WWF-Russia rolls out scare-machine in advance of IPCC’s AR5

Last December, on the heels of a pronouncement from former United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) head honcho, Yvo de Boer, I had asked the question: Where’s the scare in AR5? The UNFCCC is the “main client” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

de Boer had told an Australian newspaper that:

his conversations with scientists working on the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested the findings would be shocking.

“That report is going to scare the wits out of everyone,” Mr de Boer said in the only scheduled interview of his visit to Australia. “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”

This wasn’t quite the equivalent of Andrew <we are the vote> Weaver’s 2007 “barrage of intergalactic ballistic missiles“, but it was close.

As far as I know, de Boer declined to answer the question. And in the meantime, the dedicated alarmists have been doing their best to pretend that the mounting evidence of failed projections of IPCC reports past doesn’t matter – and they seem unable to meet the challenge of coming to grips with the almost daily collapse of yet another of their Big Green Dreams.

I don’t know if there’s any rivalry between Greenpeace (for whom Weaver might well be considered a PR agent), and WWF; but if the claims of Alexei Kokorin, head of WWF-Russia are to be believed, one might conclude that Korkorin Kokorin has actually surpassed Weaver in the over-the-top Big Scares ‘R Us department.

There’s a Norwegian NGO (that I’d never heard of before) called Bellona. Someone from Bellona interviewed Kokorin [h/t GWPF]. To my ears this sounds an awful lot like “next chorus, next verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse”:

Climate experts to announce global climate time bomb will go off by 2040, says WWF’s Kokorin

MOSCOW –The upcoming fifth climate change report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is believed to reveal new, and gruesome, scientific data: Natural and anthropogenic factors contributing to global climate change will escalate in the 2040s, causing ever more devastating effects on the planet. The “climate time bomb” is set to go off – unless humankind does something about it.

Andrei Ozharovsky, 21/05-2013 – Translated by Maria Kaminskaya

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, is working toward a future release of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), due for finalization in 2014. Compared with previous reports, the IPCC site says, “the AR5 will put greater emphasis on assessing the socio-economic aspects of climate change and implications for sustainable development, risk management and the framing of a response through both adaptation and mitigation.” Last week, the report was sent out from Geneva for closed-access perusal by the governments of the IPCC member states.

[...]

The climate time bomb

Bellona: Can we speculate as to what will be said in this report?

Alexei Kokorin: The main thing that is expected to be there is data saying that the climate “time bomb” may blow up sometime around 2040. Whereas earlier it was believed that man’s impact on the climate was gradual, and that the situation was deteriorating in a gradual way, now – in contrast to the previous report, which was being put together seven years ago – much more information has been obtained on ocean cycles and other natural fluctuations. Scientists have realized that today, in the 2010s, man’s impact is being mitigated by natural cycles that are offsetting the impact made on the climate by man. This situation will hold for about another twenty years. But it is completely clear that after that, this mitigation will yield to escalation.

We are having a sort of a breather now, but soon enough, we’ll see an onslaught of both – both natural and man-made processes that are causing the rise in temperature.

And temperature will surge dramatically. Yes, temperature rise will then slow down again, sometime in the 2070s, but it will soar up again after that. Understanding this is what makes this new knowledge principally different from what was known seven years ago.

A “respite given by nature”: a lucky break to turn the crisis around

Bellona: What must be done in this situation?

Alexei Kokorin: When you’re told that in the past fifteen years, the temperature of surface air on the planet has not been rising, this should not in any way be construed as proof that humankind’s impact on the climate has ceased. Scientists know it hasn’t. They know it’s because of how natural fluctuations are superimposed on the impact made by man. This is just a respite that nature gave us. And we must use this respite not for wishful thinking and inaction, but for reducing emissions, because after this respite, a double effect will ensue. [emphasis added -hro]

I suppose it’s possible that Kokorin was not quite as alarmist in his responses as “direct action” activist Bellona’s report indicates – and/or that nuance got lost in translation.

When the Second Order Draft of Working Group I (WGI)’s report was leaked last year, as I had noted in my post, Dr. Judith Curry had remarked that:

“The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering”

One would think that – particularly in light of the InterAcademy Council’s recommendations – the IPCC might have at least learned one lesson. And, who knows, perhaps they have. If Kokorin’s claims are actually found in the report, it will certainly be interesting to read the Lead Authors’:

traceable account of the steps used to arrive at estimates of uncertainty or confidence for key findings.

Then again, perhaps this will turn out to be a false alarm from Kokorin whose “speculations” may well be nothing more than echoes and embellishments of de Boer’s.

Oh, well … time will tell;-)

Wastelandia: Andrew Weaver et al‘s big green choru$ and $ymphony … in the key of Gore

Sometimes writing a blogpost is somewhat akin to peeling an onion! I began writing this post during the afternoon of May 15. And as each layer of this particular onion exposed another (thereby delaying the publication of this post!), I did not know whether to laugh at the chutzpah – or cry about the sheer manipulative legislated lunacies being promoted by the oh-so-dedicated (or perhaps not) green-agenda activists and advocates – not to mention the hysterical … ooops … sorry, “historic” election of one of their histrionic own to the provincial legislature – in British Columbia.

With this in mind, and setting aside the European Union’s very slow-dawning recognition of the failure of their Big Green Dreams and landscape-blighting faith in the power of wind turbines and solar panels, my post began …

Much ado was made last week of the super-scary milestone that the dreaded evil Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) had reached 400 parts per million – which means that there are only 999,600 other parts per million that we might need to worry about.

Or, as US ‘climate change superstar’, modeller Michael Mann (as opposed to his buddy, Canadian “climate change superstar” [h/t CBC], modeller Andrew Weaver) had declared [h/t Tom Nelson]:

Climate Tipping Point? Concentration of Carbon Dioxide Tops 400 ppm for First Time in Human History

So, this number, 400 parts per million, what does it mean? It’s the number of molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of air; 400 of them are now CO2. Just two centuries ago, that number was only 280 parts per million. So if we continue to add carbon to the atmosphere at current rates, we’ll reach a doubling of the pre-industrial levels of CO2 within the next few decades.

OMG this does sound very ominous, doesn’t it?! Perhaps I need to rethink my attitude towards reducing my “carbon footprint”.

But help may be on the way – or maybe not!

You see, it just so happens that earlier this week, the friendly people from “thinkgreen” Waste Management dropped off a whole bunch of pretty “organics only” food scraps receptacles at my apartment building:

A confluence of interests … Perfectly designed to line Al Gore’s pockets!

The whole kit and kaboodle (including a handy-dandy fridge magnet [not shown]) was free! Well, sort of. If I want to replace that “small food waste bag” (lined with “cellulose” which looks like – but isn’t – “plastic”) I can do this … At a cost of $5.49 for 10 (although I’d get $1.00 off the first ten, thanks to the generosity of the Help the Earth Help Itself folks at “Bag to Earth“).

The helpful and enthusiastic young lady from Waste Management told me that these receptacles cost approx. $25.00 – $30.00¹ each (but they were “donated”). However, she didn’t know the cost of the Bigger bins into which I must dutifully place my small food waste bag approx. every four days. As I subsequently discovered, these Bigger bins have been placed in the ground level garage – an open invitation to rodents and scavengers if ever there was one!

This young lady and I ended up agreeing to disagree about (inter alia) her claim that the pin-head holes uniformly visible on the lid of this receptacle were there to facilitate air circulation downwards, which would (according to her) prevent the formation of odours in my kitchen. This seemed to be somewhat at odds with Bag to Earth’s claim that their bags (at $0.594 each) are designed to be:

Odour-free when sealed [emphasis added -hro]

At the end of our conversation, the young lady from Waste Management thanked me for engaging in respectful, constructive and helpful dialogue – and for not having thrown the mini-bin receptacle at her, as others had done, elsewhere!

But I digress …

Evidently, Waste Management Canada is a “subsidiary of Waste Management Inc” – a US company with a rather scandal-ridden history. And on Jan. 25 (of some year or other) Waste Management Inc. decided to “invest in Harvest Power to expand next generation organics recycling facilities across the United States and Canada.”:

The agreement with Harvest Power complements Waste Management’s comprehensive waste services in the areas of recycling, landfill, waste-to-energy and consulting services. This investment will also help move Waste Management toward meeting three of its sustainability goals: doubling its renewable energy production and tripling the amount of recyclables processed by 2020, and investing in emerging technologies for managing waste.

But I digress (again!) …

The plan is that the Bigger bins will be emptied by Waste Management and delivered … not to a landfill, perish the thought … but to Waste Management’s “partner” (as noted above), a US company called Harvest™ Power of We™, or Harvest Power for short, with a local (albeit, at times, a somewhat unpleasantly odoriferous) presence. Not that the nice young lady from Waste Management told me any of this, but Google is my friend. And when I asked about Harvest Power’s involvement, she confirmed it!

One of Harvest Power’s “largest investors” is a company called Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM), “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London, New York and Sydney”.

GIM rang a somewhat familiar bell; and, sure enough, when I followed the link I found that the (unprincipled) principals of GIM were none other than hypocrite-extraordinaire, Al Gore and his buddy, David Blood⁴ who, these days, are flogging a concept called “Sustainable Capitalism” – which may (or may not) be synonymous with Stewart Elgie‘s (almost all) Canadian “Sustainable Prosperity“.

[Sidebar Be sure to check out GIM's About page. I got quite a wry chuckle out of the fine-print at the bottom of this page:

Although Generation seeks to provide superior investment performance, potential investors should be aware that this is an aspiration and there is no guarantee that this goal will be obtained.

End sidebar]

So, reasonably certain that Harvest Power was not taking on this challenge of processing “organic waste” out of the goodness of its heart, I began to wonder about the chain of events and/or pronouncements that might have led to finding myself carefully separating “approved” food scraps from other waste … in order to line Al Gore’s pockets!

I started my search in BC’s 2007 150+ page “Climate Action Plan” – a document whose authors, as I’ve previously noted included Greenpeace propaganda peddler and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, Andrew <we are the vote> Weaver!

This, ostensibly made in British Columbia, “Climate Action Plan” includes the following (p. 42):

Waste disposal accounts for about 5 per cent of B.C.’s GHG emissions. Most is from municipal landfills. The remainder comes from wood residue landfills, mostly run by forestry companies.

In both cases, decomposition of organic matter produces methane, also known as landfill gas. Proven technologies already exist to capture this gas and use it as a source of cleaner, renewable energy. [emphasis added -hro]

Excuse me?! A piddling five per cent?! For which a supposedly “proven” technological “solution” already “exists“?! Tell me again – while I may have some choice now, by 2015 I most certainly will not² – why I shall be forced to separate my “approved” food scraps (the accumulation of which, in this counter-space hogging receptacle, may well create unpleasant odours in my kitchen) in order to line Waste Management’s, Harvest Power’s and Al Gore’s pockets!

But wait, there’s more!

This is all part and parcel of the grand plan to make BC “carbon neutral”. This legislated lunacy (which includes BC’s “carbon tax“) is overseen by the province’s “Climate Action Secretariat” (CAS):

As a leading jurisdiction on climate action, the Province has a legislated target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by 2020 and achieve an 80% reduction by 2050 (from 2007 levels). The Climate Action Secretariat works with ministries and other jurisdictions to develop policies to support this goal. Through the suite of LiveSmart BC programs, British Columbians can demonstrate leadership addressing climate change as well.

[...]

Carbon Neutral B.C.: A first for North America, 2 years running [emphasis added -hro]

Hmmm … well, this Secretariat is entitled to blow its own horn, I suppose. But it would be nice if they corrected this part of their self-congratulatory epistle, to reflect the findings in the recent report of the Auditor General, in which it was specifically noted that, in addition to the fact that the Secretariat (and yet another invention of Weaver and his fellow green dreamers, the notorious Crown Corporation, Pacific Carbon Trust) was not doing its job. The Auditor General had clearly stated that:

this claim of carbon neutrality is not accurate [emphasis added -hro]

But I digress … It turns out that one of the “other jurisdictions” referred to by the CAS just happens to be the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM). One doesn’t often hear much about the UBCM and its activities, except once a year when they hold their annual gathering, and the news media report on which provincial politicians addressed this confab of municipal politicians (and which did not!)

It seems that on September 26, 2007, the Government of British Columbia, the UBCM and “Signatory Local Governments” agreed to a (“not intended to be legally binding”) “British Columbia Climate Action Charter“. Here’s the … uh … framing of this Charter:

(1) The Parties share the common understanding that:

(a) Scientific consensus has developed that increasing emissions of human caused greenhouse gases(GHG), including carbon dioxide, methane and other GHG emissions, that are released into the atmosphere are affecting the Earth’s climate;

(b) the evidence of global warming is unequivocal and the effects of climate change are evident across British Columbia;

(c) reducing GHG emissions will generate environmental and health benefits for individuals, families, and communities;

(d) climate change and reducing GHG emissions are issues of importance to British Columbians;

(e) governments urgently need to implement effective measures to reduce GHG emissions and anticipate and prepare for climate change impacts;

(f) protecting the environment can be done in ways that promote economic prosperity; and

(g) it is important to take action and to work together to share best practices, to reduce GHG emissions and address the impacts of climate change. [emphases added -hro]

I cannot possibly imagine how – or why – these municipal representatives might have arrived at the conclusion that there is a “scientific consensus” – or that “evidence of global warming is unequivocal”. But perhaps someone decided to adapt a recipe from this “cookbook“.

Alternatively, as they did with the “Climate Action Plan”, perhaps the bureaucrats and green dreamers who drafted this “Charter” simply lifted the phrasing from that Nobel Peace Prize award-winning body, the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report – and dropped it into this “Charter”. How very, well, convenient, eh?!

Ventures in Wasteland certainly received honourable mention in this (cooked-up?!) “Charter”:

(2) (b) Local Governments have taken action on climate change, including [...] implementing innovative infrastructure technologies including landfill gas recapture and production of clean energy

Here’s a potentially² worrying caveat, though:

(5) (a) (i) being carbon neutral in respect of their operations by 2012, recognizing that solid waste facilities regulated under the Environmental Management Act are not included in operations for the purposes of this Charter.

Needless to say (not unlike productions of the exemplary IPCC and its “main client”, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]), this “Charter” includes provision for the establishment of:

(6) [...] a Joint Provincial-UBCM Green Communities Committee and Green Communities Working Groups that support that Committee with the following purposes:

(a) To develop a range of actions that can affect climate change, including initiatives such as: assessment, taxation, zoning or other regulatory reforms or incentives to encourage land use patterns that promote increased density, smaller lot sizes, encourage mixed uses and reduced GHG emissions; development of GHG reduction targets and strategies, alternative transportation opportunities, policies and processes that support fast-tracking of green development projects, community gardens and urban forestry; and integrated transportation and land use planning

YMMV, but to my eyes and ears this looks and sounds like an awful lot of green-agenda driven interference and conformity – under the rather deceptive guise of environmental do-goodery!

I haven’t had a chance yet to dig up any minutes of meetings of this “Joint … Committee” – or any of these “Green Communities Working Groups”. But one thing I did stumble across during the course of my searches to ascertain the true cost of these initiatives was a “Draft” document that (according to the document properties) appears to have been authored by a Judith Cullington, for the Province of British Columbia. Here’s a screen-cap of the beginning of this masterpiece (yellow highlights mine -hro):

Excuse me?!! I’m supposed to “reduce my carbon footprint” by doing my part to divert “organic food waste” from ending up in a landfill (which amounts to a mere 5% of our greenhouse gas emissions – for which there supposedly already exists a “proven” process for dealing with the methane gas created) to comply with a future environmental regulation [pls. see footnotes below] that results in the “creation” of … the dreaded – and constantly demonized – Carbon Dioxide … all the while lining the pockets of Waste Management, Harvest Power and Al Gore!

Now, don’t get me wrong! I am not opposed to composting – or to those who choose to do so. Hell, some of my best friends are avid composters! But I do think there’s something rather off-key – if not inherently sour – about far too many of the notes³ in this Big Green choru$ and $ymphony. Don’t you?!

Footnotes:

¹ During a conversation with the primary contact person responsible for recycling efforts in the municipality in which I reside, I learned that the cost of these receptacles is closer to $5.00 to $10.00 each. This person also disclosed that the number of multi-family dwellings in this (relatively small) municipality in the Greater Vancouver Area is 20,500. So even at his lowest estimated cost, that’s $102,500 – for one small municipality.

And on the matter of other costs that will be incurred by this initiative, this person could not disclose the cost of processing by Harvest Power. However he did say that it is less than 50% of that which is currently paid for landfill treatment ($107.00 per ton). Well, there’s an incentive if ever there was one, eh?! Although I do wonder how long this very attractive price might last [see footnote ³ below].

There will be an increase in the bill to owners for collecting this organic waste: $1.60 per unit per month. According to my calculations that’s $393,600 per year from the multi-family dwellings in this small municipality alone – much of which, one might reasonably surmise, will end up in the pockets of Waste Management, Harvest Power and Al Gore.

Will we see an increase in 2015, if not before? Who knows, eh?!

When I surmised that much is being decided by the green dreamers in the Big City of Vancouver, and made a comment to the effect of “whatever Vancouver politicos want, the rest of us get”, this contact person did not disagree.

² During this same conversation, this contact person advised me that if I don’t like their receptacle, I could use something else – and that my participation, while hoped for and preferred, is entirely voluntary. However, when I pointed out that somewhere along the way, my research had led me to conclude that by 2015, my participation will not be optional, he did not dispute this. It all has something to with the provincial Ministry of the Environment’s “landfill” regulations, with which all municipalities are required to comply, but over which no municipality has any control.

Small wonder, then, that (5) (a) (i) was included in the wording of the “not intended to be legally binding” Climate Action Charter.

Perhaps the province of British Columbia has a “green police” force in the planning works!

³ In an undated Waste Management newsletter, one finds the following:

WASTE TO ENERGY BURNS BRIGHT IN WORLD’S WASTE PROJECTS

Waste to Energy projects have dominated the waste management category of KPMG’s latest global infrastructure report. Here’s a look at the report in more detail and an insight into what caught the judge’s eye about the winning projects.
[...]
The winning projects
[...]
The Energy Garden Project

Harvest Power’s 27,000 tonne per year Energy Garden in Richmond, outside of Vancouver received $4 million funding from Natural Resources Canada

Harvest Power’s Energy Garden in Richmond, outside of Vancouver, is Canada’s first high-efficiency system for producing renewable energy from food scraps and yard trimmings. The project uses a number of different funding sources including a $4 million grant from Natural Resources Canada (NR-Can) and will process more than 27,000 tonnes each year.

The BC Bioenergy Network (BCBN), a provincially funded, not for profit organisation supporting the acceleration of bioenergy development in British Columbia, has provided $1.5 million funding to Fraser Richmond Soil and Fibre – a Harvest Power company.

The funding supports two components: a $1 million loan towards the commercial demonstration of a High Solids Anaerobic Digestion (HSAD) plant that will convert municipal green waste (food scraps and yard trimmings) to produce electricity under the BC Hydro Community Based Biomass Power Call.

Secondly is a $500,000 grant towards acquiring a pilot scale mobile HSAD testing unit – a ‘Mobile Energy Harvester’ – that will be used initially in Richmond and later toured throughout North America.

The biogas produced by the facility will be used to produce more than 6000 MWh of electricity per year, enough to power around 700 homes. The residual organic materials remaining after the digestion process will be further composted and returned to local farms and gardens as nutrient rich soil amendments.

So that’s $5,500,000 of taxpayer funding in Harvest Power’s (and its investors’) pockets. Some might wonder if these generous grants and loans are designed to “incentivize” participation by municipalities (such as the one in which I reside) by enabling Harvest Power to offer such an attractive price for processing “organic waste” – at least until 2015. But I couldn’t possibly comment.

[Additional Footnote 05/19/2013 05:21 PM PDT]:

⁴ GIM’s David Blood (aka David Wayland Blood, former CEO of Goldman-Sachs) in addition to being “Co-Founder, Senior Partner, and Managing Partner” of GIM, is evidently a Director of … Harvest Power (and The Nature Conservancy, amongst others), according to Bloomberg’s Business Week’s database. Gore is listed as “Co-Founder, Partner, and Chairman”.

For the record, GIM has a whole slew of “Partners” – and a five-member Board (including Chairman Gore and former Irish PM and UN Human Rights Commissioner, Mary Robinson; but excluding Blood)

The “Companies in the U.K.” site also indicates that Blood is one of two directors listed for GENERATION INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED (a different company, evidently formerly known as “HURRICANEBRIDGE LIMITED” which seems to have disappeared without a trace. But, this new kid on the GIM block was registered in 2009)

Interestingly, none of the above is found on the GIM website. Some might find this to be considerably less than transparent. But I oouldn’t possibly comment.

CBC and Camp Weaverland vs reality

So the British Columbia provincial election is over. Premier Christy Clark and the BC Liberals (contra all the pundits’ and pollsters’ great expectations) came through with flying colours that landed them – and their platform – a majority government, with more seats in the provincial legislature than they had before the election was called!

No doubt trying to make the best of a bad situation unfolding, CBC’s green-heart-on-sleeve coverage on May 14 was, well, appalling!

They continued to honk for Weaver‘s unearned laurels at least twice during the early part of the evening. Whether my unacknowledged tweet:

@cbcnewsbc You need to change your Weaver script! Nobel Prize not for science & awarded to IPCC (Panel of nations) http://wp.me/pJtnm-1c6

caused them to drop this over-hyped example of deliberately misleading Weaver-spin, I have no way of knowing. But I do know that in their post-election coverage of their favourite “star”, the CBC was right back at it:

Greens not to blame for NDP loss, says leader Sterk

Green-NDP vote split allowed Liberals to win 12 ridings, say critics

In the aftermath of the NDP failure to win the B.C. elections, some pundits are blaming the Green party for splitting the vote on the left, but not everyone agrees with the analysis.

[...]

[...] the Green Party’s first MLA Andrew Weaver denied the Green Party split the vote.

“We didn’t split the vote. We are the vote in Oak Bay-Gordon Head,” said Weaver on Tuesday, after winning his seat. [emphasis added -hro]

“We are the vote …”?! That’s almost as inane and meaningless as another Weaverism™ that appeared in the National Post on the eve of the election:

“Government doesn’t have the information, government is there to facilitate the information.”

The reality is (to use one of Weaver’s repeated appeals to his own authority – and repeatedly unchallenged – prefaces in an “interview” with CBC’s Evan Solomon on Solomon’s “Power and Politics” show, complete with yet another viewing of Weaver’s unearned Nobel laurel), as even the Weaver-cheerleading Victoria Times-Colonist acknowledged yesterday:

Oak Bay-Gordon Head is a relatively affluent riding. The 2006 census reported a population of 48,420, with 36,500* voters [emphasis added -hro]

* Eligible voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head for this election was 37,443. Total votes cast in all 134 polls in this riding was (courtesy of National Post):

Your math may vary (as, evidently does that of Andrew “I’m a climate scientist and we are the vote” Weaver) but by my count, of the eligible 37,433 voters in Oak Bay-Gordon Head a mere 9,602 (< 26%) actually voted for Weaver! I know we have a first past the post system of voting which does have some inherent problems, but that’s the way it is.

However, Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver seems to be (conveniently?!) oblivious to the fact that those who did not vote for the CBC’s “star”, garnered 14,351 votes – a “significant” number in excess of those garnered by Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver.

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s [free speech for me but not for thee] libel suit against the National Post (and the “novel” remedy he’s seeking)? Not bloomin’ likely!

Did the CBC tell its readers/listeners/viewers about Weaver’s practice of slamming the virtual door in the face of those who dare to ask … uh … inconvenient questions? Not bloomin’ likely!

But I digress …

Did the CBC learn any lessons about its dutiful recitation of Weaver-spin vis a vis the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore? Not bloomin’ likely!

As the right-side visual “effects” in Solomon’s “Big Green win” story at one point predictably and dutifully visually reiterated:

Did the CBC choose to repeat the Weaver-spin unearned laurel on which he continues to choose to rest? You betcha! The CBC piece at the top of this post dutifully reported:

Weaver, a Nobel Prize winning climatologist, defeated long-time Liberal incumbent Ida Chong by about 2,400 votes in the Vancouver Island riding of Oak Bay – Gordon Head.

In light of all the above, I invite my readers to gimme’ one good reason why I – or anyone – should trust the word of Andrew “we are the vote” Weaver, or of the cheer-leading green-heart-on-sleeve CBC. Perhaps one might be forgiven for the rather distinct impression that – with a throw of the election dice – the voters of Oak Bay-Gordon Head have landed on one of the squares of Monopoly … the climate change game.

CBC honks for IPCC-nik Andrew Weaver AND censors comments

In my previous post of May 8, I had posed the question: CBC censoring again – or honking for IPCC’s Andrew Weaver?

And I believe that the CBC has now provided the answer. Well, actually wrt the “honking” this was provided sooner than I had thought – and broadcast on National TV (h/t Alex Cull in his comment).

Alex’s link is to a segment of the April 28 National News. Here’s a screen capture from that segment:

The adulation and glorification inherent in Wendy Mesley’s introduction (with the following long-lingering image in the background):

before the cutaway to the main event of Chris Brown’s report, included a statement that the BC Greens are turning to “star power“. And we all know how very impressed the CBC is with green “star power”! Check out today’s Sunday Edition on CBC radio. which includes a 30+ minute segment with hypocrite-extraordinare, Al Gore who’s currently flogging his latest fact-free predictions of doom and gloom (not to mention bad-mouthing Canada’s oil-sands deposits, which no doubt delighted Weaver!) But I digress …

In his April 28 “report”, Brown reinforced (by accident or design) Mesley’s intro. He described Weaver as a “climate change superstar“. And – for reasons perhaps best-known only to himself, to Weaver and to the cameraman (if not the CBC editor(s) who scrupulously vet all stories before they go on air) – provided viewers with yet another glimpse of Weaver as “Nobel-award winning” scientist:

I didn’t count how many seconds the camera lingered on the above before panning down to:

[Sidebar: A funny thing happened on the way to capturing the Mesley-Weaver image above. You will notice that the other three images (which I had captured yesterday) are ... uh ... framed by the red banner "CBC Television" above - and by a "footer" which indicated that this was from the April 28, 2013 3:17 segment of  The National, followed by:

Green Weaver

Global warming expert Andrew Weaver is running for the Green Party in the upcoming provincial elections in B.C.

Yet when I went back earlier today to capture the Mesley-Weaver medley, the banner and footer were nowhere in sight! Now this certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CBC has engaged in undated and undocumented now-you-see-it-now-you-don't posting behaviour, as Morley Sutter has noted in a comment on my previous post. But it is somewhat odd, don't you think?! End Sidebar]

How strange that the CBC seems incapable of basic fact-checking regarding Weaver’s unearned “Nobel” laurels. As Donna Laframboise had reported last October:

The facts are as follows: Weaver is merely one among thousands of scientists who contributed their time to the preparation of IPCC reports over the past two decades. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore and to the IPCC. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. Its membership consists of nations – not individuals.

Weaver’s Nobel claim is spin. Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin.

See also Laframboise’s follow-up post in which she provides photographic evidence of Weaver’s bobbing and weaving around his unearned “Nobel-winning” laurels:

Last October when he announced his “reluctant” [see below!] candidacy, Lavin Agency’s bio of Weaver was headlined as follows:

Lead Climate Scientist & Co-winner of Nobel Peace Prize

By January of this year, this billing had … uh … evolved to:

Lead Climate Scientist & Member of Nobel Peace Prize-winning Panel

But this new improved billing is an instance of Weaver engaging in “Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin”.

If he had any commitment towards truth in self-advertising, rather than puffing up his image with such unsustainable claims as:

“his groundbreaking work in the field – in the trenches – of climate science [and that he is one who has] re-energized a new generation of discussions on climate change and sustainability”

Weaver would have acknowledged that the “trenches” in which he works are primarily high-priced computer simulations. He would further have acknowledged that his “new generation of discussions” includes slamming the virtual door in the face of those who dare to question his claims and assertions, or who might not agree with his prescriptions for what he calls “the action we need”.

And speaking of Weaver’s “Self-aggrandizing, inaccurate, misleading spin” consider the following excerpts from Weaver’s recent exercise in Huff-Po self-puffery:

Andrew Weaver.Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Victoria

I Joined the Green Party Because I’m a Scientist

Posted: 05/08/2013 11:43

[...] I guess, despite being a climate scientist whose work is recognized around the world, according to Megan Leslie, that means I am not concerned about climate action.

The reason I joined the Green Party of BC was not because I was yearning for power, or willing to parse the truth and join in the hyper-partisan spin of the major parties. I joined the Green Party because it is the only party to consistently support climate action — carbon pricing, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, aggressive efforts in energy efficiency and demand-side management and the steady expansion of renewable and green energy. These steps would improve our economic performance, create tens of thousands of new jobs across Canada, while preserving a sustainable world for our children.

The only time a major party was willing to call for a tax shift, to reduce income taxes and increase pollution taxes, was in 2008 under Stephane Dion’s Liberal leadership. [...]

What Canadian politics needs is a party that is more interested in respectful debate and dialogue, in pressing for climate action as a daily commitment, than parties that swing with the winds of political expediency.

I never imagined I would be a candidate for any party. As a scientist, I am way outside my comfort zone. But when I look at my children and imagine what their future will be if we continue with politics as usual, I realized I could no longer sit on the sidelines.

The decisions being made in Victoria and Ottawa are too important to be left to the politicians. [...]

Greens understand we will not be forming government any time soon. But we equally believe it is critical to have representatives in our legislatures who will support other parties when they have a good idea, criticize those who twist the truth, condemn those who block action, and work to promote cooperative, positive decisions to reduce greenhouse gases. Let’s stop pointing fingers and work together to get the action we need. [emphasis added -hro]

Well, I suppose his current claim that he “joined the Green Party because [he's] a scientist is somewhat consistent with his telling CBC’s Brown that his decision to “engage” in the political process because he believes that it’s the “final thing a scientist can do”. But, to my mind, this is considerably at odds with his earlier claim that he has “a passion for politics“.

Indeed, some might ask: was he lying then, or is he lying now? But I couldn’t possibly comment!

As for Weaver’s singing the praises of Stephane Dion’s “green shift” platform … perhaps he has (conveniently?) forgotten that Canadian voters resoundingly rejected Dion’s green dreams. Then again … considering his claim during his prime-time-live April 28 CBC interview, that fellow greenie and Federal MP, Elizabeth May, has far more “influence than 100 backbenchers” perhaps Weaver doesn’t really give a damn what Canadian voters might think – or how they might have chosen.

And please spare us this ludicrous appeal for “respectful debate and dialogue”. Unless Weaver and/or one of his fans would care to tell us what exactly is “respectful” about his rants against PM Stephen Harper, as noted in the Apr. 28 video and in a Nov. 2010 Victoria Times-Colonist interview which I had documented here:

The UVic climatologist, sputtering words like “unbelievable” and “dictator” and “shocking affront to democracy,” says he hopes the opposition will force Harper’s minority government to fall. “He’s got to get kicked out. This is Canada, not Zimbabwe . . . or maybe it is.

In that November 2010 post, I had concluded by observing:

Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to Weaver that he needs to make a choice: Does he want to be known as a thoughtful, respected scientist or an incoherent environmental activist/advocate who is only capable of mindlessly mouthing echoes of Michael Mann’s mantras?

It would seem that in the interim, Weaver has definitely opted for the latter. Ironically, shortly after Weaver first launched his campaign last October (long before he slammed the virtual door in my face!) when I had asked him via twitter [see my Update to this post] to give me one good reason that I should tell my friends in his riding, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, to vote for him, Weaver had responded:

Ensure evidence forms the basis decision-making rather than decisions forming the basis of evidence-making

Wow! What a slogan, eh?! Too bad that all the evidence to date, strongly indicates that for Weaver, his “decisions” as to what the Province (if not the country!) needs – as embodied in his litany of policy prescriptions and dutiful recitation of the latest and greatest scary stories (not the least of which are his rapidly escalating extinction fictions) – have no basis in empirical evidence. Regardless of what his computer-simulations “in the trenches” might show.

So, I can only suggest to my friends in Oak Bay-Gordon Head … Do be very careful out there when you’re casting your vote on May 14.

As for the CBC’s comment-censoring practices … I believe that the evidence is now in: Yes, they do censor comments for no valid reason.

But – before I write to the Ombudsman, regarding their failure to correct the false claim that Weaver is a “Nobel-winning” scientist – I would invite a representative of the CBC to provide me with chapter and verse of their Submission Guidelines in accordance with which the “moderator” was acting (and which I must have “violated”) when rejecting my post, repost and subsequent comment, as I had documented in my previous post, and updates thereto.

CBC censoring again – or honking for IPCC’s Andrew Weaver?

[Please see updates at end of this post -hro]

The CBC occupies a unique position of trust. Not only is it the most substantial and broadly-based broadcast journalism organization in Canada, it is funded, through Parliament, by the people of Canada. The CBC therefore considers it a duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely. [emphasis added -hro]

From CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Policies

In my CBC News Online – British Columbia Morning Digest – 2013-05-07, the following had “top billing”:

For readers not familiar with the British Columbia political scene, there will be a provincial election on May 14; currently the BC Green Party has no seats in the provincial legislature. So they would need to jump from 0 to 4 in order to achieve “official” party status. As I have noted previously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, Andrew Weaver, is a candidate – and the Deputy Leader of the BC Green Party.

Needless to say the headline grabbed my attention, so I followed the “more” link.

This was at approximately 10:00 AM PDT or in CBC-speak (as I discovered a few minutes ago when I saw that the video had changed and the page Last updated read 7:19 PM) PT. The text indicated that the Party Leader, Jane Sterk, does not stand much of a chance in her riding, followed by:

A conscience in the legislature

But the party might have a better shot in neighbouring ridings, namely Oak Bay-Gordon Head, where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver is representing the Green Party.

“We’re really pleased,” he said. “It’s exciting. It’s been a really, really solid campaign. The momentum is building, there’s a lot of volunteers, a lot of enthusiasm.”

Oh, my … there he goes again: resting on Nobel laurels he knows has not earned! Because the CBC has a “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely“, I felt it incumbent upon me to advise the CBC of this error. So I posted a comment:

“where Nobel-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver”

Sorry, someone needs to do some basic fact-checking, here. Weaver, a climate modeller, is NOT a “Nobel-winning” anything. To describe him as such is to allow him to rest on laurels he has not earned.

He is (in addition to being a candidate and Deputy Leader of the BC Greens) a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And as far as I can tell, he sees no conflict of interest between the requirement that IPCC Authors be objective and his political affiliations and aspirations.

It was the IPCC that – along with Al Gore – was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (in 2007). And we all know how tarnished that award has become.

Voters in Oak Bay Gordon Head might also be interested in knowing that Weaver is not particularly open to, well, inconvenient questions and observations. In the virtual world, his response (via twitter) is to “block” those whose questions and observations he does not like.

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views!

What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

Posted: 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT

And I waited for my comment – or at least a correction to the above article – to appear. Neither event had occurred by 3:00 PM PDT, although several other comments had certainly passed moderation. Consequently, I decided to repost with the following preface:

I wonder why it is that CBC’s “moderation” practice is so, well, untimely!

I had submitted a comment at 05/7/2013 10:16 AM PDT At that point, the timestamp on the Most Recent Comment (of approx 50 as I recall) was 10:05 AM ET.

Comment count is now up to 117, with the timestamp of the Most Recent Comment showing as 2:35 PM ET. So, I’m not sure why my [1:16 p.m. ET] comment is nowhere in sight! Oh, well, perhaps its just one of those inexplicable gremlin generated glitches. Hence, this repost:

For the record, my reposted text was the same as the above – except for the timestamp, and a slight reformatting of the last two paragraphs, in order to stay within their character-count:

Which suggests to me that, in “real life”, he just might slam the door in your face, if he doesn’t like your questions or views! What a way to win friends and influence people, eh?!

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/ipccs-andrew-weaver-cant-stand-the-heat-in-his-tweet-kitchen/

May 7, 3:15 PM PDT

And here I sit several hours later (and the Comment Count up to 134, and most recent timestamp is 2013/05/07
at 10:34 PM ET from “Meggy”) Now I’m sure that the ET moderator must be fast-asleep by now, so – according to the CBC’s Submission Guidelines – my guess would be that “Meggy” is a “Trusted” member whose comments can bypass moderation.

I read these Submission Guidelines, btw, and I didn’t see anything in there that I might have violated. So the continued non-appearance of my comment is somewhat of a mystery.

Oh, well … maybe tomorrow the moderator will release my comment. My past experience has been that whenever I decide to post on their practices, eventually my comments have appeared.

Of course, considering the timestamp – and depending on how many other comments are waiting in the moderation queue – it’s quite possible that few (if any!) will ever see it.

In the meantime, I was going to share the video they’d evidently uploaded at 7:19 PM PT, with a cameo of Weaver and a voice-over telling viewers that he is a “Nobel-winning climate scientist”. But WordPress doesn’t seem to like the CBC’s embed code. So I leave you with this screen capture from the video:

Is CBC censoring comments – or honking for Weaver?!

Stay tuned, folks!

UPDATE: 05/8/2013 12:18 PM

Comment count on CBC’s “false news” item is now 135, and (surprise, surprise) there’s no sign of either of my comment submissions, so I have just submitted the following:

Well, it seems that when an opportunity to wear its green heart on its sleeve presents itself, CBC has no shame about being remiss in its “duty to provide consistent, high-quality information upon which all citizens may rely”

Setting aside the fact that for some inexplicable reason (well, certainly none that I can see in their submission guidelines) my now twice attempted comment submission is nowhere in sight, how can we rely on the quality of CBC’s “information” when they choose to continue to perpetuate the meme that Andrew Weaver is a “Nobel-winning” scientist?

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/cbc-censoring-again-or-honking-for-ipccs-andrew-weaver/

Posted: 05/8/2013 12:17 PM PT

UPDATE 2: 05/11/2013 12:22 AM PDT So my third attempted comment has not appeared.

I wonder if I’ve made CBC’s “blacklist” for daring to question their sloppy (to be kind) “reporting” [see Morley Sutter's comment below for yet another instance of CBC's green heart on sleeve recycling of the "Nobel" meme]

And see also this SunTV video CBC IS WATCHING YOU :-)

Of word salads and firebrands on the UN waterfront

So, while the U.K. Met Office (presumably still inspired by their enhanced status as a “jewel in the crown, of British and global science”) has been unable to master the technology required to correct an unsupportable headline as part of their effort to “bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public”, an organization called UN Water has has been moving at the speed of lightning.

Well, for a UN bureaucracy … it’s the speed of lightning!

You see, If you didn’t know that UN Water exists, you might have missed the chance of a lifetime (which began on April 29 and, sadly, ended on May 5) to “contribute to the online discussion” of:

The final draft of the Post-2015 Water Thematic Consultation report

Look at that, folks! We’ve been moved from the pre- and post-Rio+20 “The Future We Want” to “The World We Want”. Amazing, eh?!

Sorry, I haven’t had a chance to take look at this “final draft”. But, I have seen the:

Recognition of Outcomes, High Level Forum –World Water Day The Hague, 22 March, 2013

Ah, yes, World Water Day … I know we did get some advance notice of the “International Year of Water Cooperation, 2013″, but World Water Day on March 22?

Who knew, eh?! Of course, I should have made a note of it in my calendar for this year … when I missed it last year …. and (truth be told) every year since its inception in 1993:

World Water Day – 22 March

World Water Day is held annually on 22 March as a means of focusing attention on the importance of freshwater and advocating for the sustainable management of freshwater resources.

An international day to celebrate freshwater was recommended at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The United Nations General Assembly responded by designating 22 March 1993 as the first World Water Day.

Needless to say, this particular child of the United Nations comes with its very own scary stories (and calls for “innovative financial mechanisms”). As the March 22, 2013 “Recognition of Outcomes – High Level Forum” (pdf) duly notes (all emphases in quoted text throughout this post are mine -hro):

This process has allowed for an inclusive and bottom-up approach that encouraged all stakeholders to help construct a new sustainable development framework that is measurable, realistic and inter-generational that will promote an equitable and sustainable use of water for growth and development. People from 185 Member States, and 8 non-Member States/territories, have participated through social media and meetings at the national, regional and global levels. It engaged a wide range of stakeholders from national authorities, civil society, youth and the private sector in the discussion on the role of water in a future sustainable development framework. A synthesis report, that will soon be available for public comment, provides a comprehensive view of the outcomes of the consultation.

So, let’s see … it was announced on March 22 that this “comprehensive view” would soon be available for “public comment”. Yet – as I had noted above – “soon” turned out to be well over a month later. And the window of opportunity for this “public comment” was a grand total of seven (count ‘em 7) days – and possibly less depending on when on April 29 this inclusive … probably more apt to call it an exclusive window of opportunity opened, and when on May 5 the window closed.

What a process, eh?! But I digress … Back to the highlights of the High Level Forum’s “Recognition of Outcomes” document which included:

Although water challenges are growing incrementally, complacency is not an option. Political recognition and policy action are urgently needed. Significant water-related challenges remain. Water pollution continues to grow and more than 80% of used water is discharged to nature untreated. This is not only a threat to the environment, economic development and human health, but also a waste of valuable resources

Feeding a world of nine billion people in 2050 will require more water for food. The demands for energy will more than double and, at the same time, extreme events, droughts and floods will also increase.

[...]

Higher rates of urbanization will mean a growing demand for drinking water [...]

Hang on a minute! Do people in an urban environment require more drinking water than those in a rural setting?! Surely not! Oh, well … who am I to argue with these nameless authorities, eh?! Here are some excerpts from their “Conclusions”:

• Water is a key determinant in all aspects of social, economic and environmental development …
• Water, Sanitation and Hygiene, Water Resources Management and Wastewater Management and Water Quality are all indispensable elements for building a water-secure world
• Water security will be of growing importance …
• Governments play a key role in securing water for competing demands; however the quest for a water-secure world is a joint responsibility and can only be achieved through water cooperation at local, national, regional and global level and through partnerships with a multitude of stakeholders …
• Water-related capacity development [...] will be fundamental in the realization and implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda
• Innovative, inclusive and sustainable financing mechanisms for water need to be implemented

And here are some excerpts from their vision for “The Way Forward”:

There must be ambitious goals and targets which take account of unfinished business and the emerging and future challenges. These goals must inspire and create incentives for a change in behaviour to manage and allocate resources in a sustainable way whose benefits reach every person without discrimination

You’ll be pleased to know that there’s no “overwhelming scientific consensus”, but there was an:

overwhelming participation of stakeholders

which along with their own “deliberations” led this illustrious group to “recognise” that:

water is a prerequisite in the future development framework in order to attain vital economic, equity, employment, health, educational, agriculture/food and energy benefits and for maintaining ecosystems services and supporting resilience to climate change

Not only that, but they have “committed” themselves to:

bringing these messages to the attention of relevant fora, such as the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda

But wait, there’s more that we missed on March 22. There was a Press Release (here come the scary stories and more!):

‘Water Security’: Experts propose a UN definition on which much depends

World Water Day 2013: International year of water cooperation

Amid changing weather and water patterns worldwide and forecasts of more severe transformations to come, calls have been growing for the UN Security Council to include water issues on its agenda.

And there’s rising international support for adopting “universal water security” as one of the Sustainable Development Goals — a set of mid-term global objectives being formulated to succeed the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, agreed by world leaders in 2000 for achievement by 2015.

But what does “water security” mean? The absence of a definition undermines progress in international forums. Marking World Water Day today at UN Headquarters in New York, a common working definition was published, forged by UN and international experts from around the world.

UN-Water, the United Nations’ inter-agency coordination mechanism for all water-related issues, says water security should be defined as:

“The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of and acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability.”

Setting aside the abysmal record of the UN Security Council in even fulfilling its current mandate, isn’t it good to know that it’s only taken twenty years for this group of “experts” to propose a definition?! But, I guess they’re ahead of the “interagency coordination mechanism” for all climate and/or biodiversity-related issues.

You see, last I heard, this particular group (in the run-up to Rio+20) had not even agreed on a definition of “green economy” (let alone the “blue economy“)

But wait! There’s more! This Press Release continues:

“Security has now come to mean human security and its achievement through development. Water fits within this broader definition of security — embracing political, health, economic, personal, food, energy, environmental and other concerns — and acts as a central link between them.”

“Common understanding has central importance in international discussions and water security can’t continue to have a variety of meanings,” says Zafar Adeel, co-chair of the UN-Water Task Force on Water Security and Director of the United Nations University’s Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

“A shared and working definition is needed to get everyone on the same page. Only then can we collectively start to write a coherent response to the challenges.”

“Access to safe water and sanitation is now a fundamental human right. But water management also requires realistic ways of recovering delivery costs. An agreed definition of water security is vitally important in that context.”

Many observers have identified water as an “urgent security issue,” a group that last year included both former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the InterAction Council, an association of 37 former heads of state and government co-chaired by the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada, and H.E. Dr. Franz Vranitzky, former Chancellor of Austria.

According to Mr. Chrétien: “Nothing is more fundamental to life than water. Few issues, therefore, have the potential to create friction more than the management of water shared across international borders, especially now with serious scarcity problems in prospect.”

While he may on rare occasion have written in the manner noted above, anyone who’s ever heard Jean Chretien speak, knows damn well that he does not talk that way! So if this is a “direct quote”, someone’s been putting word salads in his mouth!

But that aside, I would have to say that carbon dioxide is equally fundamental to life – as are other gases and elements. Well, at least it was until the UN – in its infinite “expert” wisdom – decided to embark on an utterly wasteful and harmful path of demonization.

Just imagine if these “experts” had given the matter some thought – prior to foisting on the world the useless Kyoto protocol and the concomitant obsession with the purported (and far from proven) perils of CO₂ which has resulted in costly and inefficient wind turbines and solar panels blighting our landscapes and shamefully increasing the cost of food and energy, which are also fundamental to life.

Had the bureaucrats and politicians (not to mention the “climate scientists”) acted more wisely – and in the public interest, rather than that of firebrands such as Al Gore, David Suzuki, the proliferation of virtually uncountable (and unaccountable) NGOs and the BIG green machine that forged the now corrupted and collapsing UN and/or European Union inspired “innovative financial mechanisms” such as “emissions trading schemes” – we could have invested all those wasted years and billion$ in securing the “fundamental human right” to safe water and sanitation for all.

No demonizing, “definitions” – or redefining – necessary.

=========

A few footnotes of interest …

The contact on the above March 22 Press Release is listed as Terry Collins. Collins was, evidently, the proud author as can be seen from his company website.

Collins’ company also put out the Press Release noted by Donna Laframboise, yesterday, in which they had crafted a rather one-sided story.

But speaking of firebrands, word salads and the UN water front …

About midway through Collins’ March 22 Press Release, (which was presumably widely distributed via EurekAlert) one finds <scary stories alert>:

In 2011, for example, driven largely by water and food shortages linked to drought in the Horn of Africa, almost 185,000 Somalis fled to neighbouring countries. In Sudan, violence broke out in March 2012 in the Jamam refugee camp where large numbers of people faced serious water scarcity. And in South Sudan, entire communities were forced to leave due to scarce water resources as a result of conflict in 2012.

Disasters and conflicts can also affect the physical infrastructure needed to access water, sanitation and hygiene services (water services infrastructure, treatment plants, drainage systems, dams, irrigation channels, etc.), reducing levels of water security.

Water insecurity, therefore, leads to cascading political, social, economic and environmental consequences, the brief says. (For a larger history of water-related conflicts, documented by The Pacific Institute: http://worldwater.org/conflict.html)

But if you follow the link, you’ll see that there’s a typo in the name: it should read the Pacific Institute. Ring any bells?! It should. As the about page indicates, Worldwater.org is:

A project of the Pacific Institute, [...]

which just happens to be the personal fiefdom of Peter Gleick. Gleick’s claim to fame includes writing a review of a book he has not read and even more unethically and notoriously fraudulently obtaining confidential details from another non-profit organization – and promulgating this material, along with an obviously forged word salad, to some of his friends and media contacts.

Small world, eh?!

PAGES2K, Betts and the bee in Bothe’s (biased?) bonnet … and speculations

In my previous post, I had highlighted what appeared to be some inconsistencies that had come to light regarding Nature GeoScience‘s policies and practices, particularly wrt that which they publish as a “Progress Article”.

First, a brief review of the bidding, so to speak …

This all started off on that least desirable of dialogue platforms, twitter – thanks to IPCC Lead Author and U.K. Met Office head of climate impacts, Richard Betts’ decision (for whatever reason) to herald to his followers in the twitterverse:

Steve McIntyre’s comment about “pressure” on Nature to accept PAGES2K seems to be entirely speculation.

Now, put yourself at the keyboard of a newbie. Would you have any idea at all that this “pressure” observation, in context clearly indicated that the author had fully acknowledged that it was speculation? No? Of course not!

So, I took issue with this – particularly since there was so much else in McIntyre’s at that point two – and by now at least four – posts on the PAGES2k paper that Betts could have commented on.

If you follow the discussion, pursuant to my April 23 post, you will see that on April 24, McIntyre subsequently clarified his remarks for Betts’ edification.

Betts’ brief (unthreaded April 24) reply included a statement of the blindlingly obvious as well as a speculation:

Thanks for your comments. We are both working entirely in the dark here, as neither of us actually know what the PAGES2K reviews said, but I would make entirely the opposite presumption to you about the approach of Nature and the reviewers. They would have known full well that you would be certain to subject this paper to considerable scrutiny on Climate Audit and are more likely to take *extra* care in the review process, and definitely not rush it through because of the impending IPCC deadline. IPCC authors, and climate scientists in general, are only too aware that our work is under scrutiny as never before. [emphasis added -hro]

On April 25, Betts’ colleague, Oliver Bothe, subsequently posted a much longer (threaded) reply, in which he had noted that:

I think the synthesis provided by the PAGES2K consortium perfectly fits the scope of a progress-article in Nature Geoscience.

On April 27, McIntyre posted a (threaded) reply to Bothe, in which he had cited Nature GeoScience‘s policy on Progress Articles, in light of which he had concluded:

Now that Dr Bothe has drawn attention to the curious fact that PAGES2K was published as a “Progress Article”, I think that it is entirely possible that one or more of the Nature reviewers, like the Science reviewers, may have recognized the impossibility of careful review of seven reconstructions using multiple methods and that someone therefore had the bright idea of circumventing the problem by labeling PAGES2K as a “Progress Article”, thereby lessening the review burden. Speculation on my part, but perhaps Dr Bothe can ask the authors whether my speculation is correct.

I had closed my earlier comment with the observation “I recommend that readers should not presume that the journal peer review constituted serious due diligence of the PAGES2K article.” Given that Dr Bothe has pointed out that the PAGES2K was merely published as a “Progress Article”, the recommendation seems even more appropriate. [emphasis added -hro]

And then it appeared that the sounds of silence had descended on yet another dangling conversation.

Earlier today, I was alerted to the fact that Bothe had, in fact, responded … but not on this blog – or McIntyre’s! Although I have not mentioned this previously, in Bothe’s tweets and comments that I had read, it struck me that there was a bee in his bonnet! However, I attributed this to the fact that English is not Bothe’s first language – and, therefore, made allowances for it.

It wasn’t until I saw his “reply” on his own blog that I realized that perhaps he really does view skeptics with some hostility! And here’s what stuck out like a sore thumb – at least to my eyes! It was an April 22 tweet (that I had not previously seen), in which he had written:

interestingly null hypothesis in sceptical PAGES2K-wild-guessing is: Climate Science & Publishing corrupted. reasonable null? don’t think so

That seems to be the “prior” from which Bothe had been working all along. In his intro, he had linked to my previous post and prefaced (and concluded) the above tweet with:

To be honest, I have rather few intentions to comment at the blog-post linked above. Therefore, I’ll do it here. Probably I shouldn’t react at all to the but once more just for completeness.

Anyway, I don’t have to say much. The linked blog post is primarily interested in highlighting the too lite review for climate papers. I don’t agree but I don’t know whether it is worth discussing it since this

[Bothe's tweet from above -hro]

still is true.

I would invite anyone to find a post of McIntyre’s in which he had made an allegation that even remotely resembled a declaration that a process is “corrupted” – let alone that of “Climate Science & Publishing”. And, I would add, such an allegation won’t be found in any post of mine either!

Clearly Bothe’s … uh … speculation(!) on the skeptical “null hypothesis” (not to mention his “summary” of a post he has chosen to address behind closed screens, so to speak) is his “prior” or fundamental premise – and his problem. Not Steve McIntyre’s and not mine!

Although it does occur to me that <<speculation alert>> in Bothe’s books any questioning or (Gaia forbid!) speculation on the part of a skeptic is tantamount to an allegation of “corruption”. But more likely it’s a consequence of Bothe’s confirmation bias in overdrive.

Whatever the case may be, these modes of communication – in this instance manifested in the failure to acknowledge McIntyre’s expertise, or to address the validity of his concerns about the implications of the absence of due diligence regarding the statistical underpinning of PAGES2K (and other papers relied on by the IPCC) – is no more conducive to constructive, respectful dialogue than an unwarranted context-free accusation launched via … twitter.

PAGES2K’s Progress and NatureGeoSci‘s peer-review lite

No research paper can ever be considered to be the final word, and the replication and corroboration of research results is key to the scientific process. In studying complex entities, especially animals and human beings, the complexity of the system and of the techniques can all too easily lead to results that seem robust in the lab, and valid to editors and referees of journals, but which do not stand the test of further studies. Nature has published a series of articles about the worrying extent to which research results have been found wanting in this respect. The editors of Nature and the Nature life sciences research journals have also taken substantive steps to put our own houses in order, in improving the transparency and robustness of what we publish. Journals, research laboratories and institutions and funders all have an interest in tackling issues of irreproducibility. We hope that the articles contained in this collection will help. [emphasis added -hro]

CHALLENGES IN IRREPRODUCIBLE RESEARCH

It is certainly not entirely clear from the above whether or not the Nature Group’s climate science related journals fall (perhaps conveniently?!) outside this new, improved umbrella. The absence of any mention of the “complex system” known as “climate” suggests that it will continue to be given an exemption from such enhanced scrutiny.

When one considers all that has come to light since Climategate in November, 2009, it is somewhat of an understatement to suggest that Nature‘s pattern and practice wrt the “transparency and robustness” of the climate science they publish – along with that of Science – is not a record of which either could or should be proud.

Which brings me to some facts that came to light during the discussion on my recent post.

Readers will recall that my post was precipitated, in part, by a tweet I had spotted from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author and U.K. Met Office’s head of “climate impacts”, Richard Betts. The implicit content of Bett’s text (i.e. the subtext) found in his brief … uh … assessment strongly suggested that Betts had failed to see that which was in black and white in front of his very eyes.

According to Betts, Steve McIntyre had evidently committed the unforgivable sin of (… wait for it! …) speculation. Here (again) is the text of Betts’ tweet:

Steve McIntyre’s comment about “pressure” on Nature to accept PAGES2K seems to be entirely speculation.

Here’s McIntyre’s apparently sinful text:

The PAGES2K article has its own interesting backstory. The made-for-IPCC article was submitted to Science last July on deadline eve, thereby permitting its use in the Second Draft, where it sourced a major regional paleo reconstruction graphic. The PAGES2K submission used (in a check-kited version) the Gergis reconstruction, which it cited as being “under revision” though, at the time, it had been disappeared.

The PAGES2K submission to Science appears to have been rejected as it has never appeared in Science and a corresponding article is scheduled for publication by Nature. It sounds like there is an interesting backstory here: one presumes that IPCC would have been annoyed by Science’s failure to publish the article and that there must have been considerable pressure on Nature to accept the article. Nature appears to have accepted the PAGES2K article only on IPCC deadline eve.

So, far from being the revelation Betts had implied, McIntyre had made it quite clear that he was “speculating” – well, clear at least to one who chooses to read rather than “skim” before commenting.

McIntyre dropped by this (usually very) quiet little corner of the blogosphere, to clarify his initial observations for Betts’ edification. His comment included:

One reasonable review response might well have been that the authors should publish their regional reconstructions in specialist journals. And that the authors should publish a detailed analysis of the methodologies in a specialist journal. It seems entirely possible that Science might have taken that position in rejecting the article.

Without the looming IPCC deadline and the prominent use of PAGES2K results by IPCC, I believe that it is entirely reasonable that Nature would have taken a similar position (to my interpretation of Science) and told the authors to split the article up into manageable review pieces. Do I believe that Nature recognized the need for very rapid acceptance and selected reviewers who also recognized the problem? Yes.

Without a set of quality control standards for academic peer review, it is impossible to say whether this process met or did not meet standards. I therefore am not moralizing about whether something was “amiss” in this case. However, I recommend that readers should not presume that the journal peer review constituted serious due diligence of the PAGES2K article.

Richard Betts’ implied that it was somehow “unhealthy” to point this out. I disagree. [emphasis added -hro]

Betts may well have missed this during the course of his daily skim, because he did not respond. His (presumed) friend, fellow scientist Oliver Bothe – known as @geschichtenpost on twitter – did respond, as he subsequently announced to his twitter followers:

Come to work, get DM on twitter, lose nearly three hours of work time. Argh. Well, da code does da work. replied to http://hro001.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/questions-for-a-jewel-in-the-crown-of-u-k-and-global-science/ …

Some might <<gasp>> speculate that there is some connection between the DM [DM = Direct Message, i.e. a private message via twitter], the nearly three hours lost and Bothe’s (quite lengthy) response to McIntyre’s comment noted above. But I couldn’t possibly comment. Bothe began his reply as follows:

To start, yes I am generally unhappy with Steve McIntyre’s speculative tone that to me often implies the accusation of scientific misconduct or corruption of peer review where to me everything is in the scope of peer review (not only in climate science but in science generally). I would like to see his post-publication review submitted as comments to journals and I would appreciate if the journals would consider him as reviewer for reconstruction and proxy-papers.

What Bothe may not realize is that, in this instance, the timing is such that even if McIntyre were inclined to submit his post-publication review as a comment to one or more journals [h/t Jonathan Jones via Bishop Hill], the IPCC “rules” are such that his comments can be ignored, just as they can (according to the IPCC’s new, improved “rules”) when posted on a blog.

Bothe noted (inter alia):

On Steve McIntyre’s comment on peer review in general. Yes, I think he’s right there. But the definition of peer-review is not a priori to try to replicate the results. Maybe Paul Matthews can comment whether mathematical peer review tries to follow each step in a paper and Jonathan Jones may comment on how this is done in the physical sub-fields he’s involved in. The task to ensure the possibility of replication lies with the author. The reviewer highlights gaps. At least that’s my impression. Should that be changed? No. The replication of results is part of the post-publication evaluation and failure to do so should be communicated in comments and possibly lead to retractions or corrections.

Put differently: The authors have to describe their methods so well that an informed reader can replicate their results with her prior knowledge and access to the data. Ideally the authors provide their code (well that should be requested). The reviewers have to check that the description allows the informed reader this replication.

So I am sure that the paper was subject to peer review as tense as average in science. Could it be more thorough. I would say peer-review can always be more detailed.

To my mind, while I don’t disagree with Bothe, is it not then the case that the IPCC’s past (although one hopes not future) claims of reliance on “all peer reviewed literature”, in addition to being false, fails to take into account this built-in deficiency in both the peer review process and the IPCC process – not to mention the myth of the glory, sanctity and superiority of “peer review” as the be-all and end-all of valid “science”?

Bothe had also written:

[In response to McIntyre's:]

One reasonable review response might well have been that the authors should publish their regional reconstructions in specialist journals. And that the authors should publish a detailed analysis of the methodologies in a specialist journal. It seems entirely possible that Science might have taken that position in rejecting the article.

To add speculation to speculation. I assume that the consortium asked Science whether they would be interested before formal submission. That’s common and even encouraged by the glamour-journals. And I can say that the idea was, in principle, to publish the reconstructions in specialist journals and to submit this synthesis paper to one of the “Letter”-journals.

OK, I think I get it, now. Bothe’s presumptions, assumptions and speculations (and, presumably, those of Betts) are kosher; but those of McIntyre – for some reason perhaps best known only to themselves – are not.

Nonetheless, in light of Bothe’s “submit this synthesis paper to one of the ‘Letter’-journals”, I do wonder if Nature Geo-Science is deemed to be a “Letter”-journal and is therefore somewhat lower on the academic publish-or-perish-but-let’s-be- sure-we-meet-IPCC-sweepstakes-deadline totem-pole than others in the Nature and/or Science respective (but, nowadays, decreasingly respected) family of publications.

Moving right along …

[McIntyre had also written:]

Without the looming IPCC deadline and the prominent use of PAGES2K results by IPCC, I believe that it is entirely reasonable that Nature would have taken a similar position (to my interpretation of Science) and told the authors to split the article up into manageable review pieces. Do I believe that Nature recognized the need for very rapid acceptance and selected reviewers who also recognized the problem? Yes.

[To which Bothe had responded:]

Again speculation to speculation. I think the synthesis provided by the PAGES2K consortium perfectly fits the scope of a progress-article in Nature Geoscience. McIntyre’s last question has to be answered with yes, but do I think that prevented a thorough peer review? No. See list of possible alternatives above. [emphasis added -hro]

A few days later, McIntyre responded to Bothe. His reply included the following:

Dr Bothe’s comment about a “Progress Article” was an interesting one. He said: “I think the synthesis provided by the PAGES2K consortium perfectly fits the scope of a progress-article in Nature Geoscience.”

I confess that I had not previously paid note to the fact the PAGES2K article was published as a “Progress Article”, rather than a research article. Nor indeed had I been previously aware of the differences between the two in academic terms. However, given Dr Bothe’s belief that PAGES2K “perfectly fits” the definition of a “Progress Article”, here is Nature’s policy on Progress Articles http://www.nature.com/ngeo/authors/content_types.html

When the discussion is focused on a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review, a Progress article is more appropriate. Progress articles are up to 2,000 words in length, with up to 4 display items (figures, tables or boxes). References are limited to 50. Reviews and Progress articles are commissioned by the editors, but proposals including a short synopsis are welcome.

Reviews and Progress articles are always peer-reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance. They do not include received/accepted dates.

Curiously, although the Policy states that Progress Articles “do not include received/accepted dates”, Nature Geoscience, in apparent violation of this policy, stated that the the PAGES2K article was “Received 9 December 2012; accepted 11 March 2013; published online 21 April 2013″. Reasonable people may differ on why Nature Geoscience violated this particular policy, but I presume that they wished to demonstrate that the article had been “accepted” prior to the IPCC deadline of March 15. (It is also possible that Nature doesn’t actually observe the stated policy.) [emphasis added -hro]

As McIntyre subsequently noted, “… Nature has disregarded its policy on Received/accepted dates on Progress Articles on other non-climate related occasions.”

However, this was not the only part of the Progress Article policy (and/or practice) that Nature Geoscience appears to have waived in this instance. Yes, the number of references is exactly 50 – and by my count there are only 4 display items.

But the word count is a completely different kettle of fish! At 3,617 (including the 167 word abstract, but excluding all headings and narratives included in the 4 display items), this significantly exceeds the 2,000 word limit for a Progress Article.

And it looks as though the answer to my earlier question to Richard Betts:

Or do you have any evidence that this presumed “*extra* care” included the due diligence required? IOW, did the review include any objective examination of the underlying data and methodologies by reviewers whose understanding of (and expertise in) statistics matches that of Steve and/or other contributors to Climate Audit?

a question that he did not answer in his reply, btw, is – in all likelihood and with a high level of confidence (by IPCC standards) – a definite “No”, he has no such evidence. Nor is there any evidence of his presumed “*extra* care”.

Consequently, my vote on the validity of various parties’ respective speculations, presumptions and assumptions goes to McIntyre, who had concluded his response to Bothe as follows:

Dr Bothe said that PAGES2K “perfectly fit” the definition, a definition which recommends Progress Articles for “a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review”. I’m surprised to learn that this is Dr Bothe’s position. My own position is that the field is “mature enough for review” and that PAGES2K therefore did not qualify for the lesser due diligence of a Progress Article – particularly when it was known that IPCC planned to use it.

Now that Dr Bothe has drawn attention to the curious fact that PAGES2K was published as a “Progress Article”, I think that it is entirely possible that one or more of the Nature reviewers, like the Science reviewers, may have recognized the impossibility of careful review of seven reconstructions using multiple methods and that someone therefore had the bright idea of circumventing the problem by labeling PAGES2K as a “Progress Article”, thereby lessening the review burden. Speculation on my part, but perhaps Dr Bothe can ask the authors whether my speculation is correct.

I had closed my earlier comment with the observation “I recommend that readers should not presume that the journal peer review constituted serious due diligence of the PAGES2K article.” Given that Dr Bothe has pointed out that the PAGES2K was merely published as a “Progress Article”, the recommendation seems even more appropriate. [emphasis added -hro]

Has either Betts or Bothe had the courtesy to respond to McIntyre’s reply to Bothe? Not bloomin’ likely!

I’ve no way of knowing whether Bothe has even returned to the thread in the interim. Who knows, perhaps he’s received another DM that is keeping him somewhat preoccupied. Betts, OTOH, seemed to think it was far more important to justify his depiction of McIntyre as “tenacious”. It was evidently my fault for suggesting that the logical solution to the editors’ dilemma would have been to invite McIntyre to be a reviewer. Betts had concurred with my suggestion but then proceeded to … uh … speculate as to why they had not followed this logical path of least resistance. Go figure, eh?!

This is a slight improvement over divergence from Betts’ previous speculation via twitter:

Steve has scientific disagreements, but clearly the reviewers didn’t share those views.

In light of all of the above, it seems to me that whatever their “views” might have been, the reviewers were far from being on the same … uh … page as Steve; i.e. they weren’t even examining that which he has been analyzing. But I digress …

Following a few more tweeted questions and speculations all around, I had eventually responded to Betts:

Hmmm … so review(s) we will never see trump one that we can. [...]

EPILOGUE:

In the meantime, McIntyre has identified additional flaws in the statistical underbelly of PAGES2K. However, a few hours ago, Paul Matthews reported, via Climate Audit:

Nature Geoscience has just announced a ‘Journal Club’, involving a live discussion of the PAGES2k paper on Google+ on May 9th.

See their tweets – they are inviting questions.

Also, they say that the PAGES2k is available free to download to anyone from now until May 10th.

Hmmm … I wonder if this is a customary practice for a mere Progress Article?

Oh well … never a dull moment in the climate change game, eh?!

Federal politicians use non-partisan climate group to meet in ‘safe space’ behind closed doors

Reblogged from National Post | News:

OTTAWA — An all-party committee of federal politicians interested in learning about climate change science is continuing to meet behind the scenes on Parliament Hill, with discreet participation from a few backbench Conservative MPs.

The committee has met on a monthly basis for about two years. But its meetings are secret and its members are reluctant to say who attended and what they discussed.

Read more… 809 more words

See also Donna Laframboise's post on this http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/04/28/secret-climate-meetings/ And my observations in the comments on the NP article.

BREAKING: No comment will be heard from “jewel in the crown” … alarmist headline intact

In my previous post, I had noted (inter alia) that this “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science” was participating in the passive perpetuation of alarmist propaganda.

One notorious example was found in a March 12, 2013 post on the My Climate and Me blog, which (if you read the very fine print on the logo) is produced “in association with” the Met Office.

As of yesterday, the site still showed:

From My Climate and Me April 23, 2013

Although I did observe that there was a comment containing a link to my previous post, in which I had written:

I have yet to see a reasonable explanation from this “jewel in the crown, of British science and global science” as to why:

• they chose to post without examining the so-called “science” on which the press release was based
• they have chosen to leave this clearly alarmist “headline” intact, some six weeks after it was firmly established that it is not supported by the underlying paper

And while Betts did respond:

I don’t know why the headline on the Marcott paper is still there on My Climate and Me. The original post about it was removed at my request. It was a mistake to post about an area of science that the Met Office does not work on – we have asked My Climate and Me to stick to areas of Met Office expertise in future, and they will do this.

this is not exactly what I would call a “reasonable explanation” for either of the points I had noted above.

I didn’t actually check, yesterday, but my recollection is that their Team page (at least on the 23rd) appeared to give top billing to Richard Betts. They’ve changed it (without noting the date):

The Climate Science Advisors assist the My Climate & Me team by helping us answer the questions we receive, but the articles and content of the site does (sic) not necessarily represent their views.

Our Advisors include:

Richard Betts [...]

Top billing now goes to “Rob Hutt – Director & Presenter”. According to his bio:

Areas of expertise:

Communication
Innovation process and creative behaviours
Video Production

Career Background:

Rob joined the Met Office in 2007 as an Aviation Account Manager selling forecast services to the aviation industry. [...] One area in particular that interested Rob was the massive amount of climate science expertise in the Met Office and the difficulties faced when attempting to communicate this complex subject to the public. It was this challenge that prompted Rob to develop My Climate & Me as a new communications channel that aims to bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public.

Well, I have some bad news, folks. The latest and greatest attempt to “bridge the gap” on this passive promotion of alarmist propaganda is an epic fail, IMHO.

Here’s what the post looks like now (well, at least as of 10:56 p.m. PST when I took this screen capture):

From My Climate and Me April 26, 2013

Gee, I wonder where one might find this “extensive media coverage” which highlights the problems with this report – not to mention the over-selling contained in the still intact headline.

Put yourself in front of the monitor of a newbie who happened to stumble across this post at My Climate and Me. Would you have any idea at all from the above that the headline was inaccurate (I’m trying to be diplomatic!) or that one Met Office scientist’s:

(non-palaeo expert) view on Marcott is that it is an interesting attempt to reconstruct temperatures over the last 11000 years or so, but its significance has been over-sold. It does not appear to support claims of “unprecedented rates of warming” because the time resolution is too low. [emphasis added -hro]

And this is the way that the U.K. Met Office – “a jewel in the crown, of British and global science” – chooses to engage and “bridge the gap between climate scientists and the public.”? I’m not sure what “gap” they think they might be “bridging”, but it certainly couldn’t be an ever-widening credibility gap.

Amazing. Simply amazing.