Thursday
Sep092010
Silence...
Sep 9, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: Parliament Media Delingpole's on-the-mark piece aside, there have been no more mentions of Lord Oxburgh's travails from the MSM. Perhaps they think it's not important.
Hullo New Scientist? Hullo Nature?
Is there anybody there?
Reader Comments (33)
The Grauniad's piece, which you link to under 'Oxburgh Reactions', is attracting a few comments, although the usual suspects are piling in with OT remarks, since even they have trouble defending Lord Ron's performance. They think we're being picky though...
A bad sign: the latest "global warming prophet" - Charlie "Swastika on the forehead" Manson?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/charles-manson-global-warming-prophet.html
I'd kinda missed the Grauniad style of debating. It's challenging dodging the galloping gishes.
It might be worth recalling this thread from April, particularly if anyone missed it.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/18/judith-curry-on-oxburgh.html
As for the MSM - if you can't spin it, squash it.
Mr Harrabin is obviously attending services at the Bishop's Palace sufficiently often to suggest changes to Josh's cartoons (and very useful input too, Josh's updates are corking) so he must surely be sharpening his quill ready to comment on Lord Oxburgh's evasions, excursions and emphysemic outbreaks?
bish -
it did not surprise me at all when u commented that the press gallery was almost empty. they are so busy with daily CAGW scare stories & "debunking" sceptics, they can't spare the time!
9 Sept: Time Mag Blog: Bryan Walsh: Climate Change: Are the Polar Ice Caps Melting Slower Than We Thought?
Climate change skeptics were quick to seize on the results—Rush Limbaugh, for what I'm guessing is the first and last time, was able to use the term "glacial isostatic adjustment." But the Nature Geoscience study won't be the final word on the subject. It's own estimates of ice loss come with significant uncertainty, and as David Bromwich of Ohio State points out in a commentary on the study, the estimates rely on data from a very small number of GPS sites, all of which are located on the edges of the ice sheets. The Nature Geoscience study also doesn't change the essential fact that we are losing ice on a daily basis from Greenland and West Antarctica—104 billion metric tons is still a lot of water to be adding to the global seas each year. Most of all the study underscores the need to keep researching the impact of warming on our polar regions—which is why it's good news that the GRACE mission was just extended through 2015.
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/09/09/climate-change-a-slowdown-on-polar-melt/
somehow, some way, the public must insist "climate change" is not used by scientists, politicians, the UN and the media as a synonym for what they are espousing, namely CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE.
They are all playing the waiting game again. Delingpole will publish and be damned but the rest dont want to go first ^.^
I expect to see this in the Booker column on Sunday.
In reality Oxburgh should be done for Fraud over this. We dont know how much he was paid but if it was more than £1000 (I am generous) he should be in court ASAP.
A suitable new posting for Oxburg and Acton:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15181848@N02/3188994356
?
Nah, you boychiks have been outmanouvered again. It is no contest between you and the establishment. The good Lord has more weight than a nice Bishop.
For what it is worth, the famous American Farmer's Almanac, which has an enviable, long-time history of accurate predictions, has forecasted that this winter will be colder than usual and that the coming spring and summer will also be cooler than normal.
Can't be right... but we did read somewhere (WUWT?) that Muir Russell was awarded an ill-gotten 40,000 pounds for participating in this fatuous travesty. Anything to purchase credibility (who writes these cheques?)... mayhap this knightly figure is vacationing in Erewhon, where the only thing he has to fear are "Mad Gardener" quotes from Sylvie and Bruno (Lewis Caroll, 1889).
It's odd how all these grandees of the British establishment are desperately trying to shore up a program that is essentially Socialist in nature, while it is the despised peons of the blogosphere who are arguing on the side of free markets and capitalism.
Che Guevara would have been very confused.
So the 'Science Inquiry' (which supposedly focused on integrity) has been conducted with very little integrity.
At what point do the 'grandees of British establishment' realize that this corrupt fiasco is a lost cause?
Time for questions to the minister for climate change, Greg Barker.
Recent quote from Greg:
"We want the City of London, with its unique expertise in innovative financial products, to lead the world and become the global hub for green growth finance. We need to put the sub-prime disaster behind us and focus back on investment in genuine wealth creation and in ways that don't damage the environment”.
All based on the "consensus" of a handful of statistically challenged post-docs, promoted far beyond their abilities, all too interested in self aggrandizement, who ended up 'hiding the decline' and cherry picking the desired result.
I'm intrigued by the "15 person days" quote. Is Lord O saying that the team as a whole spent 15 days on the inquiry, ie 2.5 days each?
At the Guardian debate Trevor Davies told me that Lord O had not been paid anything at all for his inquiry.
matthu
That makes him an amateur?
congratulations to Atomic Hairdryer for his almost singlehanded combat on the Guardian comment thread. Monbiot’s Campaign against Climate Change (patron: King Cnut) has a troll roll call, calling out the troops to blather on selected articles. I know His Grace’s parishioners would never stoop to such a tactic, but it would be nice if a few more joined in.
matthu, Phillip
That’s right, Oxburgh does it for free, with anyone. But for a complete list of his financial interests in renewable energy, see Tonyb’s comment 1 at
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=327#more-327
Oxburgh had a considerable financial interest in not finding anything wrong at CRU. I suspect the mainstream media will only wake up when Oxburgh or another is provoked into issuing a libel writ.
Got to love the rebuttals from the usual suspects at the end of the piece......
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-it-doesnt-exist-says-ryanair-boss-oleary-2075420.html
Dung at Sep 9, 11.02PM
I will be surprised if you're wrong, dung. Any bets on how long before the resident trolls savant and slioch leap in with their customary offensive put-downs?
I'd suggest a cartoon with Oxburgh before the Science committee who are wearing blindfolds. Oxburgh is saying one thing while something else is printed on a flipboard. The comment below being "The general view is a blinder played."
From the Independent:
Global warming? It doesn't exist, says Ryanair boss O'Leary
Outspoken airline chief says climate change is a plot by scientists seeking research cash
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Michael O'Leary claims there is 'no link' between man-made carbon and climate change
Charging for toilets, weighing passengers and flying with a lone pilot: Ryanair's combative boss Michael O'Leary is renowned for backing unusual ideas, but some passengers may feel that even he has overstepped the mark with his latest comments – denying the existence of global warming.
In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "horseshit".
He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.
"Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit. But it's amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
"Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2 per cent of total carbon emissions [and climate change]."
He suggested scientists had invented and perpetuated the theory in order to gain research grants. "Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus," he said.
"The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fucking weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fucking global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit."
He mocked global warming campaigners, describing the United Nations as "one of the world's most useless organisations", its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "utter tosh", and US politician Al Gore as someone who "couldn't even get fucking re-elected" after a boom.
His comments come amid rising taxes on flights, ostensibly introduced by politicians to curb emissions. Green groups also want a levy imposed on jet fuel. Aviation causes 6.3 per cent of UK emissions but is rising rapidly along with the growth in popularity of budget travel and could represent Britain's entire "sustainable" carbon by 2050, according to the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Of air passenger duty, which will rise by between £1 and £30 in November, Mr O'Leary said: "When they introduced it the Treasury said: 'We will ring-fence this money and use it for global climate change initiatives'. We've written to them once every six months – they never answer the letter – saying: 'What do you use the money for?' It's a straight-forward tax scam... My average fare is £34. I pay passenger tax of £10: I pay 33 per cent of my revenues in these aviation taxes.
"Aviation gets a crap deal. This is the great historical justification among environmentalists for taxing air travel: 'They don't have tax on fuel'. The only reason we don't pay tax on fuel is that governments can't tax it because you'll upload fuel somewhere else if they tax it."
To date, the US, UK, Germany, Japan, India, and China have all agreed on the existence of global warming, but have failed to agree binding emission targets to limit it. More than 2,500 scientists contributed to the IPCC's fourth assessment report in 2007, which warned that freak weather events such as flooding and drought will intensify, threatening agriculture and the livelihoods of millions.
Greenpeace issued a light-hearted response to Mr O'Leary's comments. "Personally, I wouldn't trust 'O'Really' to tell me the price of a seat on his own airline, but to be fair his position does have the support of such intellectual heavyweights as Nick Griffin, Sarah Palin and George W Bush," said Joss Garman, a Greenpeace spokesman.
O'Leary's views: A rebuttal
O'Leary: "The climate has been changing since time immemorial. Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit."
Dr Emily Shuckburgh, of the British Antarctic Survey: "Over tens of thousands of years, the orbit of the Earth about the Sun slowly varies, and with it the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth's surface. When the orbit is such that the radiation dips low enough, it triggers an ice age. Since the Earth has not suddenly jumped into a different orbit in the past century, a different mechanism must explain the recent increase in global temperatures."
Mac: What explains the Holocene, the Roman and the Medieval warm periods? What explains the LIA? What explains the warming from 1850 to 1950? What explains the lack of accelerated warming and the periods of cooling from 1950 onwards.
O'Leary: "It used to be global warming but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
Dr Shuckburgh: "It is wrong to say global warming has stopped in the past 12 years. The weather changes day to day, and even when the temperature is averaged globally and over a full year, there are still considerable variations from year to year. When this is taken into account, no reduction is found in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20C per decade."
Mac: It is wrong to say there has been any global waring over the past 12 years. Even Kevin Trenberth finds that a "travesty".
O'Leary: "There's absolutely no link between man-made carbon – which contributes less than 2 per cent of total carbon emissions, most of it is naturally emitted – [and] climate change."
Dr Shuckburgh: Vast amounts of carbon are exchanged each year back and forth between the land, oceans and atmosphere – some 200 GtC/yr [GigaTons of Carbon per year] are naturally emitted and 200 GtC/yr are naturally reabsorbed. Man is now emitting more than 8GtC/yr, about half of which remains in the atmosphere. The impact has been significant. Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppmv [parts per million by volume]. Man-made emissions have increased that to nearly 390ppmv.
