Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Matt Ridley at the Royal Society for GWPF

Whisper it quietly, but until quite recently the GWPF had premises in the same block as the RS. It si paossible that (rather than some huge conspiracy) tow of their respective administrators got talking in a fag break..

Freda (GWPF): I'm looking for a big room to hold our Annual Lecture

Sandra (RS) : We've just the place. And we're always looking for some extra income. Have you seen the skyhigh energy bills nowadays? Scandalous..the government should do something about it!

Freda: Oh we agree completely. Is Monday 17th October any good?

Sandra: Done! And 10% off for immediate payment. The lekky bill needs paying this week or we'll be cut off...

Oct 17, 2016 at 3:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Entropic says:

'It has become fashionable for pseudoscientists like the GWPF to seek credibility by booking a prestigious scientific venue'

Last year's Annual Lecture was in the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. A great honour to sit in the same halls as giants like Sir Nigel Gresley. both Stephensons, Armstrong and Napier...

And like them the GWPF are interested not so much in 'science' itself, but in the application of that science to real world problems.

It was founded by Nigel Lawson (one-time Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the clue is in its name:

The Global Warming POLICY Foundation.

Here is a list of trustees:

You will see that they are (almost universally) policy makers. The one exception arguably is advising a higher power even than the UK government on his actions.

Oct 17, 2016 at 3:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Latimer Alder, don't confuse climate scientrollogists with things like facts, you know full well they just spontaneously overheat, trigger panic warning alarm calls, and expect the rest of the world to pay them.

Oct 17, 2016 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Last year's Annual Lecture was in the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

This one …?

Thank you for the opportunity to set out my views on climate change. As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.

From Patrick Moore?

Setting a pretty low bar for nonsense, there. Good thing there were no scientific fact-checkers present last year. Matt should be fine.

There are, of course, 2 GWPFs. The original GW Policy Foundation, set up as an educational charity, and the GW Policy Forum spun off to carry on with its propaganda after the Charity Commissioners took a close look at some of the stuff the Foundation was putting out and decided that there was, shall we say 'room for improvement' in the areas of objectivity, neutrality and actually providing a public benefit. The websites of the 2 organisations are remarkably similar.

I believe tonight's event is under the auspices of the Foundation. Perhaps the Commissioners should send an observer along tonight? It certainly promises to be 'educational'.

Oct 17, 2016 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, still no info on how climate science was settled then?

Oct 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

What is the latest estimate of money wasted on trying to prove Mann's Hockey Stick?

Obviously that is a completely separate question to the amount of money wasted BECAUSE of Mann's Hockey Stick.

Oct 17, 2016 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Two can play at that game:

"In a Times story, the charity has been accused by the fracking company Cuadrilla of continuing to campaign against its work despite having handed the campaign to a non-charitable arm

The environmental charity the Friends of the Earth Trust has rejected accusations published in The Times newspaper this morning that it deliberately misled the Charity Commission.

The charity was accused of continuing to campaign against fracking, despite announcing in June that it had handed the campaign against shale gas extraction techniques to a separate company, Friends of the Earth Limited.

Last month, the commission said it was reviewing its policy on the naming of non-charitable campaigning groups connected to charities after receiving a complaint from the fracking company Cuadrilla that the similarity between the names Friends of the Earth Trust and Friends of the Earth Limited was confusing.

The latest accusations from Cuadrilla, published in The Times, said the charity "misled" the regulator by issuing press releases that campaigned against fracking, which should have been published by the company, and had later doctored them."


"It’s official: Greenpeace Serves No Public Purpose.

No less a green haven than Canada just dealt the Dutch-based environmentalist group a massive blow to its credibility and fundraising efforts by denying it the charitable status it had sought for a decade.

Revenue Canada, the tax-collecting arm of the government, has refused to recognize the new Greenpeace Environmental Foundation as a charity, saying its activities have “no public benefit” and that lobbying to shut down industries could send people “into poverty.”"

Oct 17, 2016 at 7:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

Latimer Alder

Thank you for the list of GWPF trustees.

One small correction. They WERE policy makers. Since then history and science have passed them by.

Oct 17, 2016 at 7:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Just back, and a disappointingly uneventful evening it was too.

I was expecting at least one vanful of cops keeping the peace as hordes of sopadodging bearded alarmists waving hockey sticks driven crazy by the extreme temperature of about 16C tried to tear peace loving realists limb from limb.

I hoped for at least an appearance from Al Gore, Mikey Mann (anybody remember him) and Gav to put us all right on this stupid idea that 'evidence' not just wishful thinking was important.

But it rained a bit just beforehand. Maybe that put them off. P'raps they didn't have brollies.

Instead the most controversial part was when a climate modeller said that the models were sh*t at clouds. And Ridley agreed with him that the models are sh*t.

Apocalypse every sense...

Oct 17, 2016 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

EM, I think you will find that Climate Science has regressed to it's heydays in the Hockey Stick Era, having made no progress since, despite the billions wasted.

The brief, but destructive "History" of Climate Science, has yet to be written, but "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford is fast becoming a well thumbed reference for many politicians and economists.

The word "Illusion" was presumably chosen out of respect for those with convictions.

Oct 17, 2016 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The brief, but destructive "History" of Climate Science, has yet to be written

Well, people could start here

 "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford is fast becoming a well thumbed reference for many politicians and economists.

When they desire somefiction, perhaps.

Oct 17, 2016 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Latimer Alder, I think you have identified how Climate Scientists are going to deal with their increasing lack of funds. They are going to maintain that they were never wrong, but the computer modellers were over ambitious in their confidence and abilities.

They will then ask for 10 years more funding, and just hope that the climate does something that it has never done before, whilst pointing out that Global Warming did not exclude a new ice age as they predicted back in the 70s, and a Climate Changed by not very much was also entirely in accordance with some of their unreported thought processes, with a high confidence level of uncertainty, just as predicted by Nostradamus, and a troupe of chimpanzees paid peanuts and bananas, armed with a dice and a coin.

That's Climate Science for you. Sometimes the coin goes up, and lands lucky. But not always.

Oct 17, 2016 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I think the most significant point Ridley made was to discuss results from the UN's 2015 My World survey
Nearly 10 million people from all round the world have voted for their top 6 (chosen from 20 possible) issues. When aggregated, 'Action on Climate Change' comes a bad last. 20th out of 20. Behind a reliable phone service. And a country mile behind 'Reliable Energy at Home'

So the bad news for the climatoestablishment is that nobody cares about their subject any more. It isn't 'trendy'. People's imaginations are not grabbed by it. It is not a widespread movement, but a cult.

And when you look a little more into the data it gets even worse. The only age group for whom it even rises to 19th rather than 20th are the over 45s. Young folk - even after 30 years of full-on climate propaganda - don't give a tinkers cuss about climate.

They want the benefits of a modern technological world..not to be condemned to rely on medieval technology like wind and water mills to satisfy the empty fears of jet setting actors, failed US politicians and their unthinking acolytes.

Anybody planning to hitch their career to the climate change waggon should view these figures with dread. Nobody cares much at all about your subject. And even the few who do are dying and not being replaced. Your ship sailed a long time ago.

Over time this indifference will trickle through into the finance for your subject. Its a terrifying prospect

As the many 'professors' retire, they'll not be replaced.

The media have already noticed that climate is a big turn off for their audience and the easy access to the airwaves - and hence one's career prospects - are dying away.

Maybe the big grant for the next super computer will be delayed a year or two.

Perhaps those Big Green 'Subsidies' (=Bribes) that your business plan relied upon aren''t quite so copper-bottomed as you hoped.

Rather than being eagerly invited to the best salons to terrify folks about the coming apocalypse, the diary stays empty.

And instead of having direct unquestioned access to public money via the credulous ministers at DECC, those nasty folks at BEIS are tougher nuts to crack

So that was my takeaway message from Ridley's pitch. The climate scare is dying away..both scientifically and politically. It's over. And there's a very interesting few books to be written about how the heck the establishment ever fell for it in the first place.

Oct 18, 2016 at 4:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

Latimer, thanks for the report. Yes, I remember that survey. And there are others showing much the same thing. The age thing is interesting. I had thought that the youngest were keenest, being more gullible and more brainwashed, and that people got wiser as they grew older. But maybe that's not the case.

When I retire and write my book about the climate scare, it will address your question of "how the heck the establishment ever fell for it in the first place".

Maurizio was there. He tweets:
Experts "notoriously bad" at forecasting the future.
Easy hilarity with list of failed green scares
Madness and dishonesty of "green" energy with real environment problems left untouched
Current environmental policies do little to decrease CO2 emissions
Sceptics are winning the argument
"If it bleeds it leads" in the media so doom is always in the news

Oct 18, 2016 at 9:07 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

There is a full transcript on the GWPF site

Oct 18, 2016 at 9:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I think the most significant point Ridley made was to discuss results from the UN's 2015 My World survey 

Oh, good, sounds like the presence of a few scientists might have kept him honest (Disclaimer: I haven't read the transcript yet) for a change.

A web survey huh? Very scientific. This means the votes are from people who

- Have internet access
- Know about the survey and
- Care enough to vote.

A self-selecting and self-describing group; gender, education, age and location were all self-reported. As it is global, and each voter had 6 votes (though there appears to be nothing to prevent multiple votes other than a promise not to do so) this means the 10 million votes represents a response rate of around 0.0225%.

Having said that, the results are probably as broadly accurate as a web survey can be. 6.5 million votes for a good education, just under 2 million for action on climate. Sounds about right. Globally, for many people, education, clean water and reliable communication are things to aspire to rather than take for granted, as we do, naturally they have a higher priority than less immediate risks.

The segmentation is encouraging for those of us in the reality-based community, concern is marginally higher in the over-45s meaning that people become more favourable towards action on climate change as they mature, and if you look at the segmentation by Human Development Index (HDI), climate change concern increases with HDI, rising to 10th (out of 16, not 20) in countries with Very High HDI.

Nothing surprising here; education, food and water, stable government are higher immediate priorities than climate change (though of course it will have an effect on virtually all the other issues) as the population ages and countries develop and the effects become more visible we can expect concern about AGW to increase.

Contrary to the fantasy outlined above.

Oct 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I take back the thing about staying honest.

James Hansen in 1988 said that by the year 2000, “the West Side Highway will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds

Back the usual bollocks. Disappointing.

Oct 18, 2016 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke 10:04 , I thought you preferred the complete bollocks that you repeat from Skeptical Science including the wholly falsified fabrication by Cook of the 97% Consensus. It is complete bollocks like that, that started Climate Science, sustains Climate Science, and is now destroying Climate Science.

Total Climate Science Bollocks, best served by Phil Clarke, gently warmed, with a side order of schadenfreude, for easier regurgitation.

Oct 18, 2016 at 10:52 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Lord Matt 'Coal is wonderful' Ridley. Champion of Science.

Oct 18, 2016 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke endorses the 97% Consensus fabricated at Skeptical Science, and therefore by Phil Clarke's smear by association tactics, Phil Clarke smears the Hockey Team and their busted Stick, The Guardian's science experts, and of course the US President.

Most people knew the Hockey Team, Guardian and Skeptical Science talked rowlocks, but nobody could be sure about the POTUS. They are now.

Oct 18, 2016 at 12:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Meanwhile, back at the thread ....

Judging by Josh's cartoon, it seems Ridley gave an excellent account of Green Blob destructive stupidity. If taxpayer funding was cut by 97% the quality of climate science would improve, simply by getting rid of the 97% who are consistently wrong.

Obviously 97% being wrong could be an exaggerated fabrication, falsified by John Cook of Skeptical Science, but until they speak up and denounce the lies, who can tell?

Oct 18, 2016 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke:

All your huffpering and blustering doesn't change the fact that in a poll of nearly 10 million people, climate change came dead last on their list of things to worry about.

Your horse is dead. Stop flogging it.

Oct 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

See my post above, in a less developed country I'd probably vote the same way. Don't forget that 2 million or 1 in 5 of those who responded cast a vote for action on climate.

What do you make of Lord Ridley repeating the lie from Climate Depot about Jim Hansen's magazine interview?

Oct 18, 2016 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

GC, I'm actually slightly contrarian in that I think the salaries of climate scientists should be raised. The system is clearly not attracting scientists of quality.

Note: That that is not the same thing as saying there should be more climate scientists, or that the total budget should be increased. I subscribe to the opposite view.

Oct 18, 2016 at 5:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

As I have stated publicly on many occasions, there is no definitive scientific proof, through real-world observation, that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate that has occurred during the past 300 years, since the peak of the Little Ice Age.
From Patrick Moore?

Oct 17, 2016 at 5:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Absolutely. I am increasingly inclined to forgive Patrick Moore for his former life in Greenpeace. He has now embraced science and embraced facts. Greenpeace is institutionally anithetical to both. Moore also appears to be contritional. After a period of doubt, that is good enough for me.

a) The warming is probably real.
b )It is slight.
c) It is not exceptional, even in human history.
d) It is probably beneficial, not harmful.
e) It wasn't predicted by computer models.
f) The same computer modelers want us to believe their predictions 100 years in the future, when they cannot even predict the present and the past.
g) They are arseholes, but not Phil Clarke.
h) Phil Clarke.

Oct 18, 2016 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart