Planning or coincidence?
The Global Warming Policy Foundation logo…EU Referendum's round-up makes it clear that the MSM are just starting to pay attention to the CRU documents and coincidentally, Professor Philip Stott points me towards a new think-tank…
Today, Nigel Lawson, Lord Lawson of Blaby, will launch a new, high-powered, all-party (and non-party) think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which he hopes, as he writes in this morning’s Times, “may mark a turning-point in the political and public debate on the important issue of global warming policy.” And so do I; we have long-needed such a body to fight for common sense about climate change in the UK. At last, as the Times headline reads, there is a senior politician in the UK brave enough to state that “Copenhagen will fail - and quite right too. Even if the science was reliable (which it isn’t), we should not force the world’s poorest countries to cut carbon emissions.”
Aims of the GWPF
The aims of the GWPF are simple. The “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.” Further:“The GWPF's primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration.
Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.
We intend to develop alternative policy options and to foster a proper debate (which at present scarcely exists) on the likely cost and consequences of current policies.”
It is fortunate that Lord Lawson should have launched his new initiative this weekend of all weekends, eh?
Is it not also a massive coincidence that Dr Benny Peiser—the man who runs CCNet (apparently "the world's leading climate policy network") and who initiated this revealing CRU conversation—should be the director of GWPF?
You can join the Global Warming Policy Foundation for a minimum donation of £100 (my membership will have to wait: ironically, I've got the car tax to pay).
I shall save my pennies though, as we sceptics have been sorely missing such a body—in the UK, at least—which has the connections to be able to speak truth to power. Let's see if anything interesting comes out of it…
My, my—this whole climate change debate is really hotting up…
Labels: climate, CRU emails, environmentalism, jubilation, science, think-tanks, wild speculation
| 5 blogger comments
| links to this post
5 Blogger Comments:
God bless the hacker(s)
Well done DK keep up the great work.
Sunshine is such a damn good disinfectant!
DK
£100 sent to the GWPF might be more effective in getting some honesty into the "settled science" of climate change than £140+ "sent" annually to the BBC
Eric S. Raymond, author of The Art of Unix Programming, and The Cathedral and the Bazaar says he will personally lend his assistance to the development of an open source climate project:
"There is only one way to cut through all of the conflicting claims and agendas about the CRU’s research: open-source it all. Publish the primary data sets, publish the programs used to interpret them and create graphs like the well-known global-temperature “hockey stick”, publish everything. Let the code and the data speak for itself; let the facts trump speculation and interpretation.
We know, from experience with software, that secrecy is the enemy of quality — that software bugs, like cockroaches, shun light and flourish in darkness. So, too. with mistakes in the interpretation of scientific data; neither deliberate fraud nor inadvertent error can long survive the skeptical scrutiny of millions. The same remedy we have found in the open-source community applies – unsurprisingly, since we learned it from science in the first place. Abolish the secrecy, let in the sunlight.
AGW true believers and “denialists” should be able to agree on this: the data get the last word, because without them theory is groundless. The only way for the CRU researchers to clear themselves of the imputation of serious error or fraud is full disclosure of the measurement techniques, the raw primary data sets, the code used to reduce them, and of their decisions during the process of interpretation. They should have nothing to hide; let them so demonstrate by hiding nothing.
The open-source community has many project-hosting sites that are well adapted for this sort of disclosure. If they require assistance in choosing one and learning how to create and manage an open-source project, I and many others in the open-source community will be happy to provide it."
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home