The ASA attempts to wrap up a ‘Bedtime Story'. Sssh! It's a secret.

Posted by TonyN on 11/03/2010 at 1:52 pm TV Adverts 6 Responses »
Mar 112010

I assume that I am not the only person to have received a  fourteen-and-a-half page missive from the ASA this morning. It will probably be this evening before I get round to more than the quick glance I have given it so far. If anyone wants to comment then this is the place to do so.

The ASA provides for a further review procedure;

Can decisions be appealed?

In certain circumstances, advertising parties or complainants
can request a review of a ruling. Both sides have 21 days
from when they were told the decision to ask the Independent
Reviewer of ASA Adjudications to review the case. But they
must be able to establish that a substantial flaw of process
or adjudication is apparent, or show that additional relevant
evidence is available. If the Reviewer accepts a request for
a review he can ask the ASA Council to reconsider its ruling.
More information about the Independent Review procedure
can be found in the codes.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Dealing-with-complaints/~/media/Files/ASA/Misc/Advs%20Leaflet%20Jun09.ashx

Note the time limit.

Phil Jones and the ‘expert judgement' of the IPCC

Posted by TonyN on 06/03/2010 at 12:48 am CRU Email Hack, The Climate 62 Responses »
Mar 062010


Over the last couple of months the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (published in February 2007) has been at the centre of a media storm. Revaluations about exaggerated or groundless claims have called into question the reputation of an organisation that has assumed a mantle of scientific invincibility during the last three years.

Alarmist predictions about the future of Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forests, agricultural production in Africa, increasing devastation caused extreme weather events and rising sea levels have been shown to be based on evidence that at best is anything but robust and at worst is no more than hearsay. Worse still, it seems that the authors of the report were aware of the shortcomings of the evidence they were relying on but used it anyway.

Publication on the Internet of over a thousand emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, now known as Climategate, has added to disquiet about the IPCC’s activities.  They suggest that Professor Phil Jones and many other leading climate scientists have attempted to subvert the accepted standards of their profession in order to protect their research findings from criticism. Many of those involved have been extremely influential within the IPCC process and the emails reveal an unhealthy culture of hostility towards anyone who questions the orthodox view of climate change that this organisation represents. It is questionable whether objective scientific research can take place under such circumstances.

The effect on the IPCC’s reputation, and that of its chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has been devastating, but at every stage of this scandal we have been assured that the core science underpinning concern about anthropogenic climate change has remained unscathed. The IPCC and its supporters have been able to undertake this damage limitation exercise because attention so far has focused on only one of the three sections of the most recent assessment report: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.  This deals with the symptoms and perceived consequences of climate change. The core scientific evidence that the climate is changing and that human influence is playing a part in this is contained  in another section of the report, Working Group I: Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis.  But can we be confident that the same problems of sloppy authorship and exaggeration do not extend to this part of the IPCC’s assessment too?

On page 8 of the Working Group I: Summary for Policymakers there is a table (SPM.2) that has the following snappy title: Continue reading »

Yesterday's Wellington Squared debate

Posted by Robin Guenier on 22/02/2010 at 8:12 pm The Climate 7 Responses »
Feb 222010

– The warmists won.

It was a friendly, good-humoured occasion, and well chaired by the Master of Wellington College, Dr Anthony Seldon. (For short biographies of the speakers see my post 9633.)

The bottom line is that the motion, that “the prophets of global warming are guilty of scaremongering“, was defeated. Here’s how it went:

(First, a vote was taken as we entered the hall (the school chapel). The result was:

129       for
175       against
29        undecided

Then each speaker had 10 minutes to make his case. After this, the speakers replied to questions from the floor and had 2 minutes (in reverse order) for a closing comment. I’ve attempted in these notes to summarise all the views of each speaker in one paragraph. (These are necessarily personal impressions.)

  Continue reading »

Phil Jones torpedoes the IPCC

Posted by TonyN on 14/02/2010 at 7:08 pm CRU Email Hack, The Climate 79 Responses »
Feb 142010

Two remarkable documents were published on the BBC website on Friday night. One is a long interview with Phil Jones conducted by  Roger Harrabin. This does not seem to have been the usual head to head affair, but written answers to written questions over a period of several days, some of them provided by sceptics. Therefore there is no scope for Jones to claim that he was panicked into hasty responses or that he has been misquoted:

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The other is Harrabin’s shorter summary of the interview, although it does contain one revelation that is not in the other document:

Climate data ‘not well organised’

To say that these are  explosive would be to wildly underestimate the potential impact of their content. Phil Jones, and his research, has had a huge effect on the IPCC process and the climate change community during a decade that spans two IPCC assessment reports. What he says matters.

Jones is not only one of the world’s most influential climate scientists, he is also a major opinion former within his field of research and beyond. This is a man whose word has carried great weight with journalists, activists, administrators and politicians as well as with other scientists.

So why is this interview so important?

Continue reading »

The warmists just don't know what hit them

Posted by TonyN on 07/02/2010 at 2:37 pm CRU Email Hack, The Climate 123 Responses »
Feb 072010

Some years ago I asked an old friend, who is a stockbroker and then in his forties, whether he was nervous about the expected onset of a bear market: one in which share prices fall over a long period? This was at the end of a very long bull market with steadily rising prices.

Yes, he said, he was pretty worried. Although there was no problem in managing funds successfully in these less favourable conditions, the city had recently gone through one of its periodic convulsions, with finance houses amalgamating, the upper echelons of management being ruthlessly culled, and new, younger, and more energetic blood being brought in.

He did not feel that there was anything wrong with this of course, but he saw problems ahead; in the short term at least.  Although the new kids were bright and capable, they had learned their trade when the going was good and had experienced nothing other than relatively easy trading conditions. In his opinion, when the downturn came they just weren’t going to know what had hit them, and that could be a big problem for markets.

It would seem likely that a large proportion of the AGW activist movement are finding themselves in the same kind of situation at the moment. The eNGOs have grown rapidly over the last decade with a high intake of young graduates straight out of university.

So far, these keen young idealists have been pushing at an open door. Politicians, the mainstream media and, to a great extent, the general public too, have been sympathetic to their cause. No press release has been too absurd to find some journalist who will write it up. No scheme too fanciful or ill conceived to be turned down for funding. And all the time there has been an ever more vocal groundswell of public opinion urging them onwards.

There must have been periods of frustration for them of course, when progress was slower than they would have liked. But these clean cut knights in green armour had signed up to be campaigners after all, and few of them can have doubted that the triumph would be theirs eventually. All that was needed was to continually turn up the pressure with ever more extreme scare stories for the rest of the world to conform to their alarmist viewpoint.

They have become used to being hailed as the infallible fountainheads of wisdom on all matters to do with the climate, the arbiters of correct political opinion on environmental problems, and the conduit through which, provided sufficient legislation could be enacted and funding made available, the planet could be saved. The only opposition they have faced has been from a despised minority of sceptics who have persistently asked whether we can be sure that the planet really is in danger. These voices have been  easy to marginalise and ignore.  The forces of environmentalism have effortlessly occupied the moral high ground to such an extent that the merest hint of criticism of their views or actions has become tantamount to blasphemy.

What a difference the last two-and-a-half months have made. First Climategate, then Copenhagen, and now the seemingly endless revelations about IPCC incompetence – and worse – which is fast spreading suspicion that those who have been trusted to explain what is happening to the climate may have feet of clay.

If anyone expects that environmental activists, and the climate scientists who are becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from them, will be able  to mount a swift and decisive counter offensive  that will win the day, they are likely to be disappointed. To do so would require them to react swiftly and with great skill to a situation that they have never faced before. These are folk who are facing the PR equivalent of shock and awe: terrifying, disorientating, and presenting a challenges for which nothing in their past experience has prepared them. Defending their beliefs is not something that they have had to plan for.

