Lies, damned lies and Jonathan Porritt

Posted by TonyN on 30/08/2009 at 12:36 pm The Climate 23 Responses »
Aug 302009

What happens when a leading environmental campaigner meets a Spectator columnist, who is sceptical about climate change, on a BBC discussion programme, and there is a question about carbon emissions and wind farms?This was the situation on last Friday’s Any Questions, which was chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby who, while scrupulously trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality on such subjects, never quite manages to conceal his sympathy for the warmist cause.

Any Questions is broadcast from a different venue each week, with a local audience, although it is not unusual for panellists with a cause to make sure that there are a few of their supporters in the audience. The venue for this edition was the quaintly named Middle Wallop, a rural community set in the rolling Hampshire countryside.

At the beginning of the programme, he introduced the main protagonists in the following way:

Jonathan Porritt: Doyen of the green party, founder of Forum for the Future, and until a few weeks ago, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission, and the government’s chief environmental adviser, to which post he was appointed by Tony Blair a decade ago.

James Delingpole: comes from a rather different tradition, author and Spectator columnist, he reviles what he calls the deceit and lies of the anthropogenic global warming industry … He’s also scathing about left liberals who he is prone to see in his words as ‘stupid’.

There were two other members of the panel, Kate Mosse, a novelist who has sold some 5 million books, and Mark Stephens a lawyer specialising in the entertainment industry.

The question about climate change came from a Mr Gent, who asked, ‘Is the answer to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions blowing in the wind?’

On this programme the panel genuinely do not know what the questions will be, although they may be able to guess what is likely to be come up and do some home work. The chairman immediately slipped the poisoned pill to Delingpole, although he must have realised that pitting a journalist with no specialised knowledge of this subject against a specialist like Porritt could make for an uneven contest. And addressing the question first is always a disadvantage; there is nothing to react to and no thinking time. Continue reading »

The Information Commissioner: faithful watchdog or the BBC's cuddly poodle?

Posted by TonyN on 22/08/2009 at 10:39 pm The Climate 20 Responses »
Aug 222009

Doug Keenan has an excellent post at WUWT about his experiences trying to persuade Queens University Belfast to release some tree-ring data using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Not least of his problems has been the very strange conduct of the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is supposed to be the watchdog that enforces the legislation and ensures that recalcitrant public agencies, such as universities, abide by the law.

What follows is another example of how this eminently sensible piece of legislation actually works in practice, or in this case, seems not to work at all.

In  July 2007 I made an application to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) for information about a seminar on climate change that was mentioned in the BBC Trust’s blockbuster report on impartiality published in June 2006. This is what it said in the section on climate change:

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/impartiality_21century/report.pdf

This decision was one that would inevitably have far reaching effects on public opinion. Continue reading »

Summers come, and summers go

Posted by TonyN on 14/08/2009 at 11:09 pm The Climate 8 Responses »
Aug 142009

When the Met Office predicted a ‘barbecue summer’ this year they were giving a hostage to fortune, and reality has visited savage retribution on them. If the public were sceptical about the ability of scientists to warn us about climate change before this debacle, they are now downright scornful.

The climate seems to be as unpredictable as it ever it was, but the natural progression of the seasons is not so capricious, nor are computer models required to tell us what is in store. As the gradual – or occasionally dramatic – warming of spring leads into the holiday season, our expectations – or hopes at least – grow ever more optimistic; will this be one of those truly memorable summers? And later, as the days begin to shorten noticeably, and leaves turn from rich green to brown, we know that soon the trees will once again be bare poles outlined against a cold sky, with morning frosts and the chance of a flurry of sleet or snow in a passing shower not too far away. Then, as the cold months near their end, the first signs of growth in sheltered spots reassures us that the whole cycle will start again.

There is a point in the passage of the seasons that always makes a deep impression on me, Continue reading »

Who owns the The Royal Society?

Posted by TonyN on 09/08/2009 at 11:17 am The Climate 11 Responses »
Aug 092009

There is no doubt that The Royal Society has a position on climate change, but to what extent is this venerable and distinguished organisation able to express a truly independent and objective opinion on a matter of current public policy?

Here is what the Society say at the head of the main page on their web site dealing with climate:

International scientific consensus agrees that increasing levels of man-made greenhouse gases are leading to global climate change. Possible consequences of climate change include rising temperatures, changing sea levels, and impacts on global weather. These changes could have serious impacts on the world’s organisms and on the lives of millions of people, especially those living in areas vulnerable to extreme natural conditions such as flooding and drought

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278

At a glance, this appears to be a reiteration of the current orthodoxy, but a more careful reading reveals it is remarkably cautious. There is no reference to conclusive, or even compelling, scientific evidence but only to ‘international scientific consensus’, it speaks of ‘possible consequences’ rather inevitable consequences, and suggests that these ‘could’ be serious rather than predicting certain disaster. There is plenty of wriggle-room here should opinion change. Continue reading »

Eco-towns, what scientists are for, and a bit about education

Posted by TonyN on 01/08/2009 at 11:11 pm The Climate 10 Responses »
Aug 012009

It’s a while since I’ve written a post, ‘John A’ having contributed last week’s piece. So here are a few things that caught my eye over the last fortnight while I’ve been doing other things.Our small and crowded island is still fortunate in having some lovely countryside which has been preserved as a result of sensible planning laws. On the other hand it has been recognised for some time that there is a housing shortage. The problem here is that more houses means less countryside, and this is likely to lead to protests. What to do?

Our very resourceful government — in matters of spin at least — had no difficulty finding an answer; a bit of creative re-branding:

The village of Ford in West Sussex was turned on its head last April when the Government  announced it was a “favoured location” to become an eco¬town. One of 10 spots to be transformed into a carbon¬neutral settlement, it would have more than 5,000 sustainably powered homes built on and around it. To encourage residents to take up a more eco-friendly lifestyle, it would be given impeccable new ‘”green” credentials.

Car journeys  would be curtailed by a l8mph speed limit. Bath water would be recycled and fed to communal flowerbeds. Each home would pump excess power generated by its solar panels and turbines back into the National Grid. It all sounded very  worthy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/5858971/How-Ben-Fogle-helped-save-his-village-from-becoming-an-eco-town.html

And very expensive too. Bog-standard houses are expensive enough to put them beyond the reach of first time buyers, and the urgent need is for low cost housing. Eco-homes come with so many bells and whistles that they are something that only the affluent can afford.

When the then housing minister, Caroline Flint, unveiled the towns shortlisted to be “eco-fied”, she stated that “we will revolutionise how people live”. It sounded more like Nineteen Eighty-Four than the dawn of a green revolution. New developments, given a lick of green paint, could be forced onto towns like Ford, where similar projects would previously have been rejected. The word “eco” would make residents feel guilty if they voiced opposition. It would allow the Government to feel smug about its environmental friendliness, and to steamroller its developments through. Wrap something in green recycled paper and you’ll get away with anything. But Flint hadn’t reckoned on the power of local feeling.

That was a mistake, because the people of Ford seem to be a pretty feisty lot who were quite ready do a bit of campaigning and demonstrating to prevent a vast area of Grade 1 agricultural land being concreted over and their rural community being destroyed. They even attempted a bit of consultation with their opponents: Continue reading »

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha