Skip to content

ClimateGate: Lord Stern and the Grantham Institute

December 3, 2009

As a resident of Norwich, that’s the City of Norwich in the County of Norfolk, which is in the region of East Anglia, for the worldwide journo’s who keep referring to East Anglia like its a country, I have had a strong interest in the mess at the UEA CRU in recent weeks.

I wanted to kick this off with a post about this item reported on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8393449.stm

There is no name attributed to this story, but I would suggest that Richard Black, yes the Richard Black praised in the ClimateGate emails, is somewhere in the mix:

“extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

Objective reporting or propaganda for one viewpoint?  More info here:

http://toryardvaark.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-bbcs-complicity-in-the-agw-lie/

The BBC chose this nice chap to comment on the appointment as follows:

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, welcomed the appointment. But he said: “One concern is that the results may not be published until the Spring.

“This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.

“The big question is whether so-called ‘sceptics’ will complain because the investigation will not be headed by one of their own, and whether they will suspend their campaigns of disinformation about this affair until the investigation is completed.”

The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment?

Ahhh.

That would be the Institute that advises here in the UK, and is headed up by Nicholas Stern.

The British Governments, and international, stance on climate change has been shaped in no small part by Nicholas Stern (made a Lord in 2007 for his efforts), who has strongly pushed for the Copenhagen agreement and particularly carbon trading.

Oh and giving up eating meat.

That would be Lord Stern who’s Stern Report has influenced decision makers on both sides of the pond.

That would be the Nicolas Stern who advises HSBC on their climate strategy.

The same Nicholas Stern who recently did an interview titled….

Lord Nicholas Stern, IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of Economics, is interviewed by Brendan Maton about the impact of climate change on the world economy, his hopes and fears for the summit in Copenhagen as well as the role and opportunities for investors in addressing climate change.”

the same Nicholas Stern who wrote a book advocating carbon licensing…..

And finally (drum roll please)  that would be the same Nicholas Stern who in 2008 launched the Carbon Ratings Agency:

“The agency, run by the IdeaCarbon group of which Lord Stern is vice-chairman, said it would offer investors a guide to the quality of credits and the likelihood that they would be delivered. Sellers of carbon credits would have to pay to have their products rated, while buyers would also pay to gain access to the ratings.”

So Mr Bob Ward, policy and communications director, just maybe it’s not just those crazy sceptics who have an interest in this then?  Some would even go as far as to say that people such as Lord Stern have a lot more to lose than most?

As you say, plenty more time for mischief making.  Don’t waste it, Lord Stern and the other people who are paying your wages, are making money out of Climate Change and have millions of pounds at stake.

UPDATED:

As I found his email address it seemed rude not to contact Bob Ward…..

“Robert

I am slightly surprised, no scrap that, very disappointed to see your integrity levels are hovering somewhere down with the guys and gals at the CRU.

“This is probably necessary to allow a thorough investigation, but it does mean that those who are using ‘climategate’ as a propaganda tool for their own political ends might be able to enjoy many more weeks of mischief-making.”

Looks like the “sceptics” are not the only ones using propaganda tools, they just don’t have the ear of the BBC.

In terms of standing to lose or gain, the person who really should be ramping up the propaganda right now is your boss Nick Stern, who has a lot more to lose than most if Copenhagen ends without a deal.  You know, since he is the Vice Chairman of the Carbon Ratings Agency.

Ah, but of course he does not need to, as you and the other employees are doing it for him.  

Lets hope he  has a place for you on his Ark when the ice all melts.

Advertisements

From → ClimateGate

4 Comments
  1. Corrinne Novak permalink

    Thanks for the information. This is certainly setting the fox to guard the Chicken House.

    The question was asked:
    “The big question is whether so-called ’sceptics’ will complain because the investigation will not be headed by one of their own, and whether they will suspend their campaigns of disinformation about this affair until the investigation is completed.”

    Since Lord Stern is financially motivated to sweep the matter under the rug and thanks to you we now know he is UNBIAS – NOT. Of course ’sceptics’ well continue the investigation and broadcast the truth far and wide.

    One only has to look at the Death of Congressman McFadden to see how the financiers deal with roadblocks.

    Congressman McFadden in 1934 petitioned for the impeachment of the Fed’s Board and US Treasury officials. He was shot at twice and then poisoned.

    Then there is the plot revealed by retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler. School texts that deal with the New Deal are uniquely silent about the powerful Americans who plotted to seize the White House with a private army, hold President Franklin D. Roosevelt prisoner, and get rid of him if he refused to serve as their puppet in a dictatorship they planned to impose and control.

    “On August 21, 1931, Butler spoke to an American Legion convention in New Britain CT. Looking back, he reflected on his career. His remarks stunned the audience. Few papers dared report even part of the speech:

    “I spent 33 years…being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism….

    “I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street….

    “In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….I had…a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions….I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…”

    http://www.eclectica.org/v1n1/reviews/wharton_plot.html

    The bankers make Al Capone look like a Sunday school teacher.

  2. steven permalink

    It’s amazing how all of the WARMERS as they are now appropriately being called are complaining about the nickname whilst they were all too happy to call anyone even with a logical argument against AGW ‘denyers’. This really does highlight the hypocrisy and outright visible condition of the ‘Green’ movement.

    I love ecological diversity. I love Whales. I love clean water. But a Carbon Tax was to fix this how? All they wanted was a rushed decision so that they would have a new ‘trading platform’ interwoven with the global economy to exploit further.

    This exposes the RAMPANT corruption and stinky mess of so called ‘world democracies’ that up until now were looked up to because they had ‘official looking cred’.

    This CRED is now COMPLETELY EVAPORATED. They have no credibility left. The spotlight will now expose the bigger festering cancer that this scandal rides upon; The New World Order. Woooo, conspiracies, but I thought they didn’t exist? I thought this was crazy talk.

    I’m starting to see a big stinking pile of globalism at the bottom of all of this, and these New World Order conspiracy theorists have really been the only ones predicting all of the things that have ACTUALLY happened since Sept 2001 where it kicked into gear.

    I was un-decided on this matter before, but I am now sold that this is only the result of a HUGE CONSPIRACY. It’s unbelieveable what the extent of it must be to have nearly pulled this off.

    Lies however can never support the weight of additional deceit they require to stay on their feet. This one has just come crashing to the ground, and like dominoes I believe it will be the tiping point that will un-Earth a hell of a lot of distasteful truth elsewhere that we are all going to have to consume and deal with like adults…..or perish.

  3. RockyRoad permalink

    Sad that they’d appoint a Global Warming Worshiper to deny the faith–it won’t happen. Look for a whitewash and denial after denial. I’d be surprised to see a report in the springtime of 2020, say nothing of 2010.

  4. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: