In his presentation to the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Hans von Storch outlines a number of issues with the IPCC and suggests possible solutions. I thought these were pretty interesting, particularly the bit where he discusses dealing with dissent - I've added emphasis to the "ouch" bit.
This is a translation of an article in the Norwegian newspaper Forskning. The original article was by Bjørnar Kjensli and the machine translation was tidied and corrected by readers Messenger and Geir Hasnes.
A German climate researcher says that people are beginning to lose faith in climate research, pointing to the IPPC as one of the main causes. Norwegian IPCC veterans disagree about what the organization should do about it.
This is a guest post by Simon Anthony.
Why do we disagree about climate change?
Lecture on 29th April at School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford by Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.
MH’s talk was based on his book of the same title. His aim is not to investigate climate change via models, analysis etc but to discuss other ways of seeing the world, for example, through the work of Mary Douglas, an anthropologist who originated the field of “Cultural Theory of Risk”, to try to understand the underlying source of disagreement.
Under the leadership of Lord Rees, the Royal Society's reputation has sunk dramatically, with this once august body now widely seen as a political body and a surrogate arm of the government, more interested in the next tranche of funding than truth. Their role in Lord Oxburgh's whitewashing may well hang over them for a long time to come.
A report in the Belfast Telegraph has Queen's University Belfast as saying they have published their tree ring data, as required by the Information Commissioner in response to Doug Keenan's request.
QUB said it has abided by the Information Commissioner’s ruling.
“The university has now published electronic data relating to its tree ring research in line with the Decision Notice issued by the Information Commissioner,” a spokeswoman said.
This is a guest post by Geir Hasnes.
In 2006, the Norwegian government embarked on the world’s most ambitious carbon capture project – a system that would capture the CO2 produced at gas-fired power stations. The system had a projected cost of 27 billion NoK, roughly equivalent to US$5 billion. The two power stations concerned are situated at Mongstad near Bergen on the west coast and Kårstø, somewhat further to the south. Mongstad had been chosen as the starting point.
The involvement of the National Domestic Extremism team in the Climategate investigation was the subject of both concern and ridicule a few months back. Those who are on the "concerned" side of the argument might be interested in this article at the indispensable (for civil libertarians anyway) Spy Blog.
The article takes a look at the plethora of unaccountable police forces that have been set up by the current (and soon to be former) government. It isn't pretty reading.
Another welcome new addition to the blogosphere, Nigel Calder's site can be seen here. Nigel is, of course, the former editor of New Scientist and the co-author of The Chilling Stars, a book about Svensmark's galactic cosmic ray theory of climate change.
The article is very interesting, although a commenter a Matt's reckons the security of supply arguments may be wrong. But how about this for killing off the argument that Denmark has shown us the way?
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
[Updated to fix mistake with book title]