Mac: Natural CO2 good. Man-made CO2 bad. Who would have that the absorbtion process could discriminate between the good CO2 and the bad CO2.
O'Leary: "The same [scientific] community was telling us in the mid-1970s the world was heading into a new ice age. I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the global temperatures will be in 100 years' time."
Dr Shuckburgh: Of course it is not possible to predict with precision the weather in 100 years. But we can characterise – to within a range – the long-term climate trend that underlies the chaotic weather.
Mac: The long term trend in this period of current warming is 0.6C per century (tenths of a degree)
O'Leary: "The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a load of utter tosh."
Dr Shuckburgh: The facts are that errors in the IPCC's fourth assessment report were identified and acknowledged, and the fundamental findings of the report were unaltered. This valuable scrutiny has strengthened, not discredited, the conclusions.
Mac: The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is a load of utter tosh
O'Leary: "The only [IPCC economic growth scenario] that gives rise to this inexorable rise of man-made CO2 emissions linked to climate change... is 7 per cent compound economic growth into infinity. That's already been torn up in the last two years. We've already had a worldwide decline."
Dr Shuckburgh: Carbon emissions do not have to rise inexorably for there to be climate change. If we stopped all emissions now, which is impossible, the temperature would increase for many years due to the emissions we have already made. Moreover, current CO2 emissions, even with the global recession, are in the mid to upper range of IPCC scenarios.
Mac: A recent paper in nature Geoscience clearly indentified that scientists, like Dr Shuckburgh, have been misrepresenting IPCC CO2 emission scenarios. In particular RealCimate was taken to task over this.
PS Dr Emily Shuckburgh was a signatory of the Met Office's letter that claimed that the IPCC AR4 was sound, including Glaciergate, Amazongate, Hollandgate, Africagate, GreyLiteraturegate, etc, etc
Here is an interesting quote from Nature in 2006 on the drafting of the IPCC AR4 report.
" The current draft, which represents the message that the scientific authors want to present to policy-makers, contains few statements that will surprise climate researchers, but its tone is much more confident than that of its predecessor, published in 2001. And that, say researchers, will make it harder for sceptical politicians and lobbyists to attack climate predictions.
“People won’t be punching holes in the science,” says Jay Gulledge, a senior research fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. Emily Shuckburgh, a climate researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK, agrees: “If you’re a sceptic, it’s difficult to see where to attack on the modelling side.” "
If the likes of Michael O'Leary can punch holes so easily into CAGW arguements, with his usual aplomb, it makes it impossible for Dr Shuckburgh to reply in kind considering what she had to say in the past herself.
You cannot defend IPCC AR4 after all the gates and the IAC report.
'e's a good boy, 'e is, my Ron. 'e's good to 'is old Mum. 'e's kind to dogs too. You lay off of 'im, Mr Bishop bloody 'ill.
"Oxburgh does it for free"
I'd like to see his expenses claim, though...
Mac
Thanks for nothing Michael O’Leary. The expletive-ridden support of the most unpopular businessman in the British Isles sets us back decades. As if the cheques from Big Oil weren’t bad enough!
Love your airline. Don’t think much of your line of argument.
@Lord Oxburgh's Mum, I'm calling the bizzies. Yuze a fraud. I'm his "ma" not his "mum". Magate.
Get me drunk and in company then the phrase, "CAGW? Complete load of ........" would possibly pass my lips.
Whatever you think of O'Leary, I am happy for anyone to widens the distribution curve for public utterances, such that those will less strident (or more sober) sceptical opinions move towards the centre.
The more people in the public eye say effectively "what a load of ......." the better.
Re Geoff
They shouldn't bring a spork to a nuke fight and I'm wearing my badge with pride. Congratulations are really due to the efforts of the Bishop, McIntyre, Watts and the more open minded scientists like the Pielkes, Spencer, Lindzen, Curry et al who feed me ammo. I'm just the messenger. It is a bit depressing just how accepting and trusting some of the 'believers' are though, and how they miss Dr Curry's point that this is not just about global warming, but about preserving the credibility of science in general.
As for O'Leary.. I like him, and he does have a knack for generating publicity. Anything that keeps the debate in the MSM and not confined to the blogs is good. He also makes a very good point about following the money, which is something the public understands easily. They may be willing to pay hefty taxes to 'save the planet', but that isn't where the money's going.
Airline bosses and executives have suffered abuse for years from eco-loons.
Remember Monbiot's classic line, "every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned".
Remember Monbiot's claim he no longer flew and hadn't done for years, but suddenly appeared in Canada this year to be a part of some evironmental PR exercise. He flies alright.
Say what you will about Michael O'Leary, and I have my own opinion of Ryan Air, but he has used plain and profane language to make a point that should have been said years ago, "CAGW is CACK".
Lord Oxburgh's Ma and Mum,
You ladies are killing me just like Prof. Jones Mum used to, back in the glory days. ;)
Andrew