BPSDB
“It’s beginning to look like a pattern…”
I’m sure that you’re all aware of the recent outcomes of the various “gates” in the recent past, but if you have missed them you can read Richard Black’s take on them here and here.
Of course there are anguished howls of “Whitewash!” reverberating around the blogosphere, but the mainstream media has largely lost interest. Maybe now we can get back to something approaching normality.
Maybe….
I kind of missed the launch of the GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) last November – I guess that it hasn’t had a great deal of publicity in the past, or maybe I was too deeply buried in Physics.
It is a registered charity/”think tank” in the United Kingdom (sharing an address with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining).
They’ve attracted a bit of interest by declaring that they are not happy with how the three independent inquiries into “Climategate” were conducted:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation has criticised the Independent Climate Change Email Review for a lack of openness and transparency in its inquiry. In response, the GWPF has announced that it has commissioned its own investigation into the way the three Climategate inquiries have been set up, how they were conducted an (sic) how they arrived at their conclusions.
So who are they, exactly?
The director is reasonably well known – he’s Benny Peiser, social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University and co-editor of Energy & Environment (of the publications listed on his home page at LJMU, exactly half are in E&E).
The board of trustees consists of the following:
- Lord Lawson of Blaby. Conservative politician.
Degree in Economics. City Editor of the Telegraph for a while. Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Thatcher years. So fond of his own name that he christened his daughter Nigella (two of his other daughters are called Thomasina and Horatia).
Life peer. - Baron Barnett of Heywood and Royton. Accountant, and Labour MP (Chief Secretary to the Treasury from 1974 to 1979).
Life peer. - Baron Donoughue of Ashton in the County of Northamptonshire.
BA and PhD in History. Worked for both The Economist and The Times, and was also a senior policy adviser to Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.
Life peer. - Baron Fellowes of Shotesham in the County of Norfolk
Academic background not known. Married Lady Jane Spencer, the elder sister of Diana Princess of Wales. He is also the first cousin once removed of Sarah, Duchess of York.
Banker, and member of the Royal Household.
Life peer. - Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester. Has a degree in Chemistry and a later Batchelor of Divinity and PhD.
Life peer. - Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. Educated at the Royal Academy of Music. Was a computer programmer and systems analyst before turning to politics. Was an MP and an MEP, a Conservative who defected to the Liberal Democrats. The only female in the entire organisation.
Life peer. - Baron Turnbull of Enfield. Educated at Cambridge (degree not known). Retired civil servant (head of Her Majesty’s Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary).
Life peer. - Sir Martin Jacomb. Educated at Eton & Oxford, worked as a barrister before turning to business in 1968. Not a peer, but received a knighthood in 1985.
- Henri Lepage. A French libertarian economist.
At the time of their launch, Lawson cheerfully admitted that the average age of the board was 74.
- Vincent Courtillot, who attracted the attention of Real Climate a couple of times
- Freeman Dyson
- Richard Lindzen
- Ian Plimer
OK, getting back to the GWPF’s inquiry. Given the high level names in the three Climategate inquiries, who have they appointed for their inquiry?
One Andrew Montford, whose scientific (and economic) credentials are that he’s a blogger….
Ah, well, at least we won’t have long to wait – his “report” is due in August.
I tend to be apolitical, but I’m inclined to think that the UK probably ought to consider abandoning the 19th Century and adopt an elected second house rather than relying on a mix of hereditary and life peers who can continue to influence as long as they are still breathing.
Footnote:
If you haven’t already read them, Michael Tobis and Gareth (among others) remind us of what the real scandal is.
IMAGE CREDITS:
[1] – Paul Morris
[2] – Wikipedia
[3] – ABC Embroidery Designs
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread”
is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply; - The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
You may want to read Horton’s comments on peer review in the Muir Russell review. He introduces the piece with some comments from Andrew Montford. The attentive reader will note that he subsequently completely destroys those comments.
Mike?, you give close scrutiny to members of the GWPF and its team enquiring into the three UK “Climategate”enquiries. Perhaps it is time that you removed the blinkers to see how “independent” of the human-made global climate change confidence trick those “three independent enquiries” that you mention actually were. On my blog Global Political Shenanigans I posted a comment “CAN THERE BE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF IPCC? – update 13/05/2010” (Note 1) which does just that and what was the outcome of the Russel enquiry, the whitewash that came as no surprise to us sceptics.
You are in for disappointment when thinking “Maybe now we can get back to something approaching normality”. There will be no return to the “normality” of the UN’s propaganda about our use of fossil fuels leading to catastrophic global climate change that existed prior to all of those IPCC-gates because the voting public are now aware of the political shenanigans involved.
Take a look at the reaction of the sceptical blogs to the Rusell Report and open your mind to reality.
NOTES:
1) see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2010/05/can-there-be-independent-investigation.html
Best regards, Pete Ridley
As we rational people already expected, the ‘skeptics’ would call it a whitewash when the result was not to their liking. And they did. Gee, there’s really nothing on the ‘skeptic’ blogs that surprises us, Pete.
Oh, and did you note William Connolley skillfully dissecting your incompetence and poor understanding?
Really PR?
I suspect that the “voting public” are just as little *aware* of the massive funds currently paid out to oil companies.
If anyone wants to know where’s the money coming from – why not point out how easily the excellent business operators of long-established technologies could well give up a third, a half, all? these funds to start ups in more interesting and exciting technologies.
PP just where did you find this remarkable piece of “historic rubbish? As a historian you should know that you should check sources and list them.
I think you mistakenly (perhaps on purpose?) quoted from a denier blog posting which cut and pasted an excerpt from the discount monk’s own pdf.
Why do you deniers continue to show your ignorance, arrogance and stupidity?
S2
Informative. And, my God, funny! 🙂
The GWPF claims, “Our main purpose is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.
The GWPF’s primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration.”
Yeah right… look at how they deal with the Dutch Sea level problem
http://www.thegwpf.org/dutch-sea-level.html
They have three links blaming the error on the IPCC and none showing that it was the Dutch who made the error.
In other stories about the IPCC their sources seem to be Booker, Leake and North. So much for restoring balance.
Turboblocke, as you correctly say [Edit]
Best regards, Pete Ridley
—-
Older people do seem more generally resistent to the idea that climate change is a problem.
My own recent correspondence with a Nobel Laureate provides some evidence of that, I think.
Nice to hear from you again, Milan.
I think there may be some truth in this – if you look at any of the little lists you will usually find what appears to be a disproportionate number of entries with either “retired” or “emeritus” in their titles.
However, saying that “many sceptics are elderly” is not the logical equivalent of “older people are more sceptical”, I think.
Is Laughlin is just another Plimer, I wonder? I note that he’s written a book, due out next year.
Notice that Paul hasn’t been back since this tactic backfired and Monckton was told to go sniff.
Oh well. I’m sure someone will give Paul something new to say … erm, repeat sometime soon.