Recovery will require different skills, a new mindset, and a totally restructured strategy. This will not happen over night, and in the meantime, the panic-stricken desire to do something – to do anything –  to stem the growing forces of scepticism will be irresistible. But deploying the tactics that worked so well for them  in the good times is likely to have precisely the opposite effect to what they intend.

Last week, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, declared war on sceptics, and presumably he did so after consultation with those who have so successfully shaped public opinion on climate change.

Such a high profile campaign might have worked in October, or even early November, before  the Climategate scandal broke , but now that even the Guardian is publishing stories that sound as though they have been lifted verbatim from the most sceptical blogs, his vituperation just sounds like a  hopeless act of desperation.

At the moment, any attack on sceptics suggests that the person making it is unable to come to terms with the enormity of the Climategate revelations, or with the abject failure at Copenhagen and what that means for the balance of global economic power, or with the implications that continuing revelations about the IPCC will have for any future attempts to convince the world that AGW should be taken seriously. Mr Milibands declaration of war is more likely to encourage scepticism than vanquish it because it shows that he does not understand what is happening.

This morning the Sunday papers carry stories accusing the sceptics of launching a well-coordinated campaign funded by big oil. There is no convincing evidence to back this up of course, and as a sceptical blogger I know it is untrue. At one time or another I have been in touch with most of the high profile sceptics whose names have been appearing in the media recently. One of the things that troubles us all is that we are so totally and utterly uncoordinated and disorganised in the face of politicians and environmentalists who have vast manpower and financial resources to back PR campaigns run by experts whose calling  is to manipulate the media.

Over the last few weeks, baffled MSM journalists have been desperately seeking out sceptics looking for guidance and background on breaking news stories of a kind that they never expected to see.  That would not happen if there was any coordinated campaign, they would know exactly who to go to for the answers.

It is the sceptics who have brought the antics of the IPCC to their attention. They have been able to ‘stand up’  these stories, to use  journalistic parlance, and produce powerful headlines. As one reporter said to me last week, ‘I don’t think we’ve heard the last of the Himalayas story yet by a very long  way. Do you?’. The MSM know that this new slant on climate change ‘has legs’, and that it will run and run.

Attention is likely to focus on further shortcomings in the IPCC process, and those of us who read the sceptical blogs know that there is far more to come out. No doubt the cheer leaders for the warmist cause will be able to place the odd derogatory story about bloggers in the pages of the usual suspects – The Guardian, The Observer and The Independent – which is based on nothing more than bile and innuendo, but the public cannot fail to recognise that the questions that are being asked about the global warming message and the science on which it is based are well founded.

Once you know that there is a worm in the apple, who is eager to eat the rest? And if someone else has drawn the wriggling and writhing invertebrate to your attention, then you are likely to feel gratitude towards them, not suspicion about their motives.

Lonnie Thompson and the Himalayan Glaciers

Posted by Potentilla and TonyN on 31/01/2010 at 12:51 am The Climate 11 Responses »
Jan 312010

A very experienced hydrologist using the internet handle Potentilla has been commenting at Harmless Sky recently. This post is based on what he has said with some general context and observations added by me.

Regarding a recent article in the Guardian, Potentilla commented:

Here is a good example of how Guardian journalists allow themselves to be lead by the nose by scientists eager to make their research relevant.

World’s glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say

This article is by the paper’s US environment correspondent, Suzanne Goldberg, dateline 20th January 2010. It’s based on what Lonnie Thompson had to say in ‘a conference call with reporters’, and there is additional input from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Evidently this was quite a media event with a cast list that might cause any AGW sceptic to prick up his or her ears.

Given that the story relies on published scientific research, Guardian readers are likely to just accept it as holy writ.

The purpose of the article is clearly damage limitation in the wake of the scandal involving the IPCC’s unjustifiable prediction that the Himalayan glaciers may disappear by 2035.

Lonnie Thompson is best known — to the general public — for the claims made about his research by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth. These centred on research that seemed to indicate that the ice on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro would soon disappear because of climate change, and also what Gore described as “Dr Thompson’s Thermometer”, but was in fact the infamous Mann Hockey Stick graph.

Since those heady days when it seemed that most people, and all politicians, would believe anything they were told about global warming, things have changed a bit.

The suggestion that global warming was destroying ice cover on Kilimanjaro has been shown to be unfounded and Lonnie Thompson’s steadfast refusal to archive ice-core data on which much of his other research is based so that other scientists can reproduce his findings has been the subject of much controversy.  Shades of Climategate.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a highly politicised US environmental lobby group, were responsible for the myth that 98% of scientists believe that AGW is real. This finding dominated discussion of climate science for years and did much to foster the belief that ‘the science is settled’. Apparently the only basis for their claim was a rather sparse response to a poll of their own, no doubt environmentally committed, members. A list of other contentious utterances from this organisation would be far too long to include here.

Potentilla continues:

There is an alarming paragraph in the Guardian article referring to a paper, of which Thompson was a co-author:

Glacier melt is also threatening water supplies, the UCS said, pointing to a 2008 study in the Himalayas which showed less water flowing from the glaciers to the great rivers such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra that sustain the Indian subcontinent.

Interesting I thought, an actual study on the effect of climate change on the hydrology of the south Asian rivers.

The title of Thompson’s paper is ‘Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources‘, and was published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), the American Geophysical Union’s very prestigious journal.

The abstract of the article ends with this sentence (emphasis added):

If climatic conditions dominating the mass balance of Naimona’nyi extend to other glaciers in the region, the implications for water resources could be serious as these glaciers feed the headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers that sustain one of the world’s most populous regions.

Closer examination shows that the study only addresses mass loss from a single glacier in the Himalayas. It does not address the hydrology of the rivers at all. I don’t think there is even a single hydrologist on the crowded study team.

The scientists may think they have covered themselves with their speculation about the potential impact on water supplies by inserting the “if” and “could be”. But this is disingenuous. They have not even addressed the hydrology in a serious way. The last sentence in the abstract appears to have been inserted to make the research more relevant, a tactic that is quite common. I have served on funding committees for research organisations and the potential impact i.e. importance, of research is a component that is given high marks in funding decisions.

The symbiotic relationship between scientists, trying to advance their career interests and journalists, who do not investigate what they are writing about, seems to be a common phenomenon.

What is actually quite ironic is that during periods when glaciers are losing mass balance as a result of melting, low flows in downstream rivers actually increase. Note the Guardian’s statement, [evidently based on what the Union of Concerned Scientists has told their ace environment correspondent]  that:

“…a 2008 study in the Himalayas which showed less water flowing from the glaciers”

[which, of course is Lonnie Thompson’s ground breaking paper on the Himalayan glaciers]

If the glaciers are currently losing mass balance due to melting, this statement is incorrect.

And bear in mind that this article in the Guardian is an obvious attempt to re-establish confidence in IPCC warnings – after the recent ‘all gone by 2035′ debacle – that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating and the consequences will be catastrophic.

I think this example is a good illustration of how we have got into this mess. There is a huge gap between the earnest and serious efforts of many climate scientists, glaciologists etc and the implied certainty of climate catastrophe that you read in the mainstream media (MSM). The link across the gap is very weak but most scientists seem to “go along” with it, or keep quiet because inflating the importance of research is in their interests. The MSM and politicians promote it because presumably catastrophe sells.

It is a misconception that loss of the Himalayan glaciers would affect hundreds of millions of people. Glaciers have a limited effect on the hydrology of large river basins such as the Ganges primarily because the glaciated area is only 1.6% of the whole river basin area. Communities a short distance downstream from a glacier benefit from increased low flows in the summer months. This is offset by the water generally being laden with sediment. For people living a great distance downstream, the loss of the glaciated area would not be noticeable though it would be picked up by accurate flow monitoring stations.

Dry season flows in the lower part of large river basins are sustained primarily by groundwater discharge not glacier melt. If we take the results from the global climate models at face value they actually predict an increase in precipitation in the Himalayas. So overall the IPCC should have concluded that there would be more water available in rivers with sources in the Himalayas.

Despite the  title of Thompson’s  paper, ‘Mass loss on Himalayan glacier endangers water resources,’ it does not address in any meaningful way the endangerment of water resources. The type of research that would be necessary to support the statements in the paper would involve developing a hydrological model of the whole Ganges River Basin, calibrating it to recorded flows and water usage and then simulating river flows without the glaciers.  This is relatively straightforward in concept but nothing like this was attempted in the GRL paper.   The paper is only about mass loss from a single glacier. The title appears to have been chosen by the authors to inflate the importance of the paper and does not reflect the content accurately. Although this is a GRL paper and peer-reviewed, clearly no attempt was made by the reviewers to correct the impression given by the title.

Maybe we should not be too hard on the Guardian journalist as the title and conclusion of the paper misrepresents the actual research conducted. It is discouraging that “peer-reviewed” papers can be used by others to promote the notion of climate catastrophe when the scientific research does not support, or even address, the speculative conclusion.

It would seem that most of the blame here lies with the scientific community though it is a shame that the MSM seem to have abdicated their traditional role of investigative journalism.

Anyone reading the Guardian article who is not very familiar with this area of research – and bear in mind that this is a newspaper that is much read by policy makers and journalists – would quite reasonably assume that it carried the authority of published scientific research. And they would be right.

The IPCC’s oft repeated claims that all the findings in its reports have been peer reviewed is a  cornerstone of the climate change debate.

During the last week or so we have discovered that that is not true. But what are we to think when the Guardian, in conjunction with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a very well known climate scientist, tell us that although there may have been a problem with the IPCC’s estimate of when the Himalayan glaciers might cease to exist, there is no need to worry about the integrity of their other predictions. The rest of the science is robust, they say, and this was just an isolated incident.

The mantra that is used again and again to bolster many of the more alarming claims that are being made by climate scientists is ‘this is peer reviewed science’. There can be little doubt that the paper referred to above was peer reviewed, and it certainly appeared in one of the most respected scientific journals. Yet there still seems to be room for considerable doubt about what it says because it’s primary conclusion is speculative and not supported by the narrow scope of the scientific research reported in the paper.

Potentilla concludes:

A recent presentation at an AGU meeting in December dismisses the concern over the impact of Himalayan glacier loss on water supply with a conclusion similar to Potentilla.

As we have calculated, melting glaciers (specifically, negative mass balance components of the melt) contribute an estimated 1.2% (perhaps factor of 2 uncertain) of total runoff of three of the most important drainages, the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra combined. The seasonal flow regulation influences and the negative mass balance is more important in local drainages close to the glacier sources, where glaciers can dominate the hydrology in arid regions, but on the scale of the subcontinent, glaciers are secondary players in looming hydrologic problems, which stem more from population growth and inefficiency of water resource distribution and application.

Glaciology research in the Himalayas is undoubtedly of value and is relevant for understanding climate variability.  Understanding of glacier hydrology is also important for hydrological studies of the Himalayan rivers as one component of a broader investigation.

However in the Thompson paper, an assumption was made about the impact of the glacier research findings on the hydrology of major rivers in southeast Asia. It is the assumption that has been used to promote the research with the media, not the actual research findings of the study.

In the aftermath of Climategate, with accusations of partiality and subterfuge being exercised in the peer review process, and growing suspicion about researchers who refuse to archive their data so that it can be checked by those outside the charmed circle of climate scientists, there is still much more to be concerned about.

PACHAURI'S DEATH WARRANT

Posted by TonyN on 30/01/2010 at 7:14 pm The Climate 11 Responses »
Jan 302010


A report in The Times accuses the chairman of the IPCC of knowing before the Copenhagen conference that the claim in AR4 that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was wrong:

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.
Full story here

Just in case there should be any doubt about this, The Times reveals that:

… a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

and: Continue reading »

BBC Election Guidelines

Posted by TonyN on 29/01/2010 at 10:18 pm Politics, The Climate 10 Responses »
Jan 292010

The BBC is conducting a consultation on their guidelines for covering the general election.  There is a web page that tells you all about it here:

https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-election-guidelines/consultation/consult_view

This provides the opportunity to complete an on-line questionaire or to make a written submission to the BBC Trust

It seems very likely that climate change will  play a relatively small part in the general election campaign when it starts. This is partly because all the main parties are singing from the same hymn book on this subject, but also because there are very real pitfalls for them all if the electorate make the connection between action to reduce Co2 emissions and increased fuel costs, travel costs, and taxation. So it is possible that the electorate will not have an opportunity to assess the various parties’ policies on these matters.

Opinion polls constantly show that when people are asked about global warming they are, at best, lukewarm in their concerns, ranking it way down the list of policy priorities. On the other hand, if they are asked about their willingness to dig into their pockets to fund mitigation policies, the response tends to be far more definite and extremely negative. The prospect of a greater burden on commercial and household budgets is not welcomed at all.

All the main political parties are committed to environmental policies that will cost a very great deal of money, but none of the main parities are likely to include that fact in their per-election boasts. So those who are worried about the financial consequences of such measures will get little opportunity to find out precisely what each of them is likely to do if it gets into government. And bear in mind that there may be a hung parliament, so for once it really does matter what the Liberals think.

Surely it is very important that commonly held views which are not represented by the political parties are heard during the election campaign. An election is, or at least should be, about the preferences of the electorate when they choose who is to represent them in Parliament. Reporting and commentary during the campaign should not be restricted to the agendas that politicians set.

The BBC guidelines are intended to ensure that there is no bias for or against any political party, but it is their broader duty to make sure that the whole spectrum of opinions held by the electorate is represented in broadcast output. What the politicians are not prepared to put in their manifesto’s, speak about at the hustings or advertise in their publicity campaigns  is as important to the electorate as the promises that are being dangled before them in an overt attempt to secure votes. True impartiality on the part of our national broadcaster can only be achieved if they cover these aspect of the election too. Their responsibility is to the general public, who are the electorate, and not to the politicians.

If you feel like helping the BBC with their consultation, then no doubt they will be very grateful, but don’t delay. There is a closing date of 2nd February 2010. Here’s the link again:

https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-election-guidelines/consultation/consult_view

Election fever

Posted by TonyN on 27/01/2010 at 5:35 pm General Election, Politics, The Climate 134 Responses »
Jan 272010

hogarthelection2.jpg

William Hogarth  Election Celebration

This post is in response to a number of comments made by regular contributors to Harmless Sky on the Tory Environmentalism – is everybody listening? thread. Here, Here, Here, Here.

Geoff Chambers says, ‘There’s a fascinating debate to be had on the effect of the current global warming catastrophe on British politics and media coverage …’ And of course he’s right.

We’re approaching the first general election that is likely to bring about a change of government in over a decade, and the previously remorseless march of AGW alarmism is beginning to falter, so how could it be otherwise? It would be difficult to get a cigarette  paper between the three main party’s policies on this subject, but opinion polls constantly show that the politician’s apparent certainty is not shared by the electorate. Something has to give.

Geoff then goes on to consider the role of politics on this blog, assuming that this area of discussion is entirely off limits. That is not the case.

What the blog rules actually say is:

Politics:
It certainly isn’t possible to discuss climate, the countryside and landscapes without straying into this minefield, although I wish that this was not so. Please try to be reasonably moderate in your utterances and avoid party politics altogether. There are plenty of other blogs that deal with such matters.

This is an un-moderated blog, but when I do occasionally step in editorially, it is almost always because discussion of a political aspect of climate change has drifted on to other unrelated political issues, got heated, and ended up a long way from the subject matter that Harmless Sky is intended to cover.

I have particularly requested that contributors should avoid party politics as there are few people who can conduct a party-political debate objectively, and a rough-house that creates much heat and very little light usually ensues. This kind of thing may be fun for those directly involved, but it tends to be tedious if you have to read it, and I do have to read it.

For at least the next six months (assuming that the election takes place in May) I’m prepared, in fact eager, to see comments drawing attention to any differences that may emerge in the various parties’ policies relating to climate change, or any other environmental issues for that matter. However that does not mean that discussion of the Labour Party’s latest green initiative will be allowed to become a knock-down-drag-out fight over the relative economic competence of the main parties, or whether the prime minister is attempting to subvert democracy. And I am all too familiar with the trick of rounding off a five paragraph rant about foreign policy with a spurious reference to alternative energy. Such efforts are likely to be snipped in toto.

You have been warned.

That said, I would not be surprised if the coming election campaign provides the opportunity for the blogosphere to really come of age. Time strapped journalists rely more and more heavily on recycling press releases without proper investigation, or consideration of the motives of those who provide them. This is leaving huge gaps in the spectrum of news and opinion that the MSM covers, and the range of opinions that it considers. There is so much that concerns people that rarely, if ever, receives any attention. Sometimes I think that large parts of the press are now like disk jockey’s who have become used to just reaching out to a carousel for the next disc , but never wonder when the contents of the carousel was last updated. We seem to hear the same old tunes over and over again.

As a result, there is an emerging trend towards the new web-based media influencing the  news agenda. Just ask yourself whether Climategate could have happened without the blogosphere? Or whether the utter futility of the Copenhagen summit would have become apparent so quickly without there being an alternative to the deceptively up-beat spin flooding from governments and organisations that had most to lose as a result of its failure.

Geoff also says:

I’ve often felt the rough and tumble of blog discussions reproduces the long-lost art of political all-in wrestling, of the kind you see in Hogarth’s illustrations of 18th century election campaigns. The point wouldn’t be to score party political points, but to get some heat into the discussion …..

This conjures up an intriguing image, but I doubt whether he really thinks that political persuasion with the aid of a cudgel would reinvigorate political life. On the other hand, it does seem likely that this election will be very different from those since 1997, and there may be copious amounts of metaphorical Hogarthian blood on the carpet before the campaign is over.

There seem to have been two distinct types of election in recent history. Firstly, there are those where the electorate hardly seem to be interested in the outcome because they expect the status quo to be maintained regardless of who wins. Such elections are characterised by unremarkable political leaders and a desire to see no more than a minor touch on the helm of the ship of state.  Then there are elections that take place when the whole nation is galvanised by the possibility of a major change in the fundamental priorities that determine public policy. The elections of 1948, 1963, 1987, and 1997 are examples. It seems possible that, in due course, 2010 will join their ranks, but in this case there may be one very important difference: important issues that concern the public may not being addressed at all. Blogs can help to prevent this happening.

In another post, I mentioned an article by Matthew d’Ancona that castigated the political classes, and all parties, for arrogantly failing to engage with the public and acknowledge their views because they are inconvenient. The examples he chose were the MP’s expenses scandal and global warming. The days when  MP’s could afford to ignore what is discussed on blogs is over,  and the large proportion of new members that will be elected this year are far more likely to be aware of this than those who they will be replacing.

Just a year or two ago, bloggers endlessly discussed what was in the MSM, but had little impact on the news agenda. There was little or no sign that mainstream journalists and editors were interested in what bloggers said or did. As each month goes by the influence of the blogosphere is increasing because more and more of the public are seeking news and opinion on the internet rather than on paper, television or the radio. The MSM now have to compete for the audience not just among themselves, but with a whole new world of output.

