support cigarette sales in the 50s and 60s.

        Anyone with any knowledge of science knows it is rarely simple to explain or demonstrate to people withour specific domain knowledge, results are often marginal and that you often will get some results that contradict others.

        I say we should believe the experts in the field - and by and large, in fact in proportions very rarely seen in any scientific debate, they all seem to agree that AGW exists and is happening. There is also some fairly clear evidence to support this, the shrinking of glaciers, the retreat of arctic ice, the trend in global average temperatures etc. etc.

        1. Ministry of Truth

          Asking a politician to turn down a carbon tax...

          ...is like asking a fat man to turn down cake (where is my cake icon btw?!)

          The fact that we have any carbon reduction legislation such as the EU ETS, the CCL, the CRC (in the UK) etc. shows that in fact a majority of politicians actually support(ed) the introduction of such legislation at the time it was passed.

          Just take a look at the price of petrol/diesel next time you fill up your car. Oil has remained about the same but the cost of diesel has DOUBLED in the last three years. OK, so there are some refinery constraints, and the government has run the pound into the ground so hard that against the dollar we are losing out on anything we import, but a very large slice of this is tax - raised on environmental grounds.

          So the vested interest of the politician is to support AGW to justify taking more cash from your pocket.

          As for the idea that specific domain knowledge is essential, I completely agree. Sadly this is overlooked, with the "hundreds of scientists sign a letter" argument - the very great majority are not climatologists - and worse still - the data that has been made available to base their decisions on is dubious. Note I don't say questionable - as it seems that we are not permitted to see enough of it to question it.

          Crap in = crap out.

          There are a lot of eminent climatologists - such as those at very reputable institutions like MIT who question AGW, and are shouted down.

          I'm happy to listen to experts, but we need to have BOTH sides of the argument listened to. The UAE needs to redeem it's reputation. A flawed instrument sometimes may give a precise reading, but it doesn't mean it's accurate.

        2. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Crazy analogies

          "I say we should believe the experts in the field - and by and large, in fact in proportions very rarely seen in any scientific debate, they all seem to agree that AGW exists "

          That's pre-Enlightenment logic, Mark.

          We got rid of it hundreds of years ago, just like we got rid of tugging forelocks at the nobility.

  21. heystoopid
    Coat

    Friday December 5th , 1952

    Friday December 5th 1952 , a black day over old London Town need one say more about the adverse aspects of free range carbon pollution ?

    Watt ever happened to choosing the right man qualified for the job irrespective of party or political affiliations or do the minority prefer to hire overpaid mononeuron adherents of the Peter Principle from their artificial self created comfort zone not connected to reality in the real world ?

    Watt price the truth in three generations time , should we choose to ignore the inconvenient truth in the real world and thus follow the wrong garden path to bury ourselves in our own mountain of garbage and pollute ourselves of the face of environment ?

    Watt will the last surviving children still alive say then ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      @ heystoopid:

      ah, "won't somebody think of the *children*!

      the last bastion of those who would dominate and suppress their fellow man by legislation and lack any subjective truth or facts to close their argument.

      All the "AGW" legislation is designed to crush Western productivity while allowing Eastern outfits free reign to pollute (note how China and India are *always* exempt from any actual penalty legislation?) . THAT is the truth of the matter. Economic warfare, but instead of manning up and declaring war to destroy your enemies' factories, economy and available resources, "climate change" does it thru passive-aggressive ways. A factory shut down in Europe or America due to politically motivated "science" loses as much wealth creation and jobs and capacity as if a V-2 had struck. Foreign-supported "environmental" lobbies that stop the drilling or mining for domestic resources causes the same inflation and damage to the economy as a German U-boat blockade.

      Except the econ-war generals can claim they are "peaceful" and hide behind others and not risk retaliation-a p*ssant nation run by a ruthless religious dictator who can't innovate or even feed it's own people can do more damage with a million or two dollars to the right "useful idiots" in the right places than he could with billions spent toward developing an atomic bomb.

      Flame because, it *is* a war, people are suffering, and those enemy soldiers of the Propaganda Wars know their power fails when the truth is known. The UI's of course, like the Emperor with the new clothes, cannot or will not accept they've been duped.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    IT Angle

    Garbage In Garbage Out

    Enough said !

  23. Wayland Sothcott 1
    Big Brother

    Need experts

    On the one hand it's great to have someone who is so involved in this business be investigating it. If it was F1 racing that was being investigated then probably best done by someone who knows the game.

    However this seems like having a completely biased person investgate but have them not mention the fact that they are biased.

    Given the massive amount of corruption that always seems to happen in politics I think it's perfectly fair to assume that this person was chosen exactly because he is so biased.

    I am becoming tired of this. I am so jaded and lazy that I can barely be bothered to think about this stuff.

    An enquiry is always a whitewash, enough jucy bits to placate the people and punish a few lesser players, never enough to get to the heart of the problem.

  24. Dr. Whoosh

    Globe International is totally above board.

    After all their Chairman is Stephen Byers, so I am sure he wouldn't do anything dodgy.

  25. Steve Crook
    Stop

    Climate science before AGW?

    Well, what was there? Not much I think.

    One of the things that bothers me most about all of this is that climate science seems to have developed with the sole aim of proving one hypothesis. AGW. I think most people will happily accept that there has been some warming over the last 100 years or so, but how much warming there has been, and how much of that is AGW? Honestly, I don't think anyone can really say.

    If climate science had a 100+ year history I would be more inclined to accept AGW as a good working theory, and agree that we should be taking steps. Now.

    However, given that what's being called for is a complete re-engineering of the planets economy over a period of 50 years, I think we might do well to consider if mitigating the effects of warming might not be a more cost effective (in terms of lives saved) approach, while we gradually wean ourselves off a carbon economy.

This topic is closed for new posts.