Entropy versus Order – the central battle of the Universe.

Also the struggle within the realm of Science, trying to make global sense out of a very disparate, creative spectrum of study on Climate Change.

Here, at the very hub, we find the bubble of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC – a wide variety of people with a wide variety of knowledge and viewpoints all trying to establish a common perspective.

The management of this enterprise has been under review, and thought to be found partially wanting :-

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/ReportNewsRelease.html

“InterAcademy Council Report Recommends Fundamental Reform of IPCC Management Structure : UNITED NATIONS — The process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce its periodic assessment reports has been successful overall, but IPCC needs to fundamentally reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures to handle ever larger and increasingly complex climate assessments as well as the more intense public scrutiny coming from a world grappling with how best to respond to climate change, says a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies. “Operating under the public microscope the way IPCC does requires strong leadership, the continued and enthusiastic participation of distinguished scientists, an ability to adapt, and a commitment to openness if the value of these assessments to society is to be maintained,” said Harold T. Shapiro, president emeritus and professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University in the United States and chair of the committee that wrote the report. Roseanne Diab, executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa and professor emeritus of environmental sciences and honorary senior research associate at the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban, served as vice chair of the committee, which included experts from several countries and a variety of disciplines…These assessment reports have gained IPCC much respect including a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. However, amid an increasingly intense public debate about the science of climate change and costs of curbing it, IPCC has come under closer scrutiny, and controversies have erupted over its perceived impartiality toward climate policy and the accuracy of its reports. This prompted U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC chair Rajendra K. Pachauri to issue a letter on March 10 this year requesting that the IAC review IPCC and recommend ways to strengthen the processes and procedures by which future assessments are prepared…”

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/OpeningStatement.html

http://climate-l.org/2010/08/31/interacademy-council-delivers-ipcc-review-report/

“InterAcademy Council Delivers IPCC Review Report : 30 August 2010: The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has delivered its independent report into the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report was delivered to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and IPCC Chairman Rajenda Pachauri during a press conference held at UN Headquarters in New York, US, on 30 August 2010. The review examined the management of the IPCC, its procedures for communication with the public, the use of non-peer reviewed literature and the incorporation of various viewpoints. The IAC’s recommendations will be reviewed by the IPCC at its 32nd Plenary Session, to be held in Busan, Republic of Korea, from 11-14 October 2010. The IAC report concluded that the process to produce its assessments has been successful but that the IPCC needs to reform its management structure and strengthen its procedures. The report recommends establishing an executive committee, including members from outside the IPCC, to act on the Panel’s behalf and ensure ongoing decision-making capability. It suggests the appointment of an executive director, and states that the IPCC Chair, Executive Director and Working Group Co-Chairs should be limited to one-assessment period. It highlights the need for: formal qualification requirements for the Chair and Bureau members; and a conflict of interest policy for all IPCC leaders, authors, reviewers and staff. On the review process, the IAC concludes that the existing process is thorough, but stresses the need for stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures. It calls for review editors to reflect genuine controversies, and underscores the need for increased consistency in the characterization of uncertainty. The IAC also suggests the continued use of gray literature, noting that more specific guidelines for evaluating gray literature sources are required. On the response to revelation of errors, the IAC suggests that the IPCC implement a communications strategy that includes a plan for rapid but thoughtful responses in crisis highlighting the need for guidelines for who can speak on behalf of the IPCC. At the press conference, Pachauri welcomed the review, highlighting that “only by challenging scientific findings do we expose weak arguments and substantiate strong ones.” He underscored the IAC’s qualifications to conduct the review, as an organization to mobilize scientists and engineers to provide objective advice to international bodies…”

The IPCC and its leaders appear to have been doing the best that they can, given the structure in which they have been operating, and improvements offered by refinements, as in any human system, are always possible.

All very reasonable – which makes other commentary from this week’s news appear completely tangential, inappropriate and poorly thought-out, including this completely unwarranted attack piece from Geoffrey Lean (leaning towards what, I’d ask ?) :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974521/IPCCs-Rajendra-Pachauri-is-damaging-the-world.html

“IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri is damaging the world : The IPCC’s head should quit to avoid harming the global warming cause further, says Geoffrey Lean. : By Geoffrey Lean : Published: 01 Sep 2010 : Beware of winning the Nobel Peace Prize – for the world’s highest accolade for the great and supposedly good, endowed by and named after the inventor of dynamite, has a nasty habit of blowing up in the face of those who ceremoniously receive it. For Barack Obama, things have only gone downhill since he was awarded the prize (prematurely, to put it at its kindest) last year. Al Gore has looked increasingly tarnished since getting it in 2007. Although most past winners have been praiseworthy choices, others have included Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (although the North Vietnamese revolutionary-turned-negotiator had the grace to refuse to accept). Yet no fall from grace has been so unforeseen as that of Gore’s co-winner, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Just two years after picking up the prize, the UN organisation – chiefly criticised until then for its caution in interpreting the growing evidence of climate change – was plunged into controversy, after it was found grossly to have exaggerated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting. Climate sceptics were quick to seize on other “errors” in the IPCC’s latest 3,000-page report – sometimes justifiably. Coinciding with the cold winter in Britain and the US, the controversy caused by hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and the disappointing outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit, the furore severely eroded public support for measures to tackle global warming. Now an inquiry carried out under the auspices of the world’s top 15 academies of sciences, including Britain’s Royal Society, has revealed shortcomings in the IPCC’s organisation and management. It strongly suggests that the panel’s controversial chairman, Rajendra Pachauri – who collected the Nobel Prize on his institution’s behalf – should not continue in his post…”

Geoffrey ! You are playing with words most nastily, in my view : “It strongly suggests that…Rajendra Pachauri…should not continue in his post…”

Nowhere in the report does the IAC suggest that Pachauri should be removed from post for any wrongdoing, which is what you appear to imply ! A trick of semantics !

“Plunged into controversy”, Geoffrey ? No, actually, there were no significant errors, as has been shown repeatedly and expertly, only lots of accusatory froth, flim-flam and smoke from the Climate Change deniers.

As for “Al Gore has looked increasingly tarnished since getting it in 2007″, that’s plain rude, and refers to a non-story about Gore’s private life.

For some reason, the Daily Mail appears to have capitulated to the ranks of the accusers and backbiters, after apparently finding somebody who could understand Science to report on Climate Change a few weeks ago :-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307446/UN-climate-change-experts-overstated-dangers.html

“UN climate experts ‘overstated dangers’: Keep your noses out of politics, scientists told : By FIONA MACRAE : 31st August 2010 : UN climate change experts have been accused of making ‘imprecise and vague’ statements and over-egging the evidence. A scathing report into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for it to avoid politics and stick instead to predictions based on solid science.
The probe, by representatives of the Royal Society and foreign scientific academies, took a thinly-veiled swipe at Rajendra Pachauri, the panel’s chairman for the past eight years…”

The Daily Express appears to just make up world Scientific opinion on the hoof :-

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-exposed

“CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED : A damming report has highlighted questions over the credibility of a leading climate change body : Tuesday August 31,2010 : By Donna Bowater : THE world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices. A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming. It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof. The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035…”

The Daily Telegraph proves it can fight on both “sides” of any debate about Global Warming, by interviewing researcher Myles Allen who recognises the inherent danger in messing with the IPCC community structure and management :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7974052/Overhaul-of-UN-climate-change-body-could-lead-to-more-mistakes.html

“Overhaul of UN climate change body ‘could lead to more mistakes’ : A major overhaul of how the UN advises the world on climate change could lead to more mistakes on the impacts of global warming, an Oxford academic has warned. : By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published: 31 Aug 2010 : In a damning report out earlier this week, The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was criticised for making a number of errors about the potential impacts of global warming. The most notable mistake was wrongly predicting that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. The IPCC was also told to stick to the science rather than straying into the politics of climate change. The review, by the InterAcademy Council, called for “fundamental reform”, including a more formal review process. But a leading British academic said the recommendations are in danger of making the situation worse by imposing so much bureaucracy on reviewers they are unable to spend enough time actually assessing the science. There is also a risk it may lead to top scientists refusing to take part, leaving only Government scientists that are more likely to be influenced by politics. Dr Myles Allen, Head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University Of Oxford, said wasting time on red tape could lead to more mistakes. He pointed out that all the authors and reviewers are unpaid volunteers. “They could actually make it worse because the more time scientists are spending on bureaucracy the less time they have to deal with the scientific questions they should be dealing with,” he said. Dr Allen said there was also a risk that the process could become even more political. “There is a real danger that the only people that are willing to do it are people put forward by the Government, which will further politicise the thing,” he added…”

George Monbiot is back on the side of right and light, and this time does not give in to the evil rumours and bay for any blood (like he did when he called for Professor Phil Jones to resign over the theft of the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) e-mails, a position he had to later retract) :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/sep/01/rajendra-pachauri-ipcc

“Press continue to hound Rajendra Pachauri despite his innocence : The profiteering Pachauri story joins a host of falsehoods about climate change which keep resurfacing despite being disproved : Rajendra Pachauri innocent of financial misdealings : George Monbiot : guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 September 2010″

One thing that could certainly improve about the IPCC is the reportage it gets from the Media.

Good thing that there’s stuff in the works to cover just that. I can’t reveal all the details of what is likely to happen, but I can point you at part of the trail :-

http://www.desmogblog.com/ipcc-fumbles-media-relations-strategy-must-review-basic-principles-public-relations

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/07/12/media-relations-101-for-climate-scientists/

http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/ipcc-errors/

It may seem pedantic and unsisterly to have to point it out, but despite her usual high and good level of correctness, Financial Times journalist Fiona Harvey seems to have stumbled in yet more lurid green swamp mire, and quoted “ogres” once again :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/72993406-b398-11df-81aa-00144feabdc0.html

“Climate change: Lingering clouds : By Fiona Harvey : Published: August 29 2010…”

Most of us really do not want to know the opinions of Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and his collaborator Nigel Lawson), because neither of them are expert in the field of Global Warming, only, apparently, Glib Warring.

And again, most of us are really not partial to the views of Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who seems to think there’s nothing wrong in releasing large amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere, even though the last times this happened in Earth history, entirely naturally due to extensive magma eruptions due to super-violent Tectonic plate movement, it ended in global megadeath.

Let’s look a little more in detail at what “princess” Fiona is saying :-

“Floods in Pakistan have left millions homeless and at least one-fifth of the country inundated…”

This was widely cited as “according to an estimate by the United Nations”, as quoted by Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary General, but originally came from the Pakistan National Disaster Management Authority, allegedly, although I haven’t quite gotten to the bottom of this.

Not really sure about that “fifth of Pakistan” thing, although this disaster is extremely serious and potentially very deadly. Other views :-

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/08/fifth-of-pakistan.html
http://ndma.gov.pk/Documents/flood_2010/flood_comparison.pdf
http://daveslandslideblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/pakistan-flood-update-15th-august-2010.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=45239

Fiona Harvey continues with : “The extreme weather of 2010 is likely to be remembered in these regions for many years to come. There as well as in the rest of the world, the broader question is whether, as climate scientists predict, this type of weather is set to become more common – and how certain we can be about that.”

In talking about probabilities for the future, scientists do not “predict”, they “project”. It is not possible to “predict” how the world will use Fossil Fuels, for example – that could change according to regulation, Peak Oil and economic forces, so Global Warming calculations can only be “projections”.

“This has been an unusual year – the warmest January-June period on record around the world, and the driest on record in some regions. But however extreme, the events of one year cannot be taken as proof of climate change. Natural variability brings periodic extreme floods, droughts and heatwaves around the world, and it takes years of data to distinguish this from any underlying trend.”

The question should really be : exactly how unusual is this year, this event ? Natural variability could be expected to be a bell-shaped curve of probabilities of any one severity of event – and the probability of an extreme event would be very, very low. How many seriously extreme events would one need to experience to know one has rolled a 13, or even a 14, instead of a 12 with two dice ? :-

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/08/when-it-rains-it-pours.html

Ms Harvey types : “For it has also been a year in which the science of global warming has been questioned as never before.”

Questioned ? By anybody whose view actually matters ?

“On Monday, climate research will come under the microscope again. A panel of the world’s most august scientific bodies will pass judgment on climate science…”

Err, no, the InterAcademy Council has not “pass[ed] judgement on climate science.” To be more accurate, I feel, you’d need to say something like, “A panel of the world’s most august scientific bodies [the InterAcademy Council] will publish opinion about the management of another august scientific body [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] which does climate science review.”

Note well : the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not do science – it synthesises other peoples’ research. Although I have to grant you that some of the researchers are involved as reviewers in the IPCC collective processing of all the Science.

“The “hockey stick” graph reproduced in the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long been derided by sceptics.”

Just because the sceptics and deniers have claimed that the Hockey Stick is invalid, does not mean that it has actually been invalidated.

“Tree ring data were a source of controversy in the University of East Anglia’s “climategate” e-mails.”

No. “Tree ring data were a source of controversy” only for those who allegedly stole the University of East Anglia e-mails and are accused of having invented a malicious narrative about what the e-mails meant.

Climate Change Scientists don’t obsess about tree ring data. There are much better sources of information in ocean and lake sediments. It’s the sceptic-deniers who harp on and on and on about tree rings.

“In a subsequent investigation, Britain’s leading statistician judged the graph flawed, though he added that better methods would not have drastically altered the pattern.”

I know it’s tempting to say things like “leading statistician”, implying that nobody else could possibly comment, but seriously, Fiona, in this case there is a range of valid views about the matter, including those who composed the Hockey Stick graph :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7589897/Hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated.html

“‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated : The ‘hockey stick’ that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using ‘inappropriate’ methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society. By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent : Published: 14 Apr 2010 : Comment : Professor David Hand said that the research – led by US scientist Michael Mann – would have shown less dramatic results if more reliable techniques had been used to analyse the data. Prof Hand was among a group of experts charged with investigating the “climategate” email scandal that engulfed the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last year…He said the graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated – although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to…”

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18776-climategate-scientists-chastised-over-statistics.html

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&blog_id=445&post_id=12420

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html

“Global warming graph attacked by study : By Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent : Published: April 14 2010 : A key piece of evidence in climate change science was slammed as “exaggerated” on Wednesday by the UK’s leading statistician, in a vindication of claims that global warming sceptics have been making for years. Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, said that a graph shaped like an ice hockey stick that has been used to represent the recent rise in global temperatures had been compiled using “inappropriate” methods. “It used a particular statistical technique that exaggerated the effect [of recent warming],” he said. The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the “Climategate” e-mail scandal had behaved “honestly and fairly” and showed “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice”…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/14/oxburgh-uea-cleared-malpractice

“…[Ron] Oxburgh singled out a graph of global temperature used in a 1999 report for the World Meteorological Association, which spliced three different data sets, as an “unfortunate representation of a very complex piece of science”…[Professor] Hand re-ignited a long-standing row about a high-profile study published in 1998 by scientists led by Michael Mann at Penn State University, US. The paper featured an emblematic graph known as the “hockey-stick” that showed temperature rise in the twentieth century was unprecedented in recent history. Hand said the study gave him an “uneasy feeling” because it used “inappropriate statistical tools”. The hockey-stick effect was genuine, Hand said, but the 1998 paper exaggerated it. He praised Steve McIntyre, a Canadian climate blogger who led much of the criticism of the CRU scientists, for identifying the problem. Mann told the Guardian that the 1998 study had been approved by the US National Academy of Science and Hand had offered a “rogue opinion” that “should not be given much attention or credence”…”

Fiona Harvey then states, “Sir John Beddington, the UK government’s chief scientific adviser, tackled the issue of uncertainties head-on when launching a new climate website last month.”