In a blog post on the BBC website, Andrew Neil – as experienced a journalist as you can expect to find – has drawn attention to this point. His extremely hard hitting round-up of all the tribulations that have beset the once cosy and complacent world of mainstream climate science since the release of the CRU emails includes this obsevation:

The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops — and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.

The Dam is Cracking

Wise editors understand what their readers want, either instinctively or by spending money on market research. Looking at where the heavy blog traffic is to be found can be much cheaper than commissioning opinion polls and focus groups.  In the case of climate change, the mere number of web sites that deal with this subject from a sceptical point of view, and the traffic they get, must tell them something. They will also be aware that when they publish articles about global warming on their own websites, a large proportion of the comments they receive are sceptical.

Opinion polls show that the UK public rank concern about global warming very low in their list of priorities, but when it comes to policies that will lead to higher fuel bills, increased taxation, despoliation of the countryside, restrictions on travel and massive payments to the developing nations that is a very different matter. The public are very interested in these issues.

It is unlikely, if Matthew d’Ancona is right and politicians are so immersed in their own bubble that they have become divorced from the electorate, that climate change will play any greater role in the UK general election campaign than it has in recent by-elections, council elections and European elections unless somethng happens to dispel their complacency. If there is an outcry in the MSM against expensive proposals that will supposedly avert climate change, that would be something the main political parties would be unable to ignore.

Geoff is probably right, a rumbustious and widely populist outcry on the net could have an effect, not directly, but as a result of the message that it would send to the MSM, and if they fall into line then there is no way that politicians will be able to duck these inconvenient issues.

If Geoff’s dream of a truly Hogarthian election campaign comes true, I would not want to be part of it, but relying on the same period in history, there is a very obvious parallel that can be drawn between the 18th century pamphleteers and bloggers. In both cases radical voices became audible because concerned individuals were able to mobilise cheap means of mass communications to spread their views. And there is another similarity. Their pamphleteers ideas only spread because their publications were passed hand-to-hand, in much the same way that information on the net goes viral and spreads by links from site to site.

Although the notion of a rumbustious, rough and tumble 18th century style election campaign might have its charms, it would be unwise to take this analogy too far. Radical politics in the 18th century culminated in the French Revolution.

Now, where’s that guillotine?

No FOIA prosecutions at CRU: from David Holland with Jonathan Leake of the Sunday Times

Posted by TonyN on 27/01/2010 at 1:12 am CRU Email Hack, The Climate 2 Responses »
Jan 272010

I received a message from David Holland this evening with this astonishing news:

The alleged conspiracy of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit to thwart Freedom of Information inquiries has prompted the UK Information Commissioner’s Office to seek a change in the law so that it could seek prosecutions against researchers who commit similar offences.

The Office of the Information Commissioner has issued the following statement:

Graham Smith, Deputy Commissioner, said:

“Norfolk Police are investigating how private emails have become public.
The Information Commissioner’s Office is assisting the police investigation with advice on data protection and freedom of information.

The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland’s FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act.

The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone. The ICO is gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law. It is important to note that the ICO enforces the law as it stands – we do not make it.

It is for government and Parliament to consider whether this aspect of the legislation should be strengthened to deter this type of activity in future.  We will be advising the University about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information. We will also be studying the investigation reports (by Lord Russell and Norfolk Police), and we will then consider what regulatory action, if any, should then be taken under the Data Protection Act.”

As I understand this statement, the only obstacle to prosecution is the very strange time limit in the legislation. The Information Commissioner seems to be satisfied that there were grounds for prosecution.

I can think of nothing more to say about this at the moment except that I hope questions will be asked about why  such an obvious loophole in this legislation, which came into force a decade ago, has not been stopped up.

Older Entries Newer Entries
© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha