Not surprisingly, the UN Secretary-General announced today that he has a “5 year Action Plan” to ‘build the future we want’. And I’m sure that it’s purely coincidental that this “theme” just happens to echo the title of the “zero draft” of the outcome document for Rio+20. Dated January 10, 2012, this zero draft, is entitled “THE FUTURE WE WANT“. It was:

Submitted by the co-Chairs on behalf of the Bureau in accordance with the decision in Prepcom 2 to present the zero-draft of the outcome document for consideration by Member States and other stakeholders no later than early January 2012.

As part of their “open, transparent and inclusive process, led by member states”, the powers that be behind the UNCSD have made available not only the zero draft but also the 6,000 page “compilation document” which:

serve[s] as [the] basis for the preparation of a zero-draft of the outcome document, to be presented for consideration

For the record, these 6,000 pages appear to have been distilled into a 19 page, 128 paragraph document which constitutes the zero draft “outcome document” currently under review.

It is interesting to note that the UNCSD seems to have a somewhat different (albeit one that more closely approximates the common understanding of the English words used) definition of “open, transparent and inclusive” than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC also claims to conduct an “open, transparent and inclusive” process; yet, as Steve McIntyre has observed, maintaining secrecy of their zero-draft trumps openness and transparency at this stage of the climate change game. Perhaps this secrecy has been deemed necessary to keep under wraps the extent to which Pachauri’s July 2009 “vision” for the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5) has (or has not) been realized:

Climate change needs to be assessed in the context of sustainable development, and this consideration should pervade the entire report across the three Working Groups. In past assessments sustainable development and its various linkages with climate change were seen largely as an add-on. Most governments who have commented on this issue have highlighted the need to treat sustainable development as an overarching framework in the context of both adaptation and mitigation. [emphasis added -hro]

But I digress …

There have been news reports to the effect that “climate change” is not on the agenda for Rio+20.

Needless to say, I have not had an opportunity to review the UNSCD’s 6,000 page “compilation”. But I have read the zero-draft, and such reports would appear to be borne out by the content. Here are some interesting, if not quite telling, word-counts from the 128 paragraphs that survived the distillation of the compilation:

And in case you were wondering … there is no mention of either the IPCC or its “primary client”, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Nor was either of these (rapidly falling stars?!) mentioned** during the course of yesterday’s “Informal Discussions”, according to the quasi-official rapporteurs, the IISD, whose Earth Negotiations Bulletin report of the proceedings indicates that there may be some changes to this zero-draft between now and June.

**However, in the interest of truth in posting, I should note that the representative of the Russian Federation did propose:

creating an intergovernmental panel modeled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to improve cooperation

All of which suggests that, at this point, I may not have been too far off the mark when I had speculated “Move over IPCC … here comes IPBES” – nor when I more recently posed the question: Is the IPCC still relevant to the UNFCCC?. Indeed, in light of the conspicuous absences in this zero-draft of the “outcome document“, one might be forgiven for wondering … How relevant is the UNFCCC to the UNCSD?!

It will be interesting to see how … uh … sustainable … the paragraphs of this zero-draft might be when the final draft is made available for review. IOW, we are left with the really BIG question: how sustainable is sustainablity?!

(Image courtesy of xkcd.com and h/t Jane Coles via Bishop Hill)

Face up to fraud

Many people in science would rather not talk about the problem of research misconduct, much less act on it. After all, who directly involved would benefit from a serious crackdown? Certainly not the institutions at which the misconduct takes place — they are nominally responsible, but can face legal repercussions, embarrassing headlines and a public-relations disaster if they expose cheating academics.
[...]
A big part of the problem is the lack of perceived risk associated with misconduct. Some fraudulent researchers might be sociopaths who don’t care about the rules, but many others simply believe that they can anticipate the outcome of a research project, and see no downside to fabricating the required results to save time, or tweaking results to achieve a stronger signal. Either way, stronger action and punishments are needed to discourage such misbehaviour.
[...]
Could publications such as this one do more to deter cheats? Unfortunately, we are often in no position to flag up even proven cases of misconduct, and thereby highlight the risks that miscreants run with their careers. Yes, it is a journal’s primary job to clean up the literature, but when papers are retracted owing to misconduct, the libel laws (again) often prevent our editors from saying so. We know that this leaves the affected communities frustrated and in the dark. It leaves us frustrated, too.
[...]

They don’t specifically mention “climate science” – but they don’t excuse it, either! And I’m not convinced that “publications such as [Nature]” could not do more to restore integrity to science.

Read the whole article.

University of East Anglia academic calls for radical government measures to safeguard UK future

A University of East Anglia academic is launching a report proposing a ‘super jury’ of ordinary people to act as guardians for the country’s future. The report will be launched at the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon.

The ‘Guardians of the Future’ report by Dr Rupert Read [...] from the university’s School of Philosophy calls for radical constitutional reform to safeguard the basic needs of future generations.

He proposes that a council of randomly picked members of the public, like a jury, should be placed above the House of Lords to oversee all government decisions – with the power of veto to stop legislation which threatens the interests of future generations.

Dr Read’s ‘super-jury’ would also be charged with the power to force a review of existing legislation which is likely to have negative effects for society in future.

The report will be published by Green House – a think tank set up to lead the development of green thinking in the UK. It sets out proposals for how the guardians could be chosen, how many should sit on the council and how long they would serve for.

Dr Read believes his radical idea would stop us bequeathing a damaged and dangerous country to our descendants.

He said: “This report is meant to stimulate debate about how we can represent the interests of future generations within our existing parliamentary democracy.

[...]

“Obviously future generations can’t be given a vote, but I propose that we give them the closest equivalent by creating a council of Guardians of Future Generations – a third legislative house. They would have the power to scrutinise and if necessary veto proposals that they judge would impact negatively on future people’s basic rights.

“The members of this body would be selected by sortition, as is current practice for jury service, to ensure independence from present-day party political interests. They would be free from party pressure, and the pressures of short term electoral cycles, so they would represent a more genuine ‘us’.

[...]

“It sounds radical, but many radical ideas throughout history have come to be accepted as the norm, after at first seeming to be ‘too extreme’ to many people. A good example is recycling – when Greens first called for this, in the 70s and 80s, they were laughed at, but now we all take recycling for granted.”

I haven’t had a chance to read Read’s report, yet, but here’s an excerpt from the summary:

The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that were likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.

Not to worry, though … it’s only a “discussion” paper. And considering Read’s credentials:

[He] works closely with environmental scientists, in eco-philosophy, at UEA. His publications include his popular book, Philosophy for Life: Applying Philosophy in Politics and Culture. He was a Green Party Councillor from 2004-2011, and helped write the first draft of the Green 2009 Euro-election manifesto. He blogs on environmental reframing at Green Words.

and the credentials of his Green House colleagues … What’s not to like, eh?!

I thank my lucky stars that there’s an ocean between us. Not to mention that here in Canada, at least, there are signs of more down-to-earth developments. As Terence Corcoran reported in today’s National Post:

A war on green ‘radicals’

Never before has a Canadian politician challenged the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language
[...]
It is a cliché in journalism to declare metaphorical wars at the drop of a news release. In this case, it looks like war is exactly what Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver launched Monday in an unprecedented open letter warning that Canada will not allow “environmental and other radical groups” to “hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

What a welcome war this is. Never before has a Canadian politician challenged the hitherto saintly protectors of the environment in such direct language. More importantly, Mr. Oliver took straight aim at a troubling trend in Canadian environmentalism — the foreign funding of Canadian green activist groups with the express purpose of shutting down Canadian resource development — first documented in the National Post by Vancouver investigative writer Vivian Krause.

“These groups,” said Mr. Oliver, “seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects. They use funding from foreign special interests to undermine Canada’s national economic interest. They attract jet-setting celebrities with some of the largest personal carbon footprints in the world to lecture Canadians not to develop our natural resources.”
[...]

Seems that that the U.K.’s Read was inspired by developments in Hungary – while Canada’s Oliver was very uninspired by developments in Obama’s USA. Radical constitutional reform or war on green radicals? I know which horse I’m backing!

Fortunately, though, life does go on … Tallbloke’s computers have been returned to him … and the recognition and success of Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (TDT) continues to spread far and wide!

If you read German (sorry, I don’t) you can find a review of TDT by Steffen Heinrich of Okowatch. You might also be interested in an Okowatch interview with Donna (in English or German). One of the highlights of this interview:

Your book drew a lot of interest and praise among readers. What about your critics? Did they object much?

My book is less than three months old. To be honest, I have been so busy promoting it that I have had little opportunity to read firsthand much of the praise or the criticism.

It is noteworthy that the IPCC has not responded in any way. It appears to be pretending that my book doesn’t exist. The IPCC is very good at that. For many years it has pretended that eminent skeptical scientists such as Freeman Dyson don’t exist, either.

Blogging for me will be light (to non-existent) for the next week, as I get caught up (and redo some work I had neglected to back-up!) … but if you’re looking for some amusement, you might like this (somewhat lengthy) video [h/t Smokey via WUWT]:

Enjoy :-)

Why this could not have been done on site, with far less inconvenience to one whom they’ve declared is not a suspect, and why this “cloning” has not yet been completed and Tallbloke’s equipment returned to him, are questions that one sincerely hopes will be answered in the fullness of time.

In the meantime, several bloggers have written about this – and related events – since Tallbloke first broke the news on December 14. And, as I had noted a few days ago, the MSM seem to have suddenly noticed Climategate 2.0:

[...] this incident seems to have generated far more interest from the MSM (including the CBC!) than the actual release of the CG2 emails on Nov. 22, and I suspect will encourage even more people to begin their own exercises in due diligence regarding the messages of doom and gloom.

Donna Laframboise has summarized these events in her post today (which also includes a fully linked version of a great piece she had written for the National Post, on December 20, regarding the involvement of the US Department of Justice).

But one thing that I have not seen highlighted throughout the commentaries I’ve read, is the curious timing of the involvement of The Guardian‘s “features journalist and editor”, Leo <free speech for me and no comment from thee when it doesn’t suit me> Hickman – and his failure to verify prior to posting. Hickman’s partner in alarmism is Damian Carrington (another Guardian “journalist” of the green persuasion not known for fact-checking) who was responsible for The Guardian‘s “exclusive” preview of the notorious October 2010 “No Pressure” video.

Bearing in mind the above, as well as The Guardian‘s rather uncanny ability to get the jump on much of the reportage that contributed to the Murdochmania media-frenzy last summer, and the questionably close relationship between some elements of the U.K. press and U.K. law enforcement officials (not the least of which is perhaps best illustrated by the ease with which former News of The World honcho, Neil Wallis succeeded in crossing so many boundaries) … Consider the following …

November 22:

Climategate 2.0 emails released by FOIA (whom I prefer to call The Saint) with announcement and download link placed on various non-alarmist blogs (including Roger Tattersall’s Tallbloke’s Talkshop, JeffId’s The Air Vent, Anthony Watts’ WUWT, and Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit)

November 23:

Damian Carrington, who seems to have appointed himself as The Guardian‘s “expert” on what constitutes a “real scandal”, declared:

Failure to catch climate email hacker is the real scandal
While evidence of global warming grows ever clearer, we are still in the dark over who is putting climate scientists’ emails online

As an aside, it was when I attempted to post a comment in response to this post of Carrington’s that I found that, for some strange reason, any comment from me is now subject to “pre-moderation”. Since the last comment I had made in response to a Carrington post – or indeed anywhere on the Guardian site – was merely to politely ask him (for the second time, since he had ignored my first request) to correct an error his July 28/11 blogpost – in which he had declared another “real scandal” – I can only conclude that Carrington’s advocacy overrides any interest in journalistic inegrity or accuracy. It would have been nice if someone at the Guardian had sent me a note explaining why this second attempt had been deleted (and comments from me placed on “pre-moderation”). But I digress …

November 25:

Hickman “invited” his readers to:

Help us find clues in climate email hacker’s message A README.txt file left by ‘FOIA’ with the hacked emails that were dumped online this week contains tantalising clues

The invitation generated 225 responses during the “open window” period … which didn’t last very long, as comments were closed at 5:00 p.m. GMT. It is not known how long the E-mail address (to which readers could also direct responses) remained active and/or was monitored.

It is worth noting that when challenged on the “hack” labelling, Hickman engaged in the Team’s – by now tried and true – exercise in redefining the meaning of commonly understood English words. When asked:

“Can you also present your evidence that this was a hack and not a leak?”

Hickman responded:

Please let’s not get distracted by the whole “hack/leak” debate again. The Guardian has used the term “hack” for this story since the beginning as a generic term

I’m not sure what Hickman’s new, improved definition of “generic” might be, but his assertion is certainly at odds with two “Related Items” that are linked on the very same page as his post:

To the best of my knowledge, Hickman did not post any follow-up which would indicate that any of the comments or emails he received in response to this November 25 “crowd-sourcing” effort, yielded any information that was, well, post-worthy. Unless one wants to count yet another Hickman <free speech for me and no comment from thee when it doesn’t suit me> post

November 29:

Secret message hidden among fresh climate email files
Folder containing second tranche of emails taken from University of East Anglia server included a message from the perpetrator in an encrypted text file

Certainly, there was nothing significant in Hickman’s post that hadn’t been known in the non-alarmist blogosphere since, well, Nov. 22. Although one might wonder about the “secret message” he thought might be conveyed by the image of “A fallen tree [which] lies in the Mongolian desert” which accompanied this very old news. Yet for some reason, perhaps best known only to himself, sometime on or before …

December 5:

Hickman (or someone from The Guardian posing as an “investigative journalist”) decided to “interview” Tallbloke. In Tallbloke’s words:

I have been put in contact with a journalist from the warmer side of the UK press. He was interested in knowing about anything which might help discover the identity of the Climategate whistleblower, or as he referred to them ‘ the hacker’, and why ‘foia’ might have chosen ‘the Talkshop’ to place a link to the server where he had uploaded the FOIA2011.zip file rather than another ‘higher profile’ UK climate blog.

[followed by Tallbloke's response, which is well worth reading in full and included:]

Investigative journalists also have a duty to follow the trail of interdependent public and private bodies and NGO’s which make use of public money, especially when large sums of it are never seen again and no accounting is forthcoming.

In my opinion that is the bigger story waiting out there, rather than the discovery of the identity of the person who chose to pull the dirty laundry out of the closet.
[...]
[and to which post Tallbloke subsequently appended the following:]

The investigative journalist in question thanked me for my response, and for my wider views, which I’m grateful he took the time to read, although he chose not to respond to them.

It may just be coincidence that (as the Norfolk Constabulary subsequently told Tallbloke), at the request of Norfolk’s finest (or perhaps the Metropolitan Police and/or the National Domestic Extremism Team who had been providing “assistance” to Norfolk’s finest since they first began their “investigation” two years ago) a mere four days later …

December 9:

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) issued a “Request for Preservation of Records” via electronic mail to WordPress’ parent company. This letter, addressed to the attention of “law-enforcement[at]wordpress.com” is dated December 9, but we do not know when it was actually sent to or received by WordPress. The content included:

I request that you not disclose the existence of this request to the subscriber or any other person, other than as necessary to comply with this request. If compliance with this request might result in a permanent or temporary termination of service to the Accounts, or otherwise alert any user of the Accounts as to your actions to preserve the information described below, please contact me as soon as possible and before taking action. [emphasis added -hro]

Which suggests that there may have been some discussion or negotiation prior to …

December 13:

When WordPress forwarded this DoJ request to Tallbloke, Jeff (and presumably Steve McIntyre).

December 14:

The police arrive at Tallbloke Towers – and Roger posts the news.

December 15:

In an unecessarily misleading and erroneous account of the police raid, Hickman also wrote:

During an interview with the Guardian last week before the seizing of his computers, Tattersall said that he had been questioned by Norfolk police “some two months” after the initial breach in 2009, but had heard nothing since. A number of climate scientists and bloggers are known to have been questioned by the police. [emphasis added -hro]

December 16:

When I saw Roger’s post regarding Hickman’s factual inaccuracy, I followed his link to Hickman’s article – and then went off in search of this “interview” on the Guardian site, where I found nothing. So I asked Roger about this “interview” and he responded:

Leo asked me in email why my blog was chosen rather than a higher profile uk site. I told him maybe it was because I made one of the FOI requests to CRU back in 2009 and because of this, I was one of the people contacted for a telephone interview by Norfolk police in early 2010. I probably said “some two months” off the cuff from (dodgy post crash) memory. I speculated that because I had commented about that on Climate Audit, FOIA might have chosen me as a recipient for the link comment, or it was just a random blog roll click from another site, or FOIA likes my science.
:-)

You can read the exact words and the rest of what I said to him here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/opinion-foia-and-where-its-at-with-the-global-warming-issue/ [see also December 5, above -hro]

Within a few hours of Roger’s post, at 9:11 a.m. Hickman posted a comment, in which he wrote:

Thanks for clarifying that about WordPress. I will try and get that reworded as soon as possible.

December 17:

At 8:07 a.m. Roger posted a comment in the same thread indicating that a “corrected” version had appeared – and that it was (IMHO) even worse than the original. He even provided a suggested re-write:

I’ll give the Guardian one more opportunity to get it right before I get my solicitor to send them a letter copied to the Press Complaints Commission. They just shouldn’t be this sloppy when reporting on legal matters which can seriously affect people’s livelihood.

This would be my suggested rewrite:

“Both Tattersall and a US-based climate sceptic blogger known as Jeff Id said they had received a copy of a “formal notice” sent to blogging platform WordPress.com by the US Department of Justice’s criminal division, dated 9 December. This requested that Automattic inc, owners of WordPress.com preserve “all stored communications, records, and other evidence in your possession” related to the two blogs for Nov 22/23rd, as well as those for Climate Audit, a climate sceptic blog run by a Canadian mining consultant called Steve McIntyre.”

This prompted a rather long and convoluted defensive comment from Hickman an hour later, in which he blamed the delay on “[his] editors”.

Finally, at 4:00 p.m., Roger received an E-mail from Hickman indicating that a further change had been made and an additional explanatory note appended. Roger – who, I must say, was far more gracious than I think I would have been in such circumstances – thanked Hickman and closed the thread to further comments.

So I didn’t get a chance to ask:

Wait a minute! According to The Guardian … Leo Hickman is a “features journalist and editor” How many “editors” does an “editor” need in order to make a correction to a paragraph that could have been written with greater clarity and accuracy the first time?

Well, at least it would have been, had the “features journalist and editor” either read the available material more carefully, or chosen to exercise due diligence by verifying before making such a potentially damaging statement.

Had he done so, he could also have spared a few bloggers (of the ultra green persuasion) the embarrassment of having to eat their words (and in at least one instance, eventually remove a post) by which they had uttered a baseless and defamatory assertion.

And considering the timeline above, I’d also be very interested in knowing with whom Hickman decided to share the non-published December 5 “interview” noted above. Wouldn’t you?

In the meantime, perhaps Hickman should take some lessons from Donna Laframboise, so he can learn how a real investigative journalist practices due diligence and verification – before going to print. Even on the simple matter of the raid at midnight meme, Donna checked with Roger, so that her article (unlike Hickman’s) was right – the first time.

UPDATE: 12/22/2011 10:30 AM PST

It seems that I’m not the only one who’s interested in knowing with whom (and when) Hickman might have shared the December 5 non-published “interview”. In a comment below, Roger has provided some additional details, which I’m adding here, for the record:

I have asked Leo straight out if he had any form of communication regarding me with the police between my email exchange with him (he never told me it was an ‘interview’) and the raid on my home.

He denies it:

“No. Bishop Hill asked me that via Twitter yesterday and I confirmed it to him too. Why, do you have evidence that suggests otherwise? Very curious to know where this suspicion has come from.”

To which I replied:
“Just an unhappy close coincidence of events I guess. I hadn’t made any such suggestion to Andrew by the way.” [emphasis added -hro]

This raises another question, in my mind: How ethical is it for a journalist to claim that a response to an E-mail question is an “interview”?

Many are finding that, well, it’s just as bad as – if not worse than – we thought. By way of example, David Holland, in a guest post at Bishop Hill, provided some additional context for one of the more publicized facts that came out of Climategate 1.0 (CG1), Phil Jones’s May 29/2008 exhortation to his colleague, Michael Mann:

subject: Re: IPCC & FOI

Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
Cheers
Phil

To anyone who has followed the “findings” of the various “enquiries” pursuant to CG1, it would appear that they treated this particular E-mail as if it were a “hot potato” that they kept tossing under the table from one to another! Typically, this was done by asking the wrong questions of the wrong parties (in order to ensure that the right answer would eventually emerge).

Following on the heels of Holland’s post on Bishop Hill, Steve McIntyre expands on The Team’s … uh … contributions to “transparency” in the IPCC process. Included in McIntyre’s account, is a string of correspondence circa June 5/08 which involved Jones and his colleagues Tom Wigley and Ben Santer. Earlier in this particular string, one finds Jones writing [4885.txt]:

An annoying email from yesterday is attached! We will likely be replying in a similar vein to our earlier, saying emails between CLAs and LAs for Ch 6 were in confidence. We have emails from all in Ch 6 to say the group doesn’t want emails made available. We will refer Holland to WG1 in Boulder – knowing that there is likely only one person there keeping things ticking over till the TSU closes – which it may have.

IPCC will have to alter those work guidelines to stop this sort of thing next time. I’ll be raising it with whoever is the next Susan [Solomon]. Decision in early Sept – news is it will be one of Tom Karl, Ram, Brian Hoskins or Thomas Stocker. [emphases added -hro]

[Sidebar: For the record, Stocker got the nod as Co-Chair of Working Group 1 (WG1) for the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report (AR5), although how he was chosen (and/or by whom), to the best of my knowledge, remains a mystery.]

And, proving that he is a man of his word, Jones appears to have “raised the matter” with Stocker:

From 2440.txt, June 24/09 Jones to Stocker [h/t Paul Matthews]:

I was in Boulder last week and I spoke to Susan [Solomon - Co-Chair of WG1 for AR4]. We agreed that the only way IPCC can work is the collegiate way it did with AR4.

These people know they are losing (or have lost) on the science. They are now going for the process. All you need to do is to make sure all in AR5 are aware of the process and that they adhere to it. We all did with AR4, but these people read much more into the IPCC procedures. [emphases added -hro]

The “collegiate way” seems to prefigure Muir Russell’s get Jones and Briffa off the hook “team-work sidestep” which also seems to have found its way into the IPCC’s toothless Conflict of Interest “principle based” Guidelines. But I digress …

It would appear that not only are we peons expected to deal with the dictates of “post normal science” – and “redefinitions” of many commonly understood words in the English language (including, it would seem, “transparency”) – but we are also expected to engage in “post normal reading comprehension”, in order to avoid the pitfalls of “read[ing] much more into the IPCC procedures” which, as now we know, they are at liberty to “disappear” as they see fit!

No doubt Donna Laframboise will have to completely rewrite The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. And the InterAcademy Council (IAC) should be called upon to rewrite its 2010 Report on the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC, because they obviously failed to take into account the manner in which Jones (and presumably others of The Team who are equally dedicated to “the cause”) have determined that the IPCC rules should be read!

And speaking of how things should be read … Stocker (who seems to have his fingers in many IPCC pies and has wasted little time before engaging in “non-policy-prescriptive” pronouncements such as, “the planet might be better off if [gas prices] soared to ‘three to four’ times its current level”) has taken it upon himself to determine how the Aarhus Convention should be read.

First, from Wikipedia’s helpful description:

The Aarhus Convention grants the public rights regarding access to information, public participation and access to justice, in governmental decision-making processes on matters concerning the local, national and transboundary environment. It focuses on interactions between the public and public authorities.
[...]

The Three Pillars

1. Access to information: any citizen should have the right to get a wide and easy access to environmental information. Public authorities must provide all the information required and collect and disseminate them and in a timely and transparent manner. They can refuse to do it just under particular situations (such as national defence) [10]; [11] UNECE, 2006)

2. Public participation in decision making: the public must be informed over all the relevant projects and it has to have the chance to participate during the decision-making and legislative process. Decision makers can take advantage from people’s knowledge and expertise; this contribution is a strong opportunity to improve the quality of the environmental decisions, outcomes and to guarantee procedural legitimacy [12][13]

3. Access to justice: the public has the right to judicial or administrative recourse procedures in case a Party violates or fails to adhere to environmental law and the convention’s principles. [14][15]

Now, for Stocker’s “expert” opinion regarding how this should be read [2440.txt Stocker to Jones circa May 5/09]:

However, the Arhus Resolution (sic), it seems to me, had another motivation: open access to environmental data associated with damage, spills, pollution; the latter word is mentioned twice -”climate” never. So to take this convention and turn it around appears to me like a perversion.

One important point to consider is whether Arhus really applies to the IPCC activities. In no way are we involved in decision making. We assess and provide scientific information. The decision makers are elsewhere. More than ever need we be aware of this separation! [emphases added -hro]

I suppose it’s possible that Stocker’s “Arhus Resolution” (sic) is different from the 1998 “Aarhus Convention”; but somehow I doubt it. With such a “creative” interpretation – notwithstanding the IPCC’s willingness to permit anyone to self-nominate as an “expert reviewer” – I shall be very surprised if any of the WG reports produced over the next few years will demonstrate anything other than that the Climate Change Game™ continues to be Monopoly: the IPCC version.

OTOH … in the past few years the IPCC seems to have fallen off its pedestal; as I noted the other day, even its ‘primary customer’, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) doesn’t appear to care too much what the IPCC has to say.

Notwithstanding the Norfolk Constabulary’s inexplicable – and very heavy-handed – raid on a U.K. blogger’s “home and castle” last week, there are other indications that the world may yet unfold as it should.

I note with some irony that this incident seems to have generated more far more interest from the MSM (including the CBC!) than the actual release of the CG2 emails on Nov. 22, and I suspect will encourage even more people to begin their own exercises in due diligence regarding the messages of doom and gloom.

Pierre Gosselin advises that in February 2012, a new book by two German scientists will be published that is likely to upset those of the green persuasion. According to Gosselin’s paraphrase, this book – which includes citations from WUWT and ClimateAudit – concludes (as would anyone with an open mind who has read Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager …):

“The IPCC is in error, the models are bogus, and the climate catastrophe is not coming. The climate debate has to be started anew.” [emphasis added -hro]

And closer to home, on the heels of Canada’s announced withdrawal from the Kyoto Accord, Dr. Ross McKitrick made a very timely (Dec. 15) presentation to the Canadian Senate Committee on Energy,the Environment and Natural Resources. In concluding his ten-minute testimony, McKitrick noted:

[...] One of the most telling emails in the so-called Climategate 2.0 archive that was just released last month involves one IPCC expert warning another that their efforts to finesse this issue by deceptive trend analysis is a “fools paradise.”

Today you have a chance to hear from a number of serious Canadian scientists about work that they and their colleagues have done that also calls into question aspects of the IPCC party line. The fact that you have learned little of what they are about to tell you does not indicate any deficiencies in the research they or their colleagues have done. Instead it points to the deficiencies in the process that was supposed to have brought this information to your attention long before now. [emphasis added -hro]

[You can watch a replay of the proceedings (fast forward to approx. 20 minutes for start of hearing)]

All in all – despite IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri’s oh-so-humourous pronouncement that skeptics should be given a one-way ticket to outer space – it’s been a good week for those of the climate realist persuasion.

My main question at this point is whether the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC is relevant to what is going on at this point with the UNFCCC? If the AR5 has higher confidence in its findings, does that matter? Does it matter whether the sensitivity estimates move up or down? I suspect that the answer is no.

My short answer, Dr. Curry, is that I’m not at all convinced that – from the UNFCCC’s perspective – the answer to either of these questions ever mattered! And here’s my (somewhat) longer answer …

A few days ago, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I had observed:

I’ve often wondered why it is – since “the science” on which the UNFCCC claims to rely has determined that “unprecedented” global warming is “unequivocal” and that human-generated CO2 is the primary “cause” (so the “experts” and media mavens keep telling us ad nauseam) – that the UNFCCC has not said, “Thank you very much, IPCC, you’ve given us everything we asked for. Now you can retire … or move on to the next scare”.

Maybe the IPCC and the UNFCCC long ago lapsed – well-past a tipping-point – into an irremediable state of co-dependency.

The IPCC seems to need the UNFCCC for its “make work” projects, while the UNFCCC seems to need the IPCC (as I had noted) so that it can claim to be depending on (or “informed by” which seems to be the current phrasing of choice) “science”.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting to spring a surprise quiz on all the delegates in order to determine how many of them had actually read (and understood!) even the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Fourth Assessment Report (not to mention any of the “science” on which it was based).

The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) “A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations” is produced by a group called IISD – which does have its own biases, and needless to say they are on the “green” side. They have provided an extensive summary of the Durban deliberations.

In this 34 page, 30,000+ word summary, the IPCC rates six mentions. From their PDF version of this webpage, here they are.

Please note: Headings following page numbers are those I’ve tracked back within the document and have inserted for the purpose of context and all emphases are mine.

The first mention of the IPCC to my mind, doesn’t really count, because the context is merely part of the the history and background, but which I’m citing in full for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the outcomes from last year’s Conference of the Parties (COP):

P. 2 [CANCUN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE]

Following four preparatory meetings in 2010, the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, took place from 29 November to 11 December 2010. By the end of the conference, parties had finalized the Cancun Agreements, which include decisions under both negotiating tracks. Under the Convention track, Decision 1/CP.16 recognized the need for deep cuts in global emissions in order to limit global average temperature rise to 2°C. Parties also agreed to consider strengthening the global long-term goal during a review by 2015, including in relation to a proposed 1.5°C target. They took note of emission reduction targets and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) communicated by developed and developing countries, respectively (FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1 and FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, both issued after Cancun). Decision 1/CP.16 also addressed other aspects of mitigation, such as measuring, reporting and verification (MRV); reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+).

Parties also agreed to establish several new institutions and processes, such as the Cancun Adaptation Framework and the Adaptation Committee, as well as the Technology Mechanism, which includes the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). On finance, Decision 1/CP.16 created the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which was designated to be the new operating entity of the Convention’s financial mechanism and is to be governed by a board of 24 members. Parties agreed to set up a Transitional Committee tasked with the Fund’s detailed design, and established a Standing Committee to assist the COP with respect to the financial mechanism. They also recognized the commitment by developed countries to provide US$30 billion of fast-start finance in 2010-2012, and to jointly mobilize US$100 billion per year by 2020.

Under the Protocol track, Decision 1/CMP.6 included agreement to complete the work of the AWG-KP and have the results adopted by the CMP as soon as possible and in time to ensure there will be no gap between the first and second commitment periods. The CMP urged Annex I parties to raise the level of ambition of their emission reduction targets with a view to achieving aggregate emission reductions consistent with the range identified in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Parties also adopted Decision 2/CMP.6 on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

The mandates of the two AWGs were extended to the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban.

As you read through the “official mentions” in this quasi-official record, see if you can guess two particular mentions that – IMHO, based on activities during the past year – one would have expected to find but are somewhat conspicuous by their absence!

P. 9 [OTHER MATTERS REFERRED BY THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES (TO COP)]

RESEARCH AND SYSTEMATIC OBSERVATION

This agenda item (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.8, FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.8/Add.1 and FCCC/SBSTA/2011/MISC.14) was taken up in the SBSTA plenary on 29 November. SBSTA [UNFCCC Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice -hro] conclusions and a draft COP decision were adopted on 3 December. The COP adopted the decision on 9 December.

SBSTA Conclusions: In its conclusions (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/ L.27), the SBSTA welcomes the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Weather Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation and invites parties and international and regional research programmes to provide information on technical and scientific aspects of, inter alia, emissions by sources and removals by sinks.

COP Decision: In the decision (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/L.27/Add.1), the COP urges parties and invites regional and international research programmes to discuss needs, and convey findings from, climate change research.

The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Weather Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation seems to have made its way through the maze to become incorporated in a “COP Decision” via:

P. 10 [OTHER MATTERS REFERRED BY THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES (TO COP)]

[...]

NAIROBI WORK PROGRAMME:

This issue was first addressed in the opening SBSTA plenary on 28 November. The EU supported making the Nairobi Work Programme (NWP) more relevant for practitioners. Delegates were briefed on the recent IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.

This November 28 “briefing” appears to be a reference to a Statement by Renate Christ. Here are some excerpts:

SBSTA-35, Agenda Item 3
Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change (NWP)
Statement by Ms. Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC
Durban, South Africa, 28 November 2011

Completion of the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
[...]
Allow me to highlight a few key findings of the assessment that are relevant for the NWP:

A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.

There is evidence from observations gathered since 1950 of change in some extremes particularly daily temperature extremes, and heat waves.

Confidence in projecting future changes in the direction and magnitude of climate extremes depends on many factors, including the type of extreme, the region and season, the amount and quality of observational data and the level of understanding of the underlying processes.
[...]
- It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe.

– Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although not in all ocean basins. However, it is also likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.

– There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas.

– It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels.

– There is high confidence that changes in heat waves, glacial retreat and permafrost degradation will affect high mountain phenomena such as slope instabilities and glacial lake outburst floods.

[Ms. Christ concludes:]

Opportunities exist to create synergies in international finance for disaster risk management and adaptation to climate change. Integration of local knowledge with additional scientific and technical knowledge can improve disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.

To conclude – interactions among climate change mitigation, adaptation, and disaster risk management may have a major influence on resilient and sustainable pathways.

I cannot imagine why – on the strength of the above – the delegates to the COP weren’t on their feet unanimously declaiming that ‘it’s worse than we thought, and we must act now!’ You don’t suppose it’s because “the science” has given them absolutely no reason to do so? Nah, couldn’t be!

P. 16 [14th Session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA)]

ENHANCED ACTION ON MITIGATION DEVELOPED COUNTRY MITIGATION:

This item was considered during informal consultations co-facilitated by Karine Hertzberg (Norway) and José Alberto Garibaldi Fernandez (Dominican Republic). The issues discussed were: the level of ambition, biennial reports, and international assessment and review (IAR). Many parties expressed willingness to begin drafting on the basis of the non-papers from Panama. The EU suggested that the decision focus on: recognizing and establishing a process to narrow the ambition gap; an international, common rules-based accounting system; and a process to understand the assumptions underlying current pledges.
[...]
On accounting, Australia supported a common accounting framework for all parties. The EU said common accounting rules are key to increasing ambition and ensuring transparency. The US said the development of such rules was not mandated by the Cancun Agreements and suggested they be based on IPCC methodologies.

I’m not sure quite what to make of the above, except perhaps that the UNFCCC might have a fixed quota of IPCC mentions that must be adhered to in quasi-official reports of the deliberations of this body and its numerous committees and sub-groups.

P. 24 [Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP)]

Parties met in diverse fora to address outstanding text, and on 11 December the CMP closing plenary adopted a decision. CMP Decision: In its decision (FCCC/KP/AWG/2011/L.3/Add.2) the CMP, inter alia:

• decides that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks shall be accounted with the principles and definitions referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Decision 2/CMP.6 and in accordance with the annex to the decision;

• invites the IPCC to review and, if necessary, update supplementary methodologies for estimating anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions; and

• agrees to consider the need to revise decisions of the CMP relevant to the annex contained, including those related to reporting and review.

P. 28 [Durban Outcome]

This decision (FCCC/CP/2011/L.10) on the Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, is part of the Durban Package, and launches a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties, through a new subsidiary body under the Convention known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, starting its work in the first half of 2012.The decision also, inter alia:
[...]
decides that the process shall raise the level of ambition and shall be informed, inter alia, by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the outcomes of the 2013-2015 Review and the work of the subsidiary bodies;

In case you were wondering, The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action appears to be the latest and greatest in the UN stable of acronymic offspring – although it hasn’t yet officially landed in the “Glossary” [As a public service, I offer this cheat-sheet screen capture of this Glossary]. But I digress …

Some excerpts from the IPCC’s chosen spin on the Durban Outcome:

Statement by the IPCC
13 December 2011

Action must be taken swiftly to cut emissions to prevent a damaging rise in world temperatures, Climate Panel findings show

Governments meeting at the annual climate conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decided to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, but not later than 2015, to be adopted and come into force from 2020. At the same time they recognized the need to raise their collective level of ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep the average global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been asked what impact these agreements will have on global warming.
[...]
But already in its fourth assessment report published in 2007, the IPCC showed that a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius could have a damaging effect on water supplies, biodiversity, food supplies, coastal flooding and storms and health.

[And to the surprise of very few, I would imagine, the IPCC concluded (in its inimitable "non-policy-prescriptive" way)]

This must be borne in mind in the package. The earlier action is taken, the cheaper and more effective it will be.

One thing that struck me as I was reading through this summary was the apparent phasing out of the previously ubiquitous “target(s)” [only 22 instances] in favour of the evidently new, improved buzzword/buzzphrase “ambition / level(s) of ambition” [47 instances].

“Mechanism(s)” are still very much in favour [50 instances] – as is “finance/financial” [80 instances].

This tsunami of mechanisms and finance/financial almost drowns out “science” – which [at a lowly 4 instances] rates even fewer mentions than the IPCC!

As for the conspicuous absences I mentioned earlier … Let me preface my observations by noting that both of these could be innocent oversights – and they may well have been mentioned in the ENB reports on the days on which they occurred. But those IISD folks are fairly thorough in their reporting, so at the very least such absences in the summary are somewhat puzzling!

The first is that there is no mention of the IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) which was introduced to the world with much fanfare and many errors) earlier this year.

The second of these conspicuous absences is the fact that there is no mention of IPCC Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri – who once declared that the UNFCCC is the IPCC’s ‘primary customer’. He did have a “Statement” prepared, evidently for delivery on November 30, which he began as follows:

Madame Chairperson, Distinguished Delegates, Members of Civil Society, Members of the Media, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for this opportunity!

When I had the privilege of addressing this august gathering at the opening session of COP 16, as indeed I did at the opening sessions of previous COPs, I highlighted some of the projected and possible impacts of climate change. Based on the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), I had mentioned, for instance, that “approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperatures exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius”, and also that “anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change. Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply meters of sea level rise, major changes in coast lines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands”.

Could it be that the UNFCCC has decided that its dependency on the “science” produced by this, well, Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is no longer appropriate – or required?!

Perhaps the UNFCCC is in the process of throwing the IPCC under the proverbial bus – in the hopes of saving its own skin? And don’t forget that the IPCC’s younger sibling, the IPBES, is still waiting in the wings.

This might be why, in the US, NASA appears to have jumped onto the biodiversity bandwagon, already [h/t Peter Walsh via Bishop Hill]

This might also be why Joseph Alcamo, the UNEP’s Chief Scientist, and former climate consensus coordinator par excellence was heard on CBC radio’s The Current giving us the Next chorus, next verse … a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

In the meantime, I don’t know about you, but I’d really like to take a much closer look before leaping – as these “experts” (along with their acolytes and lesser lights) are perennially exhorting us to do.

The Press Release (ready-made for green churnalist spin) included the following:

The package includes the Green Climate Fund, an Adaptation Committee designed to improve the coordination of adaptation actions on a global scale, and a Technology Mechanism, which are to become fully operational in 2012 (see below for details).

Whilst pledging to make progress in a number of areas, governments acknowledged the urgent concern that the current sum of pledges to cut emissions both from developed and developing countries is not high enough to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius.

They therefore decided that the UN Climate Change process shall increase ambition to act and will be led by the climate science in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and the global Review from 2013-2015.

“While it is clear that these deadlines must be met, countries, citizens and businesses who have been behind the rising global wave of climate action can now push ahead confidently, knowing that Durban has lit up a broader highway to a low-emission, climate resilient future,” said the UNFCCC Executive Secretary. [emphasis added -hro]

I’ve often wondered why it is – since “the science” on which the UNFCCC claims to rely has determined that “unprecedented” global warming is “unequivocal” and that human-generated CO2 is the primary “cause” (so the “experts” and media mavens keep telling us ad nauseam) – that the UNFCCC has not said, “Thank you very much, IPCC, you’ve given us everything we asked for. Now you can retire … or move on to the next scare”.

Maybe the IPCC and the UNFCCC long ago lapsed – well-past a tipping-point – into an irremediable state of co-dependency. But I digress …

It will be interesting to see, in the weeks ahead, how much air-time is given to reading the tea-leaves and entrails in the aftermath of Durban. In the meantime, here are two takes I’ve come across. The first is from Mark Lynas, whose green-coloured glasses have led him to conclude:

The verdict on Durban – a major step forward, but not for ten years

[...]
[T]he most important [paragraph] to emerge in any Durban document, in terms of what the meeting was supposed to achieve, and what it means for the future:

Also decides to launch a process to develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action;

Just what the world has been waiting for: yet another UN Working Group, which will no doubt come to be known as AHWG/DPEA (but only for short, of course).

A more realistic assessment (IMHO) is offered by the U.K.’s Andrew Orlowski at The Register:

Durban failed: Relax, everyone

Only agreement is to keep going to conferences

The United Nations Organisation’s COP17 climate conference has finished – and if you’re a concerned energy user in IT manufacturing, an investor, or simply taxpayer, there shouldn’t be anything the draft agreement to worry you. Not any more than you have to worry about already.

The two-week long gathering of 15,000 was intended to devise a successor to the Kyoto Treaty. Kyoto was signed by over 190 countries, and pledged them to reduce CO2 emissions by 5.2 per cent by next year, from 1990 levels. It also pledged to create an adaptation fund for poorer countries.
[...]
Kyoto’s targets, which have been missed by almost every signatory, will be extended to 2017. The Durban signatories made the aspiration that something should be in place by 2020, and this something should be “a new protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force” to be agreed by 2015.

Meanwhile the Green Climate Fund is supposed to find €100bn of cash donations a year to send to developing countries each year by 2020. One wit described this as a plan “to shift wealth from the first world’s poor to the third world’s rich without making any difference in climate control”. With developed economies crucified by private and sovereign debt, and the credit system even worse, this was never likely to happen – and Durban didn’t see any commitments from anybody to finance the fund.

There may be a glimmer of hope for the BBC – primary purveyor of all things green in the U.K. and around the world (not to mention very closely aligned and intertwined – as Andrew Montford meticulously documents – with the fount of “knowledge” known as the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) whose dedication to “the cause” is now legendary).

In a recent very thoughtful presentation [h/t Phillip Bratby via Bishop Hill] that should be heard by all politicians:

The historian Lisa Jardine recalls CP Snow for lessons on the dangers of leaving political decisions to technocrats and experts and calls for better informed debate by politicians and public alike in the fields of science and economics.

Here are some excerpts from the transcript [h/t Cumbrian Lad via Bishop Hill]:

We should be wary of leaving political decisions to experts and technocrats. Lisa Jardine asks if someone is an expert in their field, does that make them the right person to run a country?

The scientist, novelist and British civil servant CP Snow is probably best remembered for his controversial lecture The Two Cultures And The Scientific Revolution, on the gulf of incomprehension separating the arts and sciences, delivered in 1959.

In it he argued that in spite of the increasing importance of science, British intellectual life continued to be dominated by the traditional humanities. Today his argument continues to resonate, though perhaps now economics has joined science as a specialist field which baffles those who have received only an arts education.

[...]

He warned that at a time when specialist scientific understanding was indispensable, those charged with taking vital political decisions had no proper grasp on the issues.

“One of the most bizarre features of our time,” [Snow] wrote. “Is that the cardinal choices have to be made by a handful of men who cannot have a first-hand knowledge of what those choices depend upon or what their results may be.”

[...]

“If you are going to have a scientist in a position of isolated power,” Snow concludes. “The only scientist among non-scientists, it is dangerous whoever he is.”

[...]

All those in positions of power and influence, Snow maintains, ought to be able to evaluate proposals put to them which involve science and technology. It may not be possible for them to master the detail themselves, but they must be able to follow the argument. And be surrounded by those with good enough scientific backgrounds to explain the reasoning processes by which the proposed course of action was reached.

[...]

In current debates about GM crops, nuclear energy and climate change, the public at large – including governments and senior administrators – are liable to be swayed by the most persuasive of the advisers or interest groups, because they are not equipped with the knowledge or the reasoned strategies needed to judge. Many of them are dismayed by any argument that involves number and maths.

But speaking of Kyoto (as I was earlier) … Although the decision is no surprise, I expect that, in the weeks ahead, we shall hear many moans and wails and vales of tears shed at the CBC (and other enviro-activist establishments) now that Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister, has announced Canada’s official disengagement from Kyoto:

Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol

[...]

“Kyoto for Canada is in the past. As such, we are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw,” Kent said.
[...]
Kent returned to Ottawa from Durban Monday afternoon and made the announcement about two hours after landing.

He said he waited to formally pull out of the Kyoto Protocol because he’d promised a top UN official in Durban not to distract from the talks.

Good to know that Kent resisted the dervishes in Durban … perhaps he has heeded the wisdom of Snow and/or Jardine. Either way, this decision makes one proud to be Canadian, eh?!

Climate Lessons: Poetry on Bishop Hill, Christmas 2011.

The following, written on Dec. 1, is the contribution from yours truly :-)

‘Twas the night before doomsday when all through the House
Not a creature was demurring, not even a scouse
The pleadings were hung in many churnalisms with scare
In the hope that Devil Carbon would permeate the air

The peons were resting, safe in their beds
Far away from the troll-posts of BBD and ZEDs
And many in innocence, and others more jaundiced
Watched them fall into debates oh-so-weighted
With factoids neo-warmist

When out on the interweb there arose such a clatter
My mouse sprang from its mousepad to see what was the matter
Away to the Google it flew like a flash
Where it watched quite intently
As excuses were hatched

From Acton and Jones and across the Atlantic
Were excuses from Mann that seemed somewhat frantic
While coolly The Saint watched with far from dismay
Happy reading to all, s/he said, but do not delay.

UPDATE 12/12/2011 I have restored the verse-breaks that appeared in my original post on Bishop Hill, where I had also noted that this is much shorter than that which I was parodying, and my occasional exercise of poetic/rhythmic licence :-)

His report, The BBC and Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal, shows that the BBC has not only failed in its professional duty to report fully and accurately: it has betrayed its own principles, in three respects:

First, it has betrayed its statutory obligation to be impartial, using the excuse that any dissent from the official orthodoxy was so insignificant that it should just be ignored or made to look ridiculous.

Second, it has betrayed the principles of responsible journalism, by allowing its coverage to become so one-sided that it has too often amounted to no more than propaganda.

Third, it has betrayed the fundamental principles of science, which relies on unrelenting scepticism towards any theory until it can be shown to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed evidence.

“Above all, the BBC has been guilty of abusing the trust of its audience, and of all those compelled to pay for it. On one of the most important and far-reaching issues of our time, its coverage has been so tendentious that it has given its viewers a picture not just misleading but at times even fraudulent,” Christopher Booker said.

In the foreword to the GWPF report, Sir Antony Jay [of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister fame -hro] writes:

“The costs to Britain of trying to combat global warming are horrifying, and the BBC’s role in promoting the alarmist cause is, quite simply, shameful.”

This damning report, which could apply equally to the “simply shameful” misleading picture provided by Canada’s (taxpayer funded) national broadcaster, the CBC [see below for an example], follows closely on the heels of:

• Donna Laframboise’s excellent exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert
• Ross McKitrick’s report, What Is Wrong With The IPCC? Proposals for a Radical Reform; and
• The recent release of 5000+ Climategate 2.0 (CG2) emails

And packing an additional wallop against “the cause”, comes news today of the release of the Second Edition of Andrew Montford’s (must read if you haven’t already, and worth a second read if you have) The Hockey Stick Illusion.

Will the CBC inform its viewers and listeners of these developments?! Certainly not, if Bob McDonald – the CBC’s (non-science credentialed) “science” maven – continues his exercises in churnalism, dutifully parroting all pro-alarmist press releases he can get his little hands on. But as a recent pre-Durban “Conference of Partygoers” whine and slight diversion from McDonald shows, fact-checking is definitely not McDonald’s forté:

Old folks’ perspective on the environment

As delegates head to Durban, South Africa, for the next round of UN Climate Talks next week, the biggest obstacle that will be thrown up, by countries such as Canada, against an agreement among nations to reduce carbon emissions will be the argument that those changes will cripple the economy.

Here’s a different perspective from a senior citizen that appeared my email this week, a perspective from a time when conservation was something everyone did:

The Green Thing

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren’t good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, “We didn’t have this green thing back in my earlier days.”

The clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

She was right – our generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So, they really were recycled … but we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

[...]

Back then, we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. [...] But that young lady is right … we didn’t have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working, so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right … we didn’t have the green thing back then.
[...]
But isn’t it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were, just because we didn’t have the green thing back then? [emphasis added -hro]

I can remember those days. So I guess that makes me one of McDonald’s “old folks”. In fact, I can even remember the days before there was a washing-machine (let alone an “energy gobbling” dryer) in our home … watching this machine waltz across the kitchen floor (until my father bolted it down!) was as close as we got to having any visual entertainment at our house for several years!

But watch how “science” maven McDonald succeeded in missing all the clues in the above, in order to spin a tale that can only be described as a “climateer’s” exercise in “revisionist scholarship”:

The irony of this perspective is that the senior citizen is likely talking about the hard times during the Depression, when the economy was in the worst shape it’s ever been in. Back then, conservation was a matter of survival. Now, it’s a matter of cutting back on the excesses we created for ourselves since the Depression. [emphasis added -hro]

During “the Depression“?! McDonald must have missed all the history classes when he went to school – and he certainly didn’t bother to check his facts before finding his “likely” fudge! How many homes do you know of that actually had a single TV “during the Depression”? Oh, yes … I’m a “senior citizen” (although. of course, you’d never know it to look at me!), but “the Depression” was several decades before my time – and before the time of the senior citizen who tried to enlighten him!

McDonald’s comment-free blog and eyes-wide-shut dedicated support of “the cause” – regardless of the effect on his rapidly declining credibility, and that of the CBC – sends the irony-meter needle into the stratosphere!

But back to Booker … because it’s Friday, as a bonus, I heartily recommend another series of Brilliant Sketches from Josh, cartoonist par excellence. Over the pond, at Bishop Hill, Josh shared his Sketch Notes from the Press Conference at which – in his brilliant words and pictures – the BBC was “awarded” ‘The Booker Prize for Bias’. Here’s a composite of two I’ve unashamedly clipped that are my favourites:

Excerpted from Josh's "BBC: The Booker Prize for Bias"

Enjoy (I know I am!)

Even without the benefit of Climategate 2.0 (CG2), I found it somewhat difficult to give credence to such a claim. And thanks to The Saint’s release of CG2, I can only say that I am even less inclined to believe him. IOW, Hulme’s involvement turns out to be, well, much worse than we thought. Not only did he circulate this “Statement”, but he was part of the triumvirate of Statement Coordinators (Hulme, Joe Alcamo and Rob Swart) who drafted it – and who recruited the “prestige” names as Sponsors.

In all text that I quote below, all emphases are mine. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted the headers and any .sig files – but they are readily viewable via the link to the E-mail I’m quoting, all of which are from 1997. In some instances, for “ease of reading”, I’ve broken up the paragraphs. In each instance I have included the full E-mail, so that no context will be lost.

The first appearance of any reference to this Statement [5323.txt] is somewhat confusing! It includes at the top a June 26 E-mail from Alcamo to Hulme:

Mike,

Thanks for your positive comments.

If it’s OK with you, I would like to take your comments into account in the next version of the statement (Version 5).

In the meantime, I would like to take you up on your offer that you would distribute the current version (Version 4) for comment around the UK. The idea that Rob Swart and I have is to keep the circle fairly small right now so that we can have a good statement agreed upon by some prominent people before we send it out for signing.

Therefore we would like to send the Statement to no more than about 5 or 10 rather prominent people in the climate scene in our respective countries. For example, I will be discussing it in the next few days with Schellnhuber, Grassl, Crutzen and others here in Germany.

Who do you propose to send it to in the UK?

(By the way, I already received comments back from S. Subak.)

Another issue is what you use as a cover letter for the Statement. I think it is important either to send the cover letter you now have (signed by me) or a modified one (signed either by you alone or both of us) because it spells out the aims and intended audience of the Statement.

What do you think?

With best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

This is followed by a June 30 E-mail from Hulme to Alcamo, but appears to have Alcamo’s July 1 responses to Hulme interwoven; however, there are no clear indications of who actually said what. Nonetheless they seem to be in agreement:

Joe,

I can approach a few people over here if you wish, using your cover letter with a couple of amendments and signed by me and you.

That would be great!

One question to be clear about is how is it going to appear in public – as an independent statement or under the umbrella of some organisation?

This is the current idea:

1. You, Rob Swart and I should first consult with a manageable-number of people about the content of the Statement. The three of us would act as “Coordinators” of the Statement.

2. After this fairly small group agrees on the content of the Statement we should try and convince ten or so “prominent” scientists from different parts of Europe to be official signers. The names of these prominent people would appear on the same page as the Statement. Rob and I have not discussed who these ten people should be. Some could be from the original circle that we consult in step 1.

3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.

4. The last step would be to hold a press conference(s) to announce the Statement. For this we would try and get as many of “The Ten” as possible to attend. My idea would be to aim for the AGBM meeting in October, when the debate should be pretty hot, and media interest in anticipation of Kyoto should be increasing.

People here I would think of are:

Martin Parry
Kerry Turner
Melvyn Cannell
Mick Kelly
Michael Grubb
David Carson

What about John Mitchell?

I would also limit number to about five at this point. e.g. In the coming two weeks I will speak to Schellnhuber, Jill Jaeger, Grassl, and maybe two others about the Statement.

Best regards,

Joe Alcamo

On July 2/97, Hulme appears to have sent Version 4 to John Mitchell, who on July 7 replied [2803.txt]:

Hi Mike,
1. Can you send me the message in plain text – I couldn’t read it
[unrelated items -hro]

thanks
John
>
> –=====================_??? ==_
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=”us-ascii”
>
> Dear John,
>
> Please read the attached letter and statement which you will find
> self-explanatory. We would be grateful for your thoughts on the idea, its
> execution and the content of the statement.
>
> Mike
>
> –=====================_??? ==_
> Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=”alcamo.doc”
> Content-type: application/msword; name=”alcamo.doc”; x-mac-type=”42494E41″; x-mac-creator=”4D535744″
> Content-transfer-encoding: base64

One assumes that Hulme obliged, but I have found no record of this in the emails. However, thanks to Base 64 online here’s the decoded text of alcamo.doc. The “specific goals” are, well, interesting:

Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate

Dear Colleague,

Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. The statement has specific goals in specific countries:

In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its position.

In European countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse emissions: Here, the Statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.

On behalf of my colleagues, may I request the following from you at this stage:

Your suggestions for changes in text.

Your recommendations for scientists to contact for commenting on the draft.

Having agreed on a form of words by consulting with a small number of colleagues (a process I am co-ordinating for the UK), we shall proceed to invite about 10 key scientists in the field in Europe (e.g. Crutzen, Houghton, Bolin, etc.) to sponsor the statement. Having gained this prestige endorsement, we shall then endeavour to invite as many additional scientists as possible (100s if not 1000s) to indicate their support for the statement which shall then be presented to the media at a press conference ‘ … with the support of “n” European scientists.’

Please reply as soon as possible at the below address. We look forward to your comments.

With best wishes,

Mike Hulme

and

Joseph Alcamo
Rob Swart

Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate

In 1992 the nations of the world took a significant step to protect global climate by signing the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year, at the coming Climate Summit in Kyoto*, they have the chance to take an even more important step. It is our opinion that in Kyoto the nations of the world should agree upon immediate and substantive action to ensure the long term protection of global climate by controlling the current increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Our opinion is bolstered by the assessment of scientific knowledge carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which recently published a voluminous report on its findings. The report noted:

Global mean surface air temperature has increased by around 0.3 to 0.60C since the late 19th century.

Recent years have been the warmest since 1860.

Global sea level has risen between 10 and 25 cm over the past 100 years and much of the rise may be related to the increase in global mean temperature.

The IPCC also maintained that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate, and that climate is expected to continue to change in the future. These changes will bring with them further increases in sea level, the transformation of forest- and other ecosystems, modifications of crop yield, shifts in the geographic range of carriers of disease of plants, animals and humans, and many other impacts. Some of these impacts may be seen as positive, such as the possible increase in rainfall and crop yield in certain dry regions; and some of these impacts may be adapted to, as in the case of building dikes to protect against slowly rising sea level (where they can be afforded). But many, if not most, impacts of climate change will increase risks to society and nature.

Furthermore, many of these impacts will be irreversible. As the IPCC has reported, vulnerability to climate change is of particular importance to people living on arid or semi-arid land, in low-lying coastal areas, in water-limited or flood-prone regions, or on small islands. Risks to nature will be significant in the many areas where natural ecosystems cannot quickly adapt to changing climate, or where they are already under stress from environmental pollution or other factors.

Because of these risks, we find it important for nations to develop long-term climate protection goals, as in setting limits on the increase of global temperature and sea level. Equally important, we recommend that European and industrialized nations use long-term climate protection goals as a guide to determining short-term emission targets. This approach has been adopted, for example, by the European Union and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

Some may say that action to control emissions should be delayed because of the scientific uncertainties of climate change and its impact. We reply that the risks and irreversibility of many climate impacts require “precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent, or minimize the causes of climate change”, as clearly stated in the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

We also recognize that there are economic arguments for delaying the control of emissions in Europe and elsewhere. However, after carefully examining the question of timing of emission reductions, we find the arguments against delay to be more compelling. First, delaying action could shift an unfair burden for more severe reductions of emissions to future generations. Second, delaying action will lead to a greater accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and therefore make it more difficult to prevent future climate change when action is finally taken.

Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other industrialized countries to accede to controls of greenhouse emissions as part of a Kyoto agreement. We further believe that some of these emission controls can be achieved at little or no net cost through improvements in the efficiency of energy systems and faster introduction of renewable energy.

As to a quantitative goal for controlling emissions, we believe that the European Union proposal is consistent with long term climate protection. This proposal would reduce by 15% the total collective greenhouse gas emissions from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the -15% target as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and nature. Such substantive action is needed now.

*Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.

Version: 4

I haven’t yet had an opportunity to compare Version 4 with the “final” version which can be found in Tom Wigley’s too little, too late Nov. 25 reply, which was included in CG1 (and which is where I had first noticed this “Invitation to influence Kyoto”) However, I did do a quick check; the last sentence bolded above survived any further edits and made it into the final version. Quelle surprise, eh?! But I digress …

By August 28, it appears that The Statement was close to being finalized. The following E-mail from Rob Swart to WWF’s Merylyn McKenzie-Hedger (copied to Hulme, Alcamo, Jill Jaeger and Pier Vellinga), in reply to McKenzie-Hedger, indicates that WWF seems to have been their preferred distribution network, because they were, evidently, deemed to be less scary (and more sciencey?!) than other advocacy groups! [0801.txt]:

Dear Merylyn,

I am very happy that you are enthusiastic about the idea of presenting a letter by European scientists to the Kyoto negotiations. What we had in mind was a similar procedure as in the US. After the initial drafting of the letter by a limited number of scientists (done), an ngo with more time/resources would take the letter and start collecting signatures through their network, primarily through email, but possibly also through mail/fax.

I think we have reached that step. What would be needed is WWF distrbuting a message/letter from WWF accompanying the scientists’s letter explaining the plan on their behalf. The letter should be relatively “objective” not to scare scientists that they are used in an unscientific ngo advocacy action.

That is why we have approached you rather than Greenpeace, Climate Action Network or Friends of the Earth. I am sure you have your own network of climate scientists, screening the IPCC reports for IPCC lead authors would be an important second step. The people that are in the process now (like Mike Hulme, Joe Alcamo, Jill Jaeger, Pier Vellinga and others) will also provide you with as many names and addresses as they can come up with.

I’ll talk to Adam Markham about it next week. I propose that we start providing you with names/addresses now. In addition, other ways of collecting signatures may be through leaflets distributed during scientific climate meetings in Europe? Several hundreds of signatures would be the goal, including key people. Unfortunately, sofar we only came up with few names outside Germany/UK/Netherlands.

I think we should actively try to get eastern and southern Europeans on board. I believe Joe’s suggestion was to aim at a release of the letter in a joint WWF/scientists’ press conference at the next AGBM in Bonn, or if that would be too early, in Kyoto. I am not sure to whom the letter should be directed: European heads of state with copies to delegation leaders? Environment Ministers?

My question to you would be: could you give us your ideas on how to proceed (possibly with a proposal for an accompanying letter) next week. You may want to discuss it with Mike Hulme, who is closest to you. I hope others will come up with suggestions/reactions and therefore I copy this mail to them.

Let’s keep in touch. By the way, we are short on UK scientists yet….

Rob

At 06:42 PM 8/26/97 +020 ???, you wrote:
>Adma and I have discussed this and are very enthudiastic. Let us know
>exaclty what you want from us. I’m away for a week. Count us in. Do
>you wan to use our website.

I have not found any relevant correspondence between August 28 and September 21; but one might surmise from Alcamo’s message to Hulme (copied to Swart) on September 22, that Hulme was busy drafting and crafting [1652.txt]:

Mike,

Great work.

I don’t think it is necessary to try anyone else. I think the balls in my court now, and I should make the final revisions to the Statement (based on your suggestions and those of Riordan. I will also draft a letter to “the 10″, along with a proposed list of who these ten should be. With regards to selecting a list of “the 10″, I also would like to wait until Rob contacts Opschoor and other prominent Dutch scientists. This means that I won’t have a draft letter to “the 10″ until later this week –

You mentioned that you are out of the office after Tuesday. How can I reach you by fax or email later in the week?

Best wishes.

Joe Alcamo

On Oct. 3, the Merylyn McKenzie-Hedger, the WWF point-person, confirms the arrangements in an E-mail to Hulme, presumably following a phone conversation with Hulme [3275.txt]:

Mike as we have discussed, and following my chat with Adam, we are of course enthusaistic about your project. As agreed I am copying the details to colleagues.

UEA will get 10 key people to craft a European version of the US science and economist letters. You will get it signed onto. Would like 750 of help from us for that. Then you will send this to heads of state in November. You want WWF to organise a press event around that at a suitable location(s) (London/Geneva/Brussels).

There is money in the UK (SP5) budget here and I will discuss that with Nick Mabey as mentioned. He should be your contact here. Otherwise Lars Georg Jensen in WWF Denmark is a key contact for the TDA.

We will no doubt talk again soon about other things!

>>> Mike Hulme 12/September/1997 10:42am >>>
Merylyn,

Following Rob Swart’s contact with you, I would like to speak about ways we can activate this climate statement, ideally before I leave for Holland on Tuesday. I will try phoning you on Monday or you can contact me at my office:

??? : Monday 9am-2.30pm and 6.30-11.00pm

or home:

??? : Monday 3-6pm or Tuesday am

Thanks,

Mike

On October 2, Alcamo sent Hulme the revised Statement and two draft letters [4540.txt]:

Mike,

I have too much going on and can’t seem to stay on schedule. Anyway, I attach –

1. Revised Statement — down to one page! (partly by cheating on the font size).
2. Draft letter to “the ten”
3. Draft letter to “all”.

Revise the letters as you see fit, although I would be happy to discuss them with you by phone, if you wish. How goes it with the assistance from WWF?

Best wishes

Joe Alcamo

There’s an October 8 E-mail from WWF’s Nick Mabey to Hulme (copied to WWF’s Cherry Farrow) which appears to be a reply to Hulme – and which seems to suggest that communication within WWF is not always up to scratch (assuming that “MMH” = Merylyn McKenzie-Hedger) 0981.txt:

Hi Mike,

A quick reply before I go to the Tory Conference:

1/ MMH did not mention this to me but it seems a good idea in principle – however we should talk about targets etc to make sure Europe needs more movement on the sience side – perhaps an economic approach would be more politically usefull.

2/ Conditional on 1 we have some funding and could do the lauch

3/ If you cant contact me over the next few days talk to Cherry Farrow who runs the press side of the climate campaign about this and I will be in touch with her

Talk to you soon

Nick mabey

PS Could you email me your phone number!

On Oct. 9, from CG1, we have 0876437553.txt from Alcamo to Hulme and Swart, in which Alcamo puts forward the plan for advancing “the cause”:

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions –

Distribution for Endorsements –
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!

Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.

1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.

2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear about it.

3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.

Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17 November at the latest.

Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

On November 3, WWF’s Farrow sent the following to Hulme. It doesn’t specifically mention the Statement, but it does seem to be indicative of the “assistance” WWF were prepared to provide:

Hello Mike – two thinhs – we can help you with politicians – our two parliamentary (public affairs ) officers here are talking with MPs constantly on this one – adn could come up with a suitable list..ref CLimate action Network – we’re part of that umbrella organisation. I know delia well (she used to be WWF) and is now with them in Brussels.

Obviously, given the money we’ve contributed to the process I would rather that we release the letter to them AFTER the press – that’s how we would normally do it – they will then go ahead under their own letterhead – If you want to retain “neutrality” then it would be better that they pick it up separately than that you release it to them, which would align you with 122 NGOs…but it is right and proper they should have it at some time….

We can help you with the database of journos of course – obvious ones are Paul Brown, Nick Schoon, Charles Clover, Fred Pearce, Geoffrey lean Jonathan Leake etc., and Julian Rush or Andy Veitch at Ch4 news – remember they have to “sell” it to their news editors. which means they need time to write the story too – if you want a real ppiece with real analysis then give them lead in time under an embargo – and remember certain of them cannot be trusted not to break the embargo (we can tell you who!)…we ought to talk at the beginning of next week perhaps?

And on November 11, the Statement, duly sponsored by the eleven “prestige” scientists (I wonder how much “due diligence” each of them did before signing on the dotted line!) was fired off by CRU’s Tim Mitchell (on behalf of Hulme and Alcamo) to “all cru staff” and to a list of 204 other people with U.K. E-mail addresses – along with a request that the recipients forward it to

“up to three colleagues in your country who are working in climate-related fields, who you think may support the Statement and whom we have not targeted”

And Hulme had completely “forgotten” about his involvement in all this until he saw the CG1 emails.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

I’m listening even as I type. Dellers seems to be doing most of the talking, but it’s definitely worth a listen. Interview starts about 3 or 4 minutes in.

Over in the U.K. today, Donna Laframboise, author of The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert was one of a distinguished group of speakers addressing the topic “The Climate Change Act Reconsidered” in a “packed Committee Room” at the House of Commons. [h/t Bishop Hill]

Capturing the proceedings, for those of us who could not be there, was the inimitable cartoonist known as Josh (whom I’ve now very belatedly added to my blogroll). Herewith a shamelessly snipped excerpt from Josh’s wonderful work, which – with a nod to Leacock – I would call Brilliant Sketches of a Little Meeting:

Excerpted from Josh's Brilliant Sketches of a Little Meeting

Don’t miss the rest of these brilliant sketches at Cartoons by Josh.