More ClimateGate Complications

The ClimateGate plot thickens. Lord Oxburgh, a member of the House of Lords who was appointed “to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia,” has links to businesses that would benefit financially from low-carbon technology: he is chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables. Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia’s pro-vice-chancellor for research, said the university was aware of Lord Oxburgh’s connections but believed he would act “in an utterly objective way.”[%comments]

Eric M. Jones

I beg anyone who has not thoroughly joined one camp or another to read:

Granted the site leans anti-AGM, but it aims for balance.

The O-18 historic temperature proxy is really hard to beat.

So here's what we know--

1) Politics and emotions make very bad science.
2) Science is not decided by votes, popular persuation or acclaim.
3) Cleaning up the planet is better for everyone regardless of the final GW outcome.
4) One American baby adds nearly two-million pounds of CO2 in a lifetime....I'm applying for YOUR carbon credit voucher NOW.


While this discovery could well indicate corporate-policy greed, isn't it also possible that Lord Oxburgh believes in climate change and therefore ascribed his name to the Equity column of businesses that he believed were making the right decision? This could end up being little more than a benefit-of-the-doubt-devil's-advocate stance, as time has shown that people in power abuse it, but it's plausible.

Tim Havel

The only thing I've got to say is that the name of this blog is entirely appropriate. Freak away!

tom merle

You definitely don't want someone "to chair a scientific assessment panel that will examine the published science of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia," who brings a point of view one way or the other. You want a disinterested scientist who has chosen not to take sides. Not easy but not impossible


Investment in low carbon technology remains a Catch-22. If it will stifle the resources for more beneficial R&D it should most certainly be halted. All to often the populous is manipulated by the private interests of those who have vested interests in the broader economic spectrum.

Thank you for you book! A bright light in an age that carries little transparency.

Spread Climate Change transparency to the world with the most efficient PR machine in the world.

or to the Top 100 newspapers in the world.


Sure, guys, I'm sold.
This is not a 3rd-year-in-a-row drought in our region, along with abnormally high temperatures round the year. That must be someone trying to make a fortune.


This is an incredibly serious subject right now. Just think if the climate changers are wrong we might just end up with a cleaner pollution free better planet.


I always wonder why CO2 is the villian. It feeds the trees. then I wonder hmm we talk about regional droughts...those never happened before...well except cyclically throughout history.

Don EV

"Just think if the climate changers are wrong we might just end up with a cleaner pollution free better planet."
I am all for a cleaner planet but the laws put forth such as CO2 capture, cabon credits ect. is just a money making scam! For one thing US coal fired power plants run at 99% clean with the exeption of the CO2. I wish people could see what will happen if a carbon tax gets put in place, gasoline will be 8 dollars a gallon, electric bills will double or triple! That will then make alternative energy more affordable then! I dont know about you but right now I just can't afford that!


This is outrageous. There is only one answer, we must do away with all this climate preservation nonsense!

Gordon Wood

#27: "Just think if the climate changers are wrong we might just end up with a cleaner pollution free better planet."

It's a myth to equate lower carbon with "cleaner." Lowering carbon emissions (as opposed to only normal pollution) requires additional resources. Within a given budget, you could leave your grandchildren a much cleaner world if you use all that money just to reduce pollution.


Of course Lord Oxburgh was also the chairman of Shell UK, just as he is the chairman of Falck... Montford and the Times conveniently omit that fact (even though Orlowski mentions it in his original smear). So allegations of bias could work either way.

Ignatius Gorgonzola

Calling it 'climategate' begs the question of a scandal.

I surprised that an economist would deem himself fit to judge the more or less consensus opinion of another very distant field (climatology).

I imagine he would have no problem with climatologists barging into the realm of economics. No doubt their knowledge of the matter is as good as his own ... or is it?

I get emails all the time from various nutters claiming to know a lot about my field ....

Eric M. Jones

My problem with AGM-ers:

"This is not a 3rd-year-in-a-row drought in our region..."

AGM-er: "...and It's going to get worse as temperatures rise and the polar caps melt--we predict a return to the dust-bowl of the 1930's!"

"This is not a 3rd-year-in-a-row flooding in our region..."

AGM-er: "...and It's going to get worse as ocean temperatures rise--there is more evaporation, thus more rain and flooding!"

Jim Tarpey


If Lord Oxburgh had links to Exxon Mobil, would you be so willing to trust his independence?


Corollary to Godwin: Obama/Democrats/"The Left." Default argument for the ignorant, misinformed, and denialists.



CO2 is 'the villian' due to its quantum mechanical molecular properties: more specifically, it's emission spectrum is in the infrared region. Other gas molecules which share this property (e.g. methane) are also greenhouse gases. I guess CO2 is commonly chosen over the others due to higher atmospheric concentrations, now and historically.


@RockyRoad - "In the past 30 years, there's been no upward trend in droughts, wet weather, large tornadoes or cyclones. "

You certainly wouldn't be saying that if you'd been living in Australia for the last 30 years.


Russ Walsh: what next? There are plenty of problems here on planet earth. Here are a couple upcoming agenda items to be addressed, so we can give control of the planet to socialist utopians straight out of Brave New World: rampant global infectious disease (this will be a challenge, since all of us intellectually superior ruling-class PhDs already set the response set with HIV: no quarantine, etc.); "overpopulation" (let's kill off the unborn babies on the "dark" continents before some unspecified environmental catastrophe, or "collapse," causes death for those of us on the lighter-skinned continents) -- even though the planet is sparsely populated AND we have wildly suffiicent caloric production excess, with plenty of headroom; and of course if those fail, a great PR effort regarding the threat of a huge meteorite hitting planet earth.

It is not too difficult to see what is coming down the pike. Just check out current science czar's text: Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. 1970.

Global cooling and everything else is in there.


Just ME in T

The AGW Scammers will fight to the end, and if they acnnot win - one way - they will try other ways:

Is this really asking you to be part of the World's Greatest Bank Job (ha ha ha ha) or a conniving way to encourage you to be a part of the Worlds Biggest Con Job?
I just have to wonder how many folk actually have heard about the 'Robin Hood Tax' ? - (RHT) and more importantly have taken the time to find out what it is? where it comes from? what is actually involved? Let me tell you right now it involves BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and of course, should it come to pass, just who will administer it?