I am assuming our “green fairy princess” refers to the new Four Degrees website, which layers Climate Change impacts onto Google Earth.

She must surely admit that the rise in global and regional temperatures would have to be very steep in order to reach these levels ?

Let’s start telling the truth, please – whatever the shape of the “Hockey Stick” blade, the Earth is warming sharply, and the rise is increasing, as evidenced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. An exponential rise in temperature, due to the exponential rise in concentrations of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere is the key problem here :-

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html#table-3-2
Table 3.2

(Press Conference pix : http://www.flickr.com/photos/foreignoffice/4793575434/)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html

“09/01/2010 : ‘Peak Oil’ and the German Government : Military Study Warns of a Potentially Drastic Oil Crisis : By Stefan Schultz…”

Hi Clavertonians,

My view on Peak Oil is that it is the tip of the iceberg – and I know that’s a totally inappropriate metaphor.

The art of petrogeology dictates that right on the heels of Peak Oil is Peak Natural Gas, and there is strong evidence for Peak Coal. In the US for example, I understand there is very little good hard anthracite left.

My position is that – since the “conventional” Fossil Fuels are depleting, there are strong moves towards the “unconventionals”, the shale gas, the deepwater oil, the smoky “half peat”, the Lake Baikal hydrates, the frozen subsea wastes of the Arctic [don't forget the Tar Sands !] and so on. People argue for “stop-gap” energy resources, but they carry with them huge risks not only to the Climate, but also the the Economy with the step-change in EROI/EROEI [Energy Return on Energy Invested - that is - how much energy do you need as input to get energy as output] and the “clean-up” costs.

My take on this is that pretending that Peak Conventionals doesn’t exist leaves a veil in front of most peoples’ minds – they believe in the Power of Technology to supply all their Fossil Fuel needs, now and into the future – it’s just that the actual location and form and dirtiness of these new resources will be different than in the past.

And here’s the rub – we need to encourage people to think about the “alternatives”, or rather, the “solutions”.

The only way forward is Renewable, Sustainable Energy resources, because of Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas and so on, and if people do not learn about that, they will not understand the privation for most people that will surely come with Peak Conventionals.

You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels. The risks of Peak Conventionals surely have to be linked in with the risks of abrupt Climate Chaos, in my mind, when finding ways to communicate and discuss policy options.

Do the energy companies have the right to expand into unconventionals, when this risks the general economic health of the industrialised countries (and the Climate) ? There are limits to what private enterprise should be permitted to innovate, we all accept that.

If the only way forward for Big Energy is yet more risk-prone marine options and very dirty, energy-wasting mixed sedimentary deposits, then people might need to know this in order to understand they need to politically ask for it to stop.

Just a thought (stream),

jo.

reply from Andrew Smith

“…You can almost, but not quite, bypass the Climate Change problem (crisis, predicament, catastrophe) in arguing for the new energies based on a set of simple arguments about conventional Fossil Fuels…”

Except that the peak conventional argument is also the argument used for unlocking EOR, shale, tar sands: all dirty, energy-inefficient, environmentally destructive, climate-disastrous …

So a peak of production in conventional fossil fuels cannot fix the climate on its own: it may make things worse, if it allows the expansion of unconventional fossil fuels.

Andrew

The whole thread of the conversation can be found here :-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/energy-discussion-group?pli=1

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/energy-discussion-group/browse_thread/thread/7d69724bad647d1f

Compassion fatigue appears to have set in early in the Western Media – yet the existential problems of simple human survival, health, shelter, food and clean drinking water have only just started in large parts of Pakistan.

I was speaking with a contact recently who is just about to go out East to help coordinate an emergency mission in the region, and my first question was, “Are you ready for Pakistan ?”, because I don’t think anybody “parachuting” into the country will be.

Plus, this may be the worst crisis that the world’s humanitarian network has faced in the last half Century, but it’s not the only one ongoing and just about to start :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Pacific_typhoon_season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Atlantic_hurricane_season

Human interest stories have been the bread and butter of holiday media for decades – now is the time to roll cameras for the never-ending rollercoaster of disaster Climate Change is turning out to be.

It’s been raining really, really heavily, catastrophically somewhere on the planet practically non-stop since the beginning of the year.

Surely that’s not just a story, that’s a whole narrative ?

And it’s about weather, too, every journalist’s favourite subject.

Something in me tells me that most Media workers are not ready for the complete, overriding disaster the Pakistan floods are becoming. For some reason they are not able to see the damage, project slightly forward into the future and see the scope for shaping news out of it.

Where’s the newshound nose ? Where’s the paternalistic overview used as intervention ? Are the Media shy of building the story because they could be accused of advertising the fundraising that the Disasters Emergency Committee are doing ?

Only a few news organisations have touched on the military security angle of the Pakistan flooding disaster – and when they do they only go so far as to point the finger at the Taliban recruitment drives (which are ongoing, as anyone in the area could tell you).

Very few of the news organisations appear to have talked to the international health, food and water agencies about the inundation in Pakistan and what this implies, not just for the health of Pakistanis, but everybody else in the region.

Awareness brings responsibility. Climate Change is a pressing, present ongoing crisis. It’s hard to switch off. Rest and relaxation are rare. I even work my summer breaks, collaborating with different parts of the social movement growing around responses to Climate Change.

This year I’ve been at Greenbelt Festival. The concept behind the festival is based on the “greenbelt” – a fertile piece of ground, almost forgotten, at the fringes of a city, providing breathing space, and left to Nature. The name is a reference to changes in planning laws that mandated that there has to be a limit to urban sprawl – that land must be set aside and not built on.

Greenbelt is a Christian Arts Festival, and the atmosphere is very open and tolerant, and extremely family-friendly, with good accessibility. The Festival has a deliberate policy of encouraging political dialogue and discussion and many campaigns and charities come to engage the festivalgoers with issues of the day.

I was doing some work for the network of Christian Environmental groups, helping people find literature they need, and talking with concerned churchgoers about the waste of energy in buildings, allotments, solar roofs for churches, new Energy systems, moving beyond feelings of isolation and guilt, that kind of thing.

In my spare time I caught up with old friends, and took in the Greenbelt 2010 “sideways” vibes.

I saw Archbishop Rowan Williams on stilts (or was it just a look-alike ?)

I saw a young mother ride a penny farthing, her face contorted with fear, but her confidence winning out.

At the open-air Sunday morning gathering, I administered Communion to the Rev (the actor Tom Hollander).

Clare Short gave us a sterling opinion on international development.

Bruce Kent answered a set of the most ridiculous questions known to mankind, with true grace.

I got into conversation with someone about their fine dreadlocks, and it turned out to be Ciaran O’Reilly of Pitstop Ploughshares, who has recently won a court case about disarming military aircraft.

I was at a very interesting meeting hosted by Jonathan Kuttab, a Palestinian lawyer and human rights activist.

There were brightly painted and heavily adorned teenagers, there were Goths, there were angels, copious fast food vans and lots and lots of music.

Schlomo was a huge hit.

I joined two young men busking their way round the festival site. They weren’t asking for money, just an audience who needed some light entertainment.

“Beer and Hymns” in the onsite public house “The Jesus Arms” was bigger than football.

As I was about to leave on the very last hour of the very last night, I found a few people singing songs and they so clearly needed another voice in the lower range – so I joined in and found out that a combination of vocal training and age has made me nearly a tenor.

That’s enough culture for a few months. Now back to the Climate of Change.

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/228460-ruling-on-global-warming-professor-coming

“24 August 2010 : Ruling on global warming professor coming : BY JESSICA M. KARMASEK : CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (Legal Newsline) – A ruling is expected in a week on a demand by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli that the University of Virginia release research records of a well-known climate change researcher, according to The New York Times. Cuccinelli has demanded that the university produce information relating to grant applications by Michael E. Mann, who the Times calls a “prominent climate scientist.” It was Mann who produced the widely publicized “hockey stick” graph showing a sharp increase in global average temperatures in the industrial age. Mann worked at UVA from 1999-2005 and has since taught at Penn State University. His work was called into question in the investigations into the so-called Climategate scandal following the unauthorized release of hundreds of e-mails from a British climate center last fall. Several investigations, including an extensive review of his research by PSU, have cleared him of academic misconduct. Cuccinelli, a Republican and climate change skeptic, has already sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency to try to prevent it from imposing regulations on carbon dioxide and other climate-altering gases. Now, the attorney general has demanded that UVA release documents relating to Mann’s grant applications at the university. According to an article published in the Times on Tuesday, Cuccinelli suspects Mann may have violated the state’s Fraud Against Taxpayers Act by manipulating data in applications for more than $450,000 in research grants. But Mann and the university contend the attorney general is engaged in a “witch hunt” and is violating both academic freedom and the First Amendment…”

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli appears to be wasting a lot of the State’s time and money on this derelict non-scandal. One wonders whether the citizens of Virginia will continue to require the services of Cuccinelli in future – if so, would he be reducd to serving in roadside diners at some point in the future just to make a living ?

I suspect that the Global Warming Policy Foundation report into alleged “misconduct” by Climate Change Scientists will be released at about the same time as this ruling. One wonders it the report and the ruling are going to be released together deliberately :-

http://www.thegwpf.org/climategate/1204-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries-announced.html

http://www.cwwa2009.com/climate-change/climate-denial-machine-lackey-andrew-montford-set-to-lead-fake-inquiry-into-the-3-official-inquiries-that-exonerated-u-k-scientists-of-allegations-of-fraud-and-misconduct/

“Climate Denial Machine lackey Andrew Montford set to lead fake inquiry into the 3 official inquiries that exonerated U.K. scientists of allegations of fraud and misconduct : Posted on August 22, 2010 : Climate sceptics mislead the public over hacked emails inquiry : Previous mistakes mean Andrew Montford is not the right man to lead an inquiry into the UEA climate emails : by Bob Ward, The Guardian, August 19, 2010…”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/19/climate-sceptics-mislead-public

Who are the Global Warming Policy Foundation ? And why is it that many Scientists apparently disregard the Foundation’s views, some commentators even claiming that the GWPF are “dismissed out of hand” by those with Scientific training ? :-

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

It’s important to have credentials. And there are some notably well-learned people apparently fully behind the Global Warming Policy Foundation edifice :-

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council.html

But, who funds the GWPF ? :-

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/five-questions-for-lord-lawson-and-benny-peiser/

Is this a similar grouping to the people who funded the Renewable Energy Foundation (including popular UK TV game show host Noel Edmonds) – which some claim to be an outfit wedded to the techniques of propaganda ? By setting themselves up as having a position strongly opposed to Wind Power, the REF have, according to some, done great damage to policy development for the transition to a Low Carbon Economy :-

http://www.ref.org.uk/index.php/publications/178-paul-frederik-bach-the-variability-of-wind-power

Movie Credit : Fool Me Once
Hat Tip : A Few Things IllConsidered

To check the most recent graphs :-

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

from: Don & Selina (don UNDERSCORE selina AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk)
sent: 25 August 2010 19:49:00
to: jo abbess

Dear Ms Abbess, if you are so sure about the facts of climate change (which by the way I believe is happening, but not catastrophic and not primarily CO2 driven), I will engage in open debate with you in Martini (anytime, anyplace, anywhere) fashion.

For starters are you a Climate Change Scientist ? Do you know anything about Climate Change Science ? Can you possibly dare to offer an opinion about it or question what the Scientists have said ?

The answer to all of these is “NO”. You are as much a “Climate Scientist” as I and your opinion is worth just as much, or little.

Dr. Don Keiller (MA, PhD, Cantab)

It’s these kind of shouty, haranguey e-mails that give Climate Change Scepticism such a bad name.

Please tone it down, Don.

I’m hoping that Andrew Montford’s report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to be published over or just after this weekend, will show the same level of dignity in reply and opinion as your recent standard of commenting, not the distasteful “free speecher” rants we hear far too much of from American shock-jock-inspired attack “dogs”.

The one thing I don’t want to find on opening “Bishop Hill’s” work is a condemnation of the behaviour and attitudes of working Climate Change Scientists. First, because it is unfounded. And second, because ad hominem dissmisiveness is a pretty poor way to conduct a scientific discussion – just look at the years of suffering that Michael Mann and Ben Santer have had to endure – and now Phil Jones. It’s quite unreasonable.

Inquiry after inquiry, enquiry after enquiry and reading and re-reading of the academic e-mails of Climate Change Scientists has vindicated both their intentions and their approach. Their results speak for themselves, if you care to read them. The accusations of isolationism, dastardly collusion, secretiveness and mean-spiritedness are all baseless, concocted by those who refuse to accept the conclusions of the research.

Let’s see a few academic literature citations in your comments from now on, please. I want to know what research papers you are quoting from so that I can answer your points.

In the meantime, thanks for all the data which I shall be passing to my social science colleagues for their dissection and entertainment. No doubt some of your comments will become the basis of a thesis or two into grand public deceptions – denial of the serious impacts of Climate Change is only part of nearly a hundred years of public relations campaigns to guard the sanctity of the corporate right to make a profit at everybody else’s expense.

You’ve been had if you don’t read, understand and accept Climate Change Science.

I know there’s no convincing you. There’s always a core of die-hards who find it difficult to accept reality. And sadly, the Media contain a fair few Climate Change deniers in their management structure – leading to extremely poor presentation of the Science in the public domain.

Fortunately, the truth is emerging, slowly but surely.

Climate Change is already happening, is serious, is affecting numerous, interdependent parts of the Earth system, and is coming to a street near you in the very near future. Just check the weather reports of the world, and note signs of extreme weather events coming one after the other with no let-up.

That’s Climate Change for you – changing the odds of drought, deluge and storm.

One day you will have to accept the facts. It will hurt your pocket, risk your livelihood and bring food and energy insecurity, unless we make essential changes to the energy supply system starting from now – which involves the cooperation of the Oil and Gas companies, the electricity generation companies, China, India and all.

Everybody involved in the energy industry will need to change their business plans, because Fossil Fuels need to become mostly history.

Zero Carbon or bust.

re: Odysseus felled by climate change. Royal Society report‏
from: Rupert Wyndham, rupertwyndham AT gmail DOT com
to: Brice “Boz” Osnich, bosnich AT rsc DOT anu DOT edu DOT au

“Brice : Your reference to The Royal Society triggers this. There’s an intriguing clip in the Today programme, the BBC’s flagship radio news roundup. One Roger Harrabin, a pusillanimous toad masquerading as the BBC’s “Environmental Analyst”, who alters reports under 3rd party pressure – even from the terminally pathetic such as religious propagandists, is to run a climate change series, in which is asked the question: “Has the pudding been over egged?” or words to the like effect. I’m not sure that I shall be able to summon the mental resources actually to listen to this garbage (after all, it never changes), but it’s interesting that the BBC should even be asking the question. What seems clear is that they must have been driven to it. Has the RS yet reported? Is there any chance that something might have been leaked? Interesting times! In the meantime, in the same news roundup is the story of a WW1 Italian soldier discovered in the Dolomites, a find attributed to glacier retreat – well, naturally!”

Oh dear. I do hope Roger Harrabin doesn’t feel peeved by Rupert’s description of him. Seems ungentlemanly to me.