pachauri.jpg

 

On the evening after the IAC’s critical report on the processes and procedures used by the IPCC was published, Roger Harrabin of the BBC made no secret of the precarious position that the organisation’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is now in. Describing him as ‘putting a brave face on it’ the BBC’s Environment Analyst introduced this outburst from the IPCC chairman:

Honest scientific discourse wilts under gross distortions and ideologically driven posturing. Sadly, such tactics have been a prominent feature of climate science for many years and they show no sign of letting up. My hope is that the accumulation of so many investigations into climate science will strengthen public trust so that we can move forward.

BBC Six o’Clock News, Radio 4, 30th August 2010

There is an extraordinary, and ironic, ambiguity in the first two sentences. Pachauri is, no doubt, talking about the IPCC’s critics, but surely precisely the same accusations could apply to that organisation under his leadership. Be that as it may, Harrabin’s verdict on Pachauri’s future prospects was that, ‘the full climate panel meet in a few weeks time in Korea. It will be a major surprise if Professor Pachauri is still running it after that.’  Harrabin usually seems to be well informed about what the warmist movement is thinking, so he may well be right in anticipating an attempt to oust Pachauri.

The chairman of the IPCC is elected by the governments that are signatories of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and at present there  are nearly 200 of them. In order to get rid of Dr Pachauri if he chooses not to go quietly would presumably require that process to be reversed in the form of a motion of no confidence. There would seem to be some indications that Pachauri will not go quietly, and that the meeting in October will be a very lively affair indeed.

The BBC website carried a report on 25th January 2010, when the Himalayagate scandal had just broken, which was headlined, ‘I will not go, says climate chief’. This included a brief, but very interesting, video interview with Dr Pachauri. Here is part of what he had to say, apparently in response to being asked whether he intended to resign: Continue reading »

Since the Russell Report was published I have put up three posts posing questions that Sir Muir Russell should be compelled to answer about his inquiry. These have also appeared on the Global Warming Policy Foundation website:

The question now arises, who should ask these questions and can Sir Muir Russell be compelled to answer.

The good news is that before the ink on the Russell Inquiry was really dry, the Daily Express reported that the Labour MP Graham Stringer was calling for a re-assessment of Climategate:

He said it [the Russell Inquiry] fell short because it was unable to access thousands of other emails to establish whether there was a conspiracy among climate scientists at the CRU.

Mr Stringer said: “To make sense of whether there was a conspiracy, whether they really tried to subvert the peer review process, you would have had to look at these emails. It’s an inadequate report that doesn’t do the job. It’s not going to allay anybody’s fears.

“I certainly believe the matter should return to the House of Commons to be debated because this is the basis of spending billions of dollars worldwide.”

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1208-labour-mp-calls-for-new-climategate-inquiry.html

You may remember the redoubtable Mr Stringer as being the only MP on the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee who was well enough briefed on Climategate to ask consistently searching questions at their somewhat rushed oral hearing of evidence. His PhD in Chemistry and a career as an analytical chemist before entering parliament would have helped him here.

In an interview with Andrew Orlowski of The Register, Graham Stringer has set out more of his reservations about the credibility of the inquiries and his concern that the university misled the parliamentary committee. Lord Willis, who was chairman of he committee at that time, has also accused the university of “sleight of hand”.

During the Select Committee hearings Graham Stringer made no secret of his suspicion that Professor Acton  (Vice Chancellor of UEA) was more concerned by the perceived injury to the university’s reputation caused by the publication of the Climategate emails than discovering what they revealed about the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and that this could prejudice both the independence and impartiality of any inquiries that the University of East Anglia (UEA) might instigate. The transcript of the Select Committee’s hearings of oral evidence is well worth looking at in the light of all the criticisms that have been levelled at the Russell and Oxburgh enquiries since then (here).  Questions 127 – 134 from Stringer to Acton, the chairman’s intervention with question 152, and questions 176 – 179 from Stringer to Sir Muir Russell make the Committee’s grave concern that Professor Acton was intent on apportioning blame for the scandal to the leaker or hacker rather than getting to the bottom of what had been going on at the CRU very clear. Also their unease that Sir Muir Russell’s inquiry might attract criticism unless he was very careful to ensure that its procedures were beyond reproach.

Graham Stringer’s contribution did not finish with his energetic contributions to questioning the witnesses. If you look carefully at the end of the Committee’s report, you will find Formal Minutes of the meeting that approved the text prior to publication.  Attendance on this occasion was rather sparse.

At the oral hearing, the following members were present in addition to the chairman,  Phil Willis: Graham Stringer, Tim Boswell, Dr Brian Iddon, Ian Stewart, Doug Naysmith and Dr Evan Harris, who arrived late. However when the text was approved, Stewart and Naysmith were not present. Eight propositions were put and voted on, and on every occasion Stringer was a minority of one in the face of votes by all the other three members of the committee except the chairman who did not use his vote. Here is a summary of what happened: Continue reading »

The Cambrian News has published an appeal form Kemble Air Services for information about the way in which Llanbedr Airfield has been used in the past.  This is in a connection with a revised application to the Snowdonia National Park authority for a certificate of lawful use.

Kermble would particularly like to hear from personnel who were involved in flying in and out of Llanbedr. If you have any information, please leave a comment here and I will provide contact details.

Holiday!

Posted by TonyN on 11/06/2010 at 6:12 pm Uncategorized No Responses »
Jun 112010

I’ve just got back from a ten day trip walking the Cotswold Way during which I haven’t looked at a computer screen once. Harmless Sky and other sceptical blogs seem to have been very busy during that time,  so there’ll be a lot of catching up to do.

Apologies to those who have left comments that I should have replied to. I’ll do my best over the next few days.


A while ago, I contacted a journalist on a national broadsheet about something that I thought might interest him. Later he rang me to say that the story would appear in a prominent position in the next day’s edition of his newspaper, but he was upset; in fact he was furious.

As part of his research he had phoned a very senior government adviser on climate change to ask for a reaction to the story. Five minutes after this conversation he got a phone call from what he described as ‘a friend’ who works for a multinational environmental NGO. It was either Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth, but I don’t remember which, and it doesn’t really matter.

The purpose of the friend’s phone call was to express disapproval about the newspaper covering the story. Apparently a considerable row ensued. The upshot was that they were friends no longer, and that was the end of any more stories that the journalist would get from that source. This had upset him, but there was more. Continue reading »

Apr 012010

This turned up in a Google News search just a few minutes ago:

Professor Phil Jones, the University of East Anglia scientist at the heart of the Climategate scandal is reported to have signed a million dollar contract with Eko-j Publishing last week. The working title of the book is Blowing the Whistle on Climate Science.

Marcus MacGrabbit, CEO of  Eko-J, told reporters, “Climategate was just the beginning. Our legal team are still working on the manuscript, but even with the edits that we know we will have to make this is going to be the publishing sensation of the century. Just to make sure that there are no unforeseen problems we have also arranged a peer review panel to go over every detail. There has already been interest in the film rights.”

In what may be related developments, a number of senior climate scientists, including James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, have applied for indefinite leave of absence from their posts. Professor Michael Mann, who authored the famous Hockey Stick graph, is rumoured to have admitted himself to the Priory Clinic.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri is expected to announce his resignation as chairman of the IPPC later this week. He intends to spend the next few years at an ashram high in the Himalayas meditating on the futility of science, studying glaciology, and building model railways.

Harmless Sky is Back!

Posted by TonyN on 15/03/2010 at 6:09 pm Uncategorized 8 Responses »
Mar 152010

On Friday afternoon one of the servers at my ISP collapsed and Harmless Sky has been unreachable ever since.

I am told that they worked all weekend trying to fix it, and also that they have taken the opportunity to completely upgrade the platform it runs on, including the operating system and the version of PHP it uses. For the non-techniclaly minded the latter is the programming language that WordPress blogs are written in.

As the new version of PHP (5) is not completely backwards compatible there may be some glitches and I would be very grateful for information about anything that does not seem to work properly.

Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that I run Harmless Sky on a bog standard (and cheap) domestic ISP account. As you know, sceptics are supposed to be waging a carefully coordinated and well funded campaign against the forces of reason as exemplified by the climate community. If I had a proper commercial account the problem might have been fixed more quickly, but then unlike RealClimate I don’t have the backing of Fentons.

My apologies for the break in service. During this evening I will be posting about the ASA decision on the DECC adverts and also putting up a very interesting guest post.

__________________________________________________________

Just while I think about it, Bishop Hill has an excellent find here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/13/lindzen-on-tvo.html

It really is worth settling down and watching the whole thing as he suggests. Don’t miss the devastating salvo at about 48 mins or the quietly delivered payload in the closing seconds.

Greetings!

Posted by TonyN on 24/12/2009 at 3:03 pm Uncategorized No Responses »
Dec 242009

 

llandanwg5.jpg

A Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Everyone

Dec 152009


Visitors to  Harmless Sky may like to consider signing this petition at 10 DOwning Stree:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body. More details

To sign go to :

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

This has already attracted over 2500 signatures and will be open until the end of February. If you do decide to sign and there is no security risk in doing so please spread the word  and the URL wherever you comment on the net.

It would seem likely that the final total will be a large one and there is an additional benefit. When the petition closes, the government will publish a statement giving reasons for either complying with the petitioners’ requests or for not doing so. That could be interesting.

There can be some delay in names appearing in the  list on the petition website.

Nov 302009

I have had a major internet connectivity problem since yesterday which is affecting both email and blog access.

If you have emailed me or left a comment that I should have responded to I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha