More embarrassments for the U.N. and 'settled' science.
It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.
First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.
Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.
Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."
But as Jonathan Leake of London's Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, "did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning."
The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the "transformation of natural coastal areas," the "destruction of more mangroves," "glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches," changes in the ecosystem of the "Mesoamerican reef," and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its "research" reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.
The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell's corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.
The IPCC report made aggressive claims that "extreme weather-related events" had led to "rapidly rising costs." Never mind that the link between global warming and storms like Hurricane Katrina remains tenuous at best. More astonishing (or, maybe, not so astonishing) is that the IPCC again based its assertion on a single study that was not peer-reviewed. In fact, nobody can reliably establish a quantifiable connection between global warming and increased disaster-related costs. In Holland, there's even a minor uproar over the report's claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It's 26%.
Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.
This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no "statistically significant" warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.
***
All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby's regulatory agenda.
The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
UK firms flout CO2 ratings for buildings
By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor
The drive to cut Britain's carbon-dioxide emissions has been hit by companies' reluctance to obey new rules to reveal how much heat and light their buildings waste.
Nearly three-quarters of firms are flouting legislation requiring them to disclose energy performance details for the properties they sell or rent out, The Independent has learnt.
The refusal to comply with the law raises fresh doubts over this country's ability to meet a European Union target of reducing emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. Nearly one-fifth of UK emissions come from business and industry.
Thirteen months ago, the Government brought in legislation requiring "energy performance certificates" (EPCs) of commercial properties to be produced whenever a building is sold or leased out.
The documents, similar to those that householders have to supply when they sell their homes, assess a building's use of heat, light and water. They are regarded as an essential first step towards reducing buildings' emissions.
But a study by energy assessors Elmhurst Energy has concluded that only 28 per cent of commercial buildings marketed for sale or lease carry the legally required EPCs.
Grant Shapps, the shadow Housing Minister, said he was shocked by the low levels of compliance with the law. "If we're going to meet our legally binding climate-change targets, then we'll need to see urgent action," he said. "We know that meeting the challenge of climate change requires thousands of small steps to be taken. We will start by recognising the energy performance of all buildings, domestic or commercial."
EPCs are similar to the colour-coded labels provided with washing machines and refrigerators. They place properties into one of seven bands depending on their energy efficiency. But the requirement to produce them rests with companies putting the property on the market, rather than the agents handling the sale or rental of the building. Failure to comply with the law can carry a fine of £5,000.
Gavin Dunn, operations director of Elmhurst Energy, said the drive "is very much part of an attempt within the European Union and the UK to move towards decarbonising the economy.
"We need to reduce the energy consumption of every building, and the first step is to get the information about their efficiency."
The drive to cut Britain's carbon-dioxide emissions has been hit by companies' reluctance to obey new rules to reveal how much heat and light their buildings waste.
Nearly three-quarters of firms are flouting legislation requiring them to disclose energy performance details for the properties they sell or rent out, The Independent has learnt.
The refusal to comply with the law raises fresh doubts over this country's ability to meet a European Union target of reducing emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. Nearly one-fifth of UK emissions come from business and industry.
Thirteen months ago, the Government brought in legislation requiring "energy performance certificates" (EPCs) of commercial properties to be produced whenever a building is sold or leased out.
The documents, similar to those that householders have to supply when they sell their homes, assess a building's use of heat, light and water. They are regarded as an essential first step towards reducing buildings' emissions.
But a study by energy assessors Elmhurst Energy has concluded that only 28 per cent of commercial buildings marketed for sale or lease carry the legally required EPCs.
Grant Shapps, the shadow Housing Minister, said he was shocked by the low levels of compliance with the law. "If we're going to meet our legally binding climate-change targets, then we'll need to see urgent action," he said. "We know that meeting the challenge of climate change requires thousands of small steps to be taken. We will start by recognising the energy performance of all buildings, domestic or commercial."
EPCs are similar to the colour-coded labels provided with washing machines and refrigerators. They place properties into one of seven bands depending on their energy efficiency. But the requirement to produce them rests with companies putting the property on the market, rather than the agents handling the sale or rental of the building. Failure to comply with the law can carry a fine of £5,000.
Gavin Dunn, operations director of Elmhurst Energy, said the drive "is very much part of an attempt within the European Union and the UK to move towards decarbonising the economy.
"We need to reduce the energy consumption of every building, and the first step is to get the information about their efficiency."
Norway plans the world's most powerful wind turbine
Relax News
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Norway plans to build the world's most powerful wind turbine, hoping the new technology will increase the profitability of costly offhsore wind farms, partners behind the project said Friday.
With a rotor diametre of 145 metres (475 feet), the 10-megawatt protype will be roughly three times more powerful than ordinary wind turbines currently in place, Enova, a public agency owned by Norway's petroleum and oil industry ministry, said.
The world's largest wind turbine, 162.5 metres (533 feet) tall, will be built by Norwegian company Sway with the objective of developing a technology that will result in higher energy generation for offshore wind power.
It will first be tested on land in Oeygarden, southwestern Norway, for two years.
The gain in power over current turbines will be obtained partly by reducing the weight and the number of moving parts in the turbine.
According to the NTB news agency, the prototype will cost 400 million kroner to build and could supply power to 2,000 homes.
"We are aiming to install it in 2011," Enova's head of new technology Kjell Olav Skoelsvik told AFP.
Enova pledged 137 million Norwegian kroner (17 million euros, 23 million dollars) to build the prototype.
"It is milestone in the efforts to develop the future's wind power," Norway's energy minister Terje Riis-Johansen said in a statement.
Environmental groups have been highly critical of Norway's government for not having invested enough in wind power.
The Scandinavian country is one of the world's top oil and gas producers but obtains most of its own energy through hydroelectric power.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
Norway plans to build the world's most powerful wind turbine, hoping the new technology will increase the profitability of costly offhsore wind farms, partners behind the project said Friday.
With a rotor diametre of 145 metres (475 feet), the 10-megawatt protype will be roughly three times more powerful than ordinary wind turbines currently in place, Enova, a public agency owned by Norway's petroleum and oil industry ministry, said.
The world's largest wind turbine, 162.5 metres (533 feet) tall, will be built by Norwegian company Sway with the objective of developing a technology that will result in higher energy generation for offshore wind power.
It will first be tested on land in Oeygarden, southwestern Norway, for two years.
The gain in power over current turbines will be obtained partly by reducing the weight and the number of moving parts in the turbine.
According to the NTB news agency, the prototype will cost 400 million kroner to build and could supply power to 2,000 homes.
"We are aiming to install it in 2011," Enova's head of new technology Kjell Olav Skoelsvik told AFP.
Enova pledged 137 million Norwegian kroner (17 million euros, 23 million dollars) to build the prototype.
"It is milestone in the efforts to develop the future's wind power," Norway's energy minister Terje Riis-Johansen said in a statement.
Environmental groups have been highly critical of Norway's government for not having invested enough in wind power.
The Scandinavian country is one of the world's top oil and gas producers but obtains most of its own energy through hydroelectric power.
Pollution creating acid oceans
The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 65 million years, threatening marine life and food supplies across the globe, according to a new study.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 15 Feb 2010
Researchers from the University of Bristol looked at how levels of acid in the ocean have changed over history.
They found that as ocean acidification accelerated it caused mass extinctions at the bottom of the food chain that could threaten whole ecosystems in the future.
The rapid acidification today is being caused by the massive amount of carbon dioxide being pumped out by cars and factories every year, which is absorbed by the water. Since the industrial revolution acidity in the seas have increased by 30 per cent.
The last time such a fast change occurred is thought to be 65 million years ago, when some natural event caused ocean acidification and the dinosaurs died out.
The study looked at sediments from around 55 million years ago, when temperature rose by up to 6C and acidification was occurring at a similar rate as today.
It found widespread extinction of tiny organisms that live on the bottom of the ocean. Ocean acidification can dissolve the carbonate shells of marine organisms and cause muscle wastage and dwarfism in other species.
Andy Ridgwell, lead author of the paper published in Nature Geoscience, said it could mean problems for humans in the future.
"Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions. A rapid and severe geochemical change in their environment would make their survival precarious.
"The widespread extinction of these ocean floor organisms during the Paleocene-Eocene greenhouse warming and acidification event tells us that similar extinctions in the future are possible," he said.
Dr Ridgwell said acidification is actually occurring much faster today than in the examples they looked at from the past therefore "exceeding the rate plankton can adapt" and theatening the basis of much of marine life. This would mean fish and other creatures further up the food chain that human beings eat may be affected as soon as the end of this century.
"There is lots of concern about major disruption to ecosystems. Certainly coral reefs will be eroded, that has an impact on other species. We could see marine ecosystems affected this century," he said.
:: A separate study published in Geoscience found that the glaciers on Greenland are melting much faster than expected because of ocean currents bringing warm water into the area. If the warming continues it could cause sea levels to rise by 3ft, three times as much as previous estimates, by 2100.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:00AM GMT 15 Feb 2010
Researchers from the University of Bristol looked at how levels of acid in the ocean have changed over history.
They found that as ocean acidification accelerated it caused mass extinctions at the bottom of the food chain that could threaten whole ecosystems in the future.
The rapid acidification today is being caused by the massive amount of carbon dioxide being pumped out by cars and factories every year, which is absorbed by the water. Since the industrial revolution acidity in the seas have increased by 30 per cent.
The last time such a fast change occurred is thought to be 65 million years ago, when some natural event caused ocean acidification and the dinosaurs died out.
The study looked at sediments from around 55 million years ago, when temperature rose by up to 6C and acidification was occurring at a similar rate as today.
It found widespread extinction of tiny organisms that live on the bottom of the ocean. Ocean acidification can dissolve the carbonate shells of marine organisms and cause muscle wastage and dwarfism in other species.
Andy Ridgwell, lead author of the paper published in Nature Geoscience, said it could mean problems for humans in the future.
"Unlike surface plankton dwelling in a variable habitat, organisms living deep down on the ocean floor are adapted to much more stable conditions. A rapid and severe geochemical change in their environment would make their survival precarious.
"The widespread extinction of these ocean floor organisms during the Paleocene-Eocene greenhouse warming and acidification event tells us that similar extinctions in the future are possible," he said.
Dr Ridgwell said acidification is actually occurring much faster today than in the examples they looked at from the past therefore "exceeding the rate plankton can adapt" and theatening the basis of much of marine life. This would mean fish and other creatures further up the food chain that human beings eat may be affected as soon as the end of this century.
"There is lots of concern about major disruption to ecosystems. Certainly coral reefs will be eroded, that has an impact on other species. We could see marine ecosystems affected this century," he said.
:: A separate study published in Geoscience found that the glaciers on Greenland are melting much faster than expected because of ocean currents bringing warm water into the area. If the warming continues it could cause sea levels to rise by 3ft, three times as much as previous estimates, by 2100.
Church leaders call for 'technology fast'
Church leaders are urging people to give up iPods rather than chocolate this Lent as part of a 'technology fast' to save the planet as well as our souls.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:30AM GMT 16 Feb 2010
Senior bishops are calling for a cut in personal carbon use for each of the 40 days of Lent. Their list of ways to achieve this includes eating less meat, flushing the toilet less often and cutting vegetables thinner so they cook faster.
But one of their tougher challenges is to give up technology such as television, mobiles and iPods for one day. The "Carbon Fast" , organised every year by development agency Tearfund, even suggests giving up technology for a day every month of the year and giving the money to charity.
The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, who first had the idea of the Carbon Fast, urged people to give the money saved from not using technology to people in the developing world. It is also backed by the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, said giving up technology would help people to think of others less fortunate than themselves.
"Lent is a period when we should look at how we live our lives," he said. "Giving up chocolate is a symbol of that but giving up technology is a more serious way of looking at the issues that face us as a global community. It is a statement [of solidarity] with a world that does not have that ability to communicate the way we can and a reminder to us that perhaps we may have got beyond ourselves in terms of our own consumption of technology. We have galloped forward so fast maybe we have out-run our global responsibility in doing that."
The Carbon Fast is also backed by leading scientists such as Sir John Houghton, former Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office and figures in the religious arena such as Joel Edwards, a former faith adviser to Tony Blair and the International Director of Micah Challenge and Steve Clifford, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
The Church of England backs the Carbon Fast and last year the Roman Catholic Church called on followers to cut down on texting and other forms of communication in the run up to Easter.
The Bishop of Oxford, who uses a blackberry, mobile phone and emails everyday, said he will struggle this Lent.
But he insisted we all need to concentrate on more "face to face" communication.
"It is a real reminder that life in the slow lane at least some of the time would have real benefits for our mental, emotional and spiritual health," he added.
Other carbon fast actions include:
:: Have a technology fast. Try a day with no TV, no iPod, no computer, and even no mobile. Why not set aside a technology fast day each month?
:: Check your flush. Do you need to always flush the loo? Get a device from your water company to save water when you flush the toilet.
:: Be a part-time veggie. Aim to eat at least two vegetarian meals every week.
:: Avoid excess idling and hard acceleration to cut back on emissions when you are driving.
:: Make do and mend rather than buying new clothes.
:: Start composing food waste and growing your own fruit and vegetables.
:: Arrange a swapping party with friends. Exchange clothes, DVDs, CDs, jewellery and bags so everyone gets something new without a trip to the shops.
:: Try skinny food. Choosing thin pasta and cutting meat and vegetables smaller will mean they’ll cook faster and use less energy.
:: Eat by candlelight. How many rooms do you light in the evenings? Turn out the lights and have a meal by candlelight.
:: Take the train where possible rather than flying.
By Louise Gray, Environment CorrespondentPublished: 7:30AM GMT 16 Feb 2010
Senior bishops are calling for a cut in personal carbon use for each of the 40 days of Lent. Their list of ways to achieve this includes eating less meat, flushing the toilet less often and cutting vegetables thinner so they cook faster.
But one of their tougher challenges is to give up technology such as television, mobiles and iPods for one day. The "Carbon Fast" , organised every year by development agency Tearfund, even suggests giving up technology for a day every month of the year and giving the money to charity.
The Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Rev James Jones, who first had the idea of the Carbon Fast, urged people to give the money saved from not using technology to people in the developing world. It is also backed by the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres
The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, said giving up technology would help people to think of others less fortunate than themselves.
"Lent is a period when we should look at how we live our lives," he said. "Giving up chocolate is a symbol of that but giving up technology is a more serious way of looking at the issues that face us as a global community. It is a statement [of solidarity] with a world that does not have that ability to communicate the way we can and a reminder to us that perhaps we may have got beyond ourselves in terms of our own consumption of technology. We have galloped forward so fast maybe we have out-run our global responsibility in doing that."
The Carbon Fast is also backed by leading scientists such as Sir John Houghton, former Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office and figures in the religious arena such as Joel Edwards, a former faith adviser to Tony Blair and the International Director of Micah Challenge and Steve Clifford, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
The Church of England backs the Carbon Fast and last year the Roman Catholic Church called on followers to cut down on texting and other forms of communication in the run up to Easter.
The Bishop of Oxford, who uses a blackberry, mobile phone and emails everyday, said he will struggle this Lent.
But he insisted we all need to concentrate on more "face to face" communication.
"It is a real reminder that life in the slow lane at least some of the time would have real benefits for our mental, emotional and spiritual health," he added.
Other carbon fast actions include:
:: Have a technology fast. Try a day with no TV, no iPod, no computer, and even no mobile. Why not set aside a technology fast day each month?
:: Check your flush. Do you need to always flush the loo? Get a device from your water company to save water when you flush the toilet.
:: Be a part-time veggie. Aim to eat at least two vegetarian meals every week.
:: Avoid excess idling and hard acceleration to cut back on emissions when you are driving.
:: Make do and mend rather than buying new clothes.
:: Start composing food waste and growing your own fruit and vegetables.
:: Arrange a swapping party with friends. Exchange clothes, DVDs, CDs, jewellery and bags so everyone gets something new without a trip to the shops.
:: Try skinny food. Choosing thin pasta and cutting meat and vegetables smaller will mean they’ll cook faster and use less energy.
:: Eat by candlelight. How many rooms do you light in the evenings? Turn out the lights and have a meal by candlelight.
:: Take the train where possible rather than flying.
How I made the Met Office admit its climate-change data was wrong
John Graham-Cumming
The history of science is filled with stories of amateur scientists who made significant contributions. In 1937 the American amateur astronomer Grote Reber built a pioneering dish-shaped radio telescope in his back garden and produced the first radio map of the sky. And in the 19th century the existence of dominant and recessive genes was described by a priest, Gregor Mendel, after years of experimentation with pea plants.
But with the advent of powerful home computers, even the humble amateur like myself can make a contribution.
Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing. Although the errors don’t change the basic message of global warming, they do illustrate how open access to data means that many hands make light work of replicating and checking the work of professional scientists.
After e-mails and documents were taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia late last year, the Met Office decided to release global thermometer readings stretching back to 1850 that they use to show the rise in land temperatures. These records hadn’t been freely available to the public before, although graphs drawn using them had.
Apart from seeing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth I’d paid little attention to the science of global warming until the e-mail leaks from UEA last year.
I trusted the news stories about the work of the IPCC, but I thought it would be a fun hobby project to write a program to read the Met Office records on global temperature readings and draw the sort of graphs that show how it’s hotter now than ever before.
Since my training is in mathematics and computing I thought it best to write self-checking code: I’m unfamiliar with the science of climate change and so having my program perform internal checks for consistency was vital to making sure I didn’t make a mistake.
To my surprise the program complained about average temperatures in Australia and New Zealand. At first I assumed I’d made a mistake in the code and used a pocket calculator to double check the calculations.
The result was unequivocal: something was wrong with the average temperature data in Oceania. And I also stumbled upon other small errors in calculations.
About a week after I’d told the Met Office about these problems I received a response confirming that I was correct: a problem in the process of updating Met Office records had caused the wrong average temperatures to be reported. Last month the Met Office updated their public temperature records to include my corrections.
John Graham-Cumming is a programmer and author of The Geek Atlas
The history of science is filled with stories of amateur scientists who made significant contributions. In 1937 the American amateur astronomer Grote Reber built a pioneering dish-shaped radio telescope in his back garden and produced the first radio map of the sky. And in the 19th century the existence of dominant and recessive genes was described by a priest, Gregor Mendel, after years of experimentation with pea plants.
But with the advent of powerful home computers, even the humble amateur like myself can make a contribution.
Using my laptop and my knowledge of computer programming I accidentally uncovered errors in temperature data released by the Met Office that form part of the vital records used to show that the climate is changing. Although the errors don’t change the basic message of global warming, they do illustrate how open access to data means that many hands make light work of replicating and checking the work of professional scientists.
After e-mails and documents were taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia late last year, the Met Office decided to release global thermometer readings stretching back to 1850 that they use to show the rise in land temperatures. These records hadn’t been freely available to the public before, although graphs drawn using them had.
Apart from seeing Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth I’d paid little attention to the science of global warming until the e-mail leaks from UEA last year.
I trusted the news stories about the work of the IPCC, but I thought it would be a fun hobby project to write a program to read the Met Office records on global temperature readings and draw the sort of graphs that show how it’s hotter now than ever before.
Since my training is in mathematics and computing I thought it best to write self-checking code: I’m unfamiliar with the science of climate change and so having my program perform internal checks for consistency was vital to making sure I didn’t make a mistake.
To my surprise the program complained about average temperatures in Australia and New Zealand. At first I assumed I’d made a mistake in the code and used a pocket calculator to double check the calculations.
The result was unequivocal: something was wrong with the average temperature data in Oceania. And I also stumbled upon other small errors in calculations.
About a week after I’d told the Met Office about these problems I received a response confirming that I was correct: a problem in the process of updating Met Office records had caused the wrong average temperatures to be reported. Last month the Met Office updated their public temperature records to include my corrections.
John Graham-Cumming is a programmer and author of The Geek Atlas
UN must investigate warming ‘bias’, says former climate chief
‘Every error exaggerated the impact of change’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.
In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.
Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.
The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report.
The report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 when evidence suggests that they will survive for another 300 years. It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.
The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.
Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”
He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.
“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”
Dr Pachauri has not responded to questions put to him by The Times, despite sending a text message saying that he would do so.
Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.
He said that the scheme to create what he called a “Wikipedia for climate change” was at an early stage but the intention was to establish an online network of climate science research available to anyone with access to the internet and subject to permanent peer review by other scientists.
He said that the project would allow scientists to “synthesise all of the observational record in real-time, not every 5-7 years like the IPCC”.
He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.
A spokesman for Mr Gore’s office in Nashville, Tennessee, declined to comment on the project.
Meanwhile, a member of the inquiry team investigating allegations of misconduct by climate scientists has admitted that he holds strong views on climate change and that this contradicts a founding principle of the inquiry. Geoffrey Boulton, who was appointed last week by the inquiry chairman, Sir Muir Russell, said he believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”
Ben Webster, Environment Editor, and Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor
The UN body that advises world leaders on climate change must investigate an apparent bias in its report that resulted in several exaggerations of the impact of global warming, according to its former chairman.
In an interview with The Times Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.
Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.
The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2,500 scientists who produced the report.
The report falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 when evidence suggests that they will survive for another 300 years. It also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim.
The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level.
Professor Watson, who served as chairman of the IPCC from 1997-2002, said: “The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”
He said that the IPCC should employ graduate science students to check the sources of each claim made in its next report, due in 2013. “Graduate students would love to be involved and they could really dig into the references and see if they really do support what is being said.”
He said that the next report should acknowledge that some scientists believed the planet was warming at a much slower rate than has been claimed by the majority of scientists.
“We should always be challenged by sceptics,” he said. “The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view.”
Dr Pachauri has not responded to questions put to him by The Times, despite sending a text message saying that he would do so.
Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.
He said that the scheme to create what he called a “Wikipedia for climate change” was at an early stage but the intention was to establish an online network of climate science research available to anyone with access to the internet and subject to permanent peer review by other scientists.
He said that the project would allow scientists to “synthesise all of the observational record in real-time, not every 5-7 years like the IPCC”.
He rejected concerns that the project would undermine the IPCC’s authority. “It would have to be done so it was complimentary and not a challenge to the IPCC,” he said.
A spokesman for Mr Gore’s office in Nashville, Tennessee, declined to comment on the project.
Meanwhile, a member of the inquiry team investigating allegations of misconduct by climate scientists has admitted that he holds strong views on climate change and that this contradicts a founding principle of the inquiry. Geoffrey Boulton, who was appointed last week by the inquiry chairman, Sir Muir Russell, said he believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Sir Muir issued a statement last week claiming that the inquiry members, who are investigating leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, did not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
Professor Boulton told The Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”
Loft insulation: Australia's burning issue
An Australian government scheme to promote loft insulation is backfiring on the country's environment minister, former Midnight Oil singer Peter Garrett
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.00 GMT
'How can we sleep when our beds are burning?" sang Peter Garrett in 1987, when he was vying with Michael Hutchence for the title of Australia's most famous rock star. Now, having joined the government as environment minister, the former singer with Midnight Oil has a very real fire to put out.
Garrett is a good man with an impossible task, trying to retain his street cred while doing all the boring but important things that junior environment ministers have to do, such as worrying about what people put in their loft space. He's behind a sensible scheme to encourage Aussies to insulate their homes. It's the sort of thing that British politicans back, too. Unfortunately, Garrett is now finding out the hard way what happens when the government pays cowboy builders to come round to your home.
Australians are used to finding scary things in their attics – funnel web spiders and tiger snakes, for instance – but not foil insulation that has been wired to the mains. Thanks to a federal government scheme, intended to cut energy use, thousands of homes may have been fitted with foil insulation that has been inadvertently nailed to nearby electrical wiring. Last week, one man died in a fire apparently caused by such an error.
Suddenly, insulation has lept from nowhere to the top of the political agenda, with the opposition calling on Garrett to resign. He is "inhabiting a different moral universe", says Tony Abbott, the leader of the Liberal party.
Since Abbott also not long ago described climate change as "total crap", some might ask whether it is Abbott, rather than Garrett, whose morals have gone askew. But at least he hasn't yet gone as far as his finance spokesman, who last week said insulation was nothing more than "the fluffy stuff that sits in the ceiling for rats and mice to urinate on". Those mice had better watch out when they pee.
Julian Glover
guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 February 2010 20.00 GMT
'How can we sleep when our beds are burning?" sang Peter Garrett in 1987, when he was vying with Michael Hutchence for the title of Australia's most famous rock star. Now, having joined the government as environment minister, the former singer with Midnight Oil has a very real fire to put out.
Garrett is a good man with an impossible task, trying to retain his street cred while doing all the boring but important things that junior environment ministers have to do, such as worrying about what people put in their loft space. He's behind a sensible scheme to encourage Aussies to insulate their homes. It's the sort of thing that British politicans back, too. Unfortunately, Garrett is now finding out the hard way what happens when the government pays cowboy builders to come round to your home.
Australians are used to finding scary things in their attics – funnel web spiders and tiger snakes, for instance – but not foil insulation that has been wired to the mains. Thanks to a federal government scheme, intended to cut energy use, thousands of homes may have been fitted with foil insulation that has been inadvertently nailed to nearby electrical wiring. Last week, one man died in a fire apparently caused by such an error.
Suddenly, insulation has lept from nowhere to the top of the political agenda, with the opposition calling on Garrett to resign. He is "inhabiting a different moral universe", says Tony Abbott, the leader of the Liberal party.
Since Abbott also not long ago described climate change as "total crap", some might ask whether it is Abbott, rather than Garrett, whose morals have gone askew. But at least he hasn't yet gone as far as his finance spokesman, who last week said insulation was nothing more than "the fluffy stuff that sits in the ceiling for rats and mice to urinate on". Those mice had better watch out when they pee.
Global collective action is the key to solving climate change
We cannot accept a 'climate apartheid', where the rich can buy their way out of the problem
John Sauven
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010
Ian Katz says "it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global [climate] deal will come from" (The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards, 9 February). With climate science under siege and climate politics in disarray he's absolutely right that "anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive". I believe that pressure will need to come from a new and much broader global grassroots movement. It will need cross-party political support and must engage the business community.
With Copenhagen behind us, it's time for a new discourse, one which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties, and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world. A debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values will play a central role.
We have to recognise that a global climate deal will be unlike any other previous international agreement. What we are seeking is a radical transformation of the global economy. If we view it as just another agreement that can be achieved with a bit of lobbying and mass mobilisation it won't work. The world generally needs to be shown that the transition to a low-carbon economy can really happen. And to achieve that requires real leadership from politicians and an unprecedented engagement with the public.
Katz suggests that the consequences (and causes) of the Copenhagen failings may take some time to divine. But it's clear that the policies presented by governments in Copenhagen failed to transcend short-term national interests for the greater global good.
In a carbon-constrained world it is going to be necessary to decouple human development from climate pollution. At Copenhagen world leaders could have signed an agreement that would have meant, in short, a radical transformation in the way we provide transport, energy, food, shelter, and other basic needs for all of the world's population. The opponents of action to tackle climate change talk about the costs. If we are to engage the public in the transition to a new economy we need to talk about the benefits, which will always outweigh the costs because of the catastrophic nature of climate change.
Katz says "there is a strong case for more radical reforms", but adds: "Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach." Maybe. But we cannot accept a "climate apartheid", where only the rich can buy their way out of the problem. Gandhi taught us that peaceful movements can win, but you need a common cause and mass mobilisation. Climate change is a global public "bad". To solve it requires global collective action.
Perhaps a more global conscience is a distant dream. But dream we must. We have no alternative but to build a global grassroots movement, move politicians forward, and force large corporations and banks to change direction. Civil society needs to sharpen its teeth if it is to win the battle to save the climate.
John Sauven
The Guardian, Tuesday 16 February 2010
Ian Katz says "it is hard to see where the political leadership for a global [climate] deal will come from" (The case for climate action must be remade from the ground upwards, 9 February). With climate science under siege and climate politics in disarray he's absolutely right that "anyone who cares about this issue must fight to keep it alive". I believe that pressure will need to come from a new and much broader global grassroots movement. It will need cross-party political support and must engage the business community.
With Copenhagen behind us, it's time for a new discourse, one which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties, and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world. A debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values will play a central role.
We have to recognise that a global climate deal will be unlike any other previous international agreement. What we are seeking is a radical transformation of the global economy. If we view it as just another agreement that can be achieved with a bit of lobbying and mass mobilisation it won't work. The world generally needs to be shown that the transition to a low-carbon economy can really happen. And to achieve that requires real leadership from politicians and an unprecedented engagement with the public.
Katz suggests that the consequences (and causes) of the Copenhagen failings may take some time to divine. But it's clear that the policies presented by governments in Copenhagen failed to transcend short-term national interests for the greater global good.
In a carbon-constrained world it is going to be necessary to decouple human development from climate pollution. At Copenhagen world leaders could have signed an agreement that would have meant, in short, a radical transformation in the way we provide transport, energy, food, shelter, and other basic needs for all of the world's population. The opponents of action to tackle climate change talk about the costs. If we are to engage the public in the transition to a new economy we need to talk about the benefits, which will always outweigh the costs because of the catastrophic nature of climate change.
Katz says "there is a strong case for more radical reforms", but adds: "Those who want action on climate change will meanwhile have to accept a more incremental approach." Maybe. But we cannot accept a "climate apartheid", where only the rich can buy their way out of the problem. Gandhi taught us that peaceful movements can win, but you need a common cause and mass mobilisation. Climate change is a global public "bad". To solve it requires global collective action.
Perhaps a more global conscience is a distant dream. But dream we must. We have no alternative but to build a global grassroots movement, move politicians forward, and force large corporations and banks to change direction. Civil society needs to sharpen its teeth if it is to win the battle to save the climate.
Big firms drop support for US climate bill
• BP America, Caterpillar and Conoco end support• Opponents claim climate law is dead in the water
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 21.31 GMT
Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations – including BP America – dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation.
The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law.
They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan.
Only hours earlier, Obama and other cabinet officials had made a high-profile announcement that $8.3bn (£5.3bn) was being awarded in loan guarantees for a company building the first new nuclear reactors in America in nearly 30 years.
But the loan decision in favour of Southern Company, which was framed by the White House as a kick-start for new nuclear plants, was upstaged by the departure of the big three firms from the climate partnership.
Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry.
The house of representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has stalled in the Senate.
"House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalised versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions," said the ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive, Jim Mulva, in a statement. "We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort."
Opponents of climate change legislation said the departure of the big three companies had all but killed off Obama's last chances of pushing his agenda through Congress.
"Cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the US Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Obama this week is stepping up White House pressure on Congress with a series of events intended to show the job-creating potential of his green energy agenda.
His announcement at a Maryland job training centre of the new nuclear loan guarantees was a key part of the strategy.
"Even though we haven't broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." The guarantees would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaulted. They cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building two reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today'syesterday's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
The pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for the climate and energy bill. Expanding nuclear power, which supplies about 20% of the country's electricity, is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support. A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies , saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 21.31 GMT
Barack Obama suffered a setback to his green energy agendatoday when three major corporations – including BP America – dropped out of a coalition of business groups and environmental organisations that had been pressing Congress to pass climate change legislation.
The defections by ConocoPhillips, America's third largest oil company, Caterpillar, which makes heavy equipment, and BP rob the US Climate Action Partnership of three powerful voices for lobbying Congress to pass climate change law.
They also undercut Obama's efforts to cast his climate and energy agenda as a pro-business, job-creation plan.
Only hours earlier, Obama and other cabinet officials had made a high-profile announcement that $8.3bn (£5.3bn) was being awarded in loan guarantees for a company building the first new nuclear reactors in America in nearly 30 years.
But the loan decision in favour of Southern Company, which was framed by the White House as a kick-start for new nuclear plants, was upstaged by the departure of the big three firms from the climate partnership.
Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry.
The house of representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has stalled in the Senate.
"House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalised versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions," said the ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive, Jim Mulva, in a statement. "We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort."
Opponents of climate change legislation said the departure of the big three companies had all but killed off Obama's last chances of pushing his agenda through Congress.
"Cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the US Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Obama this week is stepping up White House pressure on Congress with a series of events intended to show the job-creating potential of his green energy agenda.
His announcement at a Maryland job training centre of the new nuclear loan guarantees was a key part of the strategy.
"Even though we haven't broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," he said. "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." The guarantees would commit the US government to repaying Southern's loans if the company defaulted. They cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building two reactors at the company's Vogtle plant, east of Atlanta.
White House officials said today'syesterday's announcement reinforced Obama's pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America's use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.
Obama has also asked Congress to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.
The pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for the climate and energy bill. Expanding nuclear power, which supplies about 20% of the country's electricity, is one of the few elements of Obama's energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support. A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.
Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.
But the subsidies have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. "It's a heck of a lot of money," said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. "The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go."The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.
Obama acknowledged those controversies , saying: "There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs."
The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.
White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.
The loan guarantees are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.
Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of "at least half a dozen, probably more" loans for new nuclear reactor construction. "We have a lot of projects in the pipeline", he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.
The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. "If you lose control, it will not melt down," he said. "Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held."
Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. "We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
