Energy Probe

Transcript of press conference by Julia Gillard, Australia's new Prime Minister

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

Julia Gillard

June 24, 2010

Transcript of press conference by Julia Gillard, Australia’s new Prime Minister

Transcript of press conference

Thank you for joining me in this jam packed room.

And can I say, Australians one and all, it’s with the greatest humility, resolve and enthusiasm that I sought the endorsement of my colleagues to be the Labor Leader and to become Prime Minister of this country. I have accepted that endorsement.

And I am truly honoured to lead this country which I love.

I am utterly committed to the service of our people.

I grew up in the great state of South Australia. I grew up in a home of hardworking parents. They taught me the value of hard work. They taught me the value of respect. They taught me the value of doing your bit for the community.

And it is these values that will guide me as Australia’s Prime Minister.

I believe in a Government that rewards those who work the hardest, not those who complain the loudest.

I believe in a Government that rewards those who, day in and day out, work in our factories and on our farms, in our mines and in our mills, in our classrooms and in our hospitals, that rewards that hard work, decency and effort.

The people who play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, stand by their neighbours and love their country.

And I also believe that ‘leadership’ is about the authority that grows from mutual respect shared by colleagues, from team work and from hard work, team work and spirit.

It’s these beliefs that have been my compass during the three and half years of the most loyal service I could offer to my colleague, Kevin Rudd.

I asked my colleagues to make a leadership change.

A change because I believed that a good Government was losing its way.

And because I believe fundamentally that the basic education and health services that Australians rely on and their decent treatment at work is at risk at the next election.

I love this country and I was not going to sit idly by and watch an incoming Opposition cut education, cut health and smash rights at work.

My values and my beliefs have driven me to step forward to take this position as Prime Minister.

Today I want to make some commitments to the Australian people.

I want to make firstly a commitment that I will lead a strong and responsible Government that will take control of our future.

A strong and responsible Government improving and protecting the essential public services and basic rights our people depend on, including so importantly, their rights at work.

I wish to make two acknowledgments.

I take my fair share of responsibility for the Rudd Government’s record, for our important achievements and for errors made.

I know the Rudd Government did not do all it said it would do.

And at times, it went off track.

I also certainly acknowledge I have not been elected Prime Minister by the Australian people.

And in coming months I will ask the Governor-General to call for a general election so that the Australian people can exercise their birthright to choose their Prime Minister.

Between now and this election, I seek their consideration and their support.

And I seek that consideration and support as we emerge from the biggest financial crisis the world has faced since the Great Depression, with the lowest debt, amongst the lowest unemployment rates and the highest growth of the world’s economies.

This is an achievement we should be proud of – the working people, employers, employees, the trade unions, the small and big businesses, the employer associations who all made this possible.

I give credit to every hardworking Australian for hat has been achieved during these difficult economic days.

I give credit to the Labor giants, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, as the architects of the prosperity of modern Australia.

I give credit to John Howard and Peter Costello for continuing these reforms.

And I particularly give credit to Kevin Rudd for leading the nation in such difficult times and keeping people in work.

And today I can assure every Australian that their Budget will be back in surplus in 2013.

So, having seen the global financial crisis and how or nation has responded, it has reinforced in me my belief that when this nation pulls together, we can do great things.

It is my intention to lead a Government that uses that spirit and that will to do even more to harness the talents of all of our people.

To do even more to make sure that every child gets a fair go in life and a great education.

It is my intention to lead a Government that does more to harness the wind and the sun and the new emerging technologies.

I will do this because I believe in climate change. I believe human beings contribute to climate change.

And it is as disappointing to me as it is to millions of Australians that we do not have a price on carbon.

And in the future we will need one. But first we will need to establish a community consensus for action.

If elected as Prime Minister I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad. I will do that as global economic conditions improve and as our economy continues to strengthen.

There is another question on which I will seek consensus and that is the proposed Resources Super Profits Tax.

Australians are entitled to a fairer share of our inheritance, the mineral wealth that lies in our grounds. They are entitled to that fairer share.

But to reach a consensus, we need do more than consult. We need to negotiate.

And we must end this uncertainty which is not good for this nation.

That is why today I am throwing open the Government’s door to the mining industry and I ask that in return, the mining industry throws open its mind.

And today, I will ensure that the mining advertisements paid for by the Government are cancelled.

And in return for this, I ask the mining industry to cease their advertising campaign as a show of good faith and mutual respect.

Negotiations will occur with the mining industry. They will be led by the Treasurer and new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Martin Ferguson.

Can I say as well as dealing with these issues that as incoming Prime Minister I want to say to our troops, men and women at home and abroad.

We are a grateful country and we acknowledge your sacrifice.

Our country relies on you to keep us safe.

To keep the peace and to honour the U.S. and the other alliances that are so important for our nation.

The most recent loss of life of brave Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and the injuries that have befallen our troops remind us all of the depth of the sacrifice that our serving men and women can be called on to make.

Our thoughts are certainly with the grieving families.

Ultimately, Kevin and I disagreed about the direction of the Government. I believed we needed to do better.

But Kevin Rudd is a man of remarkable achievement.

He made wonderful history for this nation by saying ‘Sorry’ to Indigenous Australians.

He was the Leader who withdrew our troops from Iraq and had the foresight to reinforce our commitment in Afghanistan.

The Leader who saw us through the global financial crisis.

The Leader who turned his intelligence and determination to health reform, combating homelessness and closing the gap for Indigenous Australians.

And he came within a breath of brokering an international agreement on climate change.

Truly remarkable.

Of course I will be talking to Kevin Rudd about his future in the Parliamentary Labor Party.

I am also delighted to be standing here with the new Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan.

Wayne guided us through the very difficult waters of the global financial crisis. Now he’s guiding us back into surplus, getting the Budget back in the black.

Wayne is an outstanding Treasurer of this country and I know he will make an outstanding Deputy Prime Minister.

Of course, there will need to be some consequential changes in our Cabinet and ministerial arrangements and I will announce them at an appropriate time.

In conclusion can I say to my colleagues assembled, to the men and women off the press, I will dedicate my abilities to what I believe in.

A nation where hard work is rewarded and where the dignity of work is respected.

A nation that prides itself on the excellence of its education system.

Where Government can be relied upon to provide high quality services for all Australians.

An Australia that can achieve even greater things in the future. We should not be afraid of the future.

A strong Australia respected as a global force for progress, for peace and for tolerance.

A bright democracy for the world to admire.

And a sanctuary for all of our people.

Can I say to the Australian people there will be some days I delight you; there may be some days I disappoint you.

On every day, I will be working my absolute hardest for you.

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

New Brunswick talks with French firm about building 2nd nuclear reactor (NB-Nuclear)

Posted on June 24, 2010 by energyprbe

The Canadian Press
Oilweek Magazine
June 24, 2010

FREDERICTON _ The New Brunswick government has renewed efforts to see a second nuclear reactor built in the province, but at least one industry observer doesn´t believe it will ever happen.

Energy Minister Jack Keir is heading to Florida for three days of discussions with French nuclear engineering group Areva, starting Sunday.

“I would categorize it as more than preliminary,” Keir said Thursday of the discussions. “I don´t want to raise expectations until I come back, but I´m excited about the opportunity.”

Keir said he has talked with company officials a number of times since they contacted him before Christmas last year.

“They´ve come forward with plans to build the merchant plant to look to the New England area to sell that electricity, and have come forward with discussions about setting up a centre of excellence in nuclear,” Keir said.

He said Areva, which is controlled by the government of France, likes New Brunswick´s geographic location and the fact the province is bilingual. He said universities in the province could conduct research and produce employees who speak both English and French.

A group called Team Candu _ which included Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Hitachi Canada, SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc., Babcock and Wilcox Canada and GE-Hitatchi Nuclear Energy Canada Ltd. _ looked into the same possibility a couple of years ago.

However, Keir said they´ve had no talks in more than a year and he wants AECL to concentrate on the refurbishment of the first reactor at Point Lepreau. That project is at least 18 months behind schedule and an estimated $400 million over budget.

Keir said Areva was also interested a couple of years ago, but only recently was willing to consider providing the extras that New Brunswick wants.

He said the next step in talks with Areva would be to sign a letter of intent that would lay out the challenges and opportunities for the province and the company, and provide “off-ramps” if either side doesn´t see a business case in their favour.

Norm Rubin of the Toronto-based energy watchdog group Energy Probe said Thursday he doesn´t think the project will ever proceed.

“I think it´s somewhere between a long shot and an impossibility unless New Brunswick´s government becomes generous and agrees either to subsidize this venture or to accept a bunch of the downside risks,” Rubin said.

“Areva is under cost pressure because their taxpayers are tired of bailing them out just like Canadian taxpayers are tired of bailing out Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.”

Areva is currently facing major cost overruns on a plant it is building in Finland.

“As long as minister Keir leaves his chequebook at home, and as long as he´s not seduced by a type of time-share sales effort in Florida … then it´s going to be between Areva and the French taxpayers to see if they want to take a flyer on creating another Point Lepreau and paying for it,” Rubin said.

Still, Keir said he´s confident that New Brunswick will stand out as a good place to invest as the global recession ends.

“From an international perspective, investors are there and have lots of money to invest in the energy sector, and the energy hub is alive and well in New Brunswick,” Keir said.

Lawrence Solomon: Google Scholar at the Academy

Posted on June 23, 2010 by energyprbe

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.

The non-expert writer of this analysis of credibility, James W. Prall at Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, is not only not an expert in the field of climate change, he is also not an expert in electrical and computer engineering, at least not in the sense that some might assume from his University of Toronto affiliation. Mr. Prall is an administrator who looks after computers at the university, not a scientist or even a lowly researcher in the field. If it strikes you as odd that an editor at the National Academy of Sciences would accept someone with a life-long service and programming career in the computer field to judge the academic credentials of scientists, it gets odder.

Prall’s methodology in determining who is credible as a scientist involves the use of Google Scholar which, he explained last fall to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “studies just the scientific literature. They look at peer-reviewed journals.” Prall uses Google Scholar to determine how often people publish and how often they are cited. Based on the number of hits that Google Scholar produces – not on any analysis of the actual content of climate studies – Prall determines scientific merit. It’s an easy and straightforward process, he explained, that anyone can perform.

Does Google Scholar really limit itself to scholars? No. Search “Al Gore” on Google Scholar and you will find some 33,200 Scholar hits, almost 10 times as many as obtained by searching “James Hansen,” a true scientist and easily the best known of those endorsed by Prall as a bona fide believer. Neither does Google Scholar limit itself to “just the scientific literature.” Google Scholar finds articles in newspapers and magazines around the world: 113,000 in the New York Times, 22,000 in Economist, 21,000 in Le Monde, 16,000 in The Guardian.

Prall maintains his data on a portion of the University of Toronto website (this is his personal website, and not affiliated with the university, he is careful to note). I first came across him while in the CBC’s studios last fall, when he was invited by CBC Radio to counter my views by presenting a forerunner of his study, which was then unpublished. His results then differed little in the message they conveyed: “According to Jim Prall’s database, of the 615 scientists who published papers on climate change, the sceptics are outnumbered 601 to 14,” CBC announced.

Prall’s now-published work has some important differences. To give his work the trappings required to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, his study has several real scientists as co-authors, the best known and most credible among them being Stanford’s Steven Schneider, who was previously best known for predicting global cooling.

But Prall’s reliance on Google Scholar has not changed. He even tells us what search term he used to arrive at his results – key in the author by first and last name and, to obtain “climate relevant publications,” add the term “climate.”

Works beautifully. Al Gore turns up in such “climate sensitive” academic publications as Vanity Fair, Sierra Club Books, and HollywoodJesus.com.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 23, 2010

Posted in Climate Change | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: HST and carbon taxes: job creators or destroyers? Depends on who you ask

Posted on June 22, 2010 by energyprbe

(June 22, 2010) Charles Lammam and Niels Veldhuis would have us believe that net tax cuts are in the future for most BC households. But Finance Minister Colin Hansen’s 2010 Budget Fiscal Plan suggests otherwise. Who should we believe?

Colin Hansen’s most recent Budget and Fiscal Plan says that in 2012/13 B.C. citizens will pay $13,130 per person in personal income taxes, the provincial share of HST and individuals’ share of the new carbon tax, after accounting for all tax rebates, credits and income supplements for low income families. That is up 12.7% from the $12,270 per person they paid in fiscal 2009/10—and this does not include increases in individuals’ exposure to the net increase in the federal portion of the HST. Hanson’s own budget also forecasts that per capita personal income will grow only 8.5% over the same period.

In other words, BC’s official budget says that B.C. citizens’ tax liabilities are going up in both nominal and real terms as a direct result of the Province’s two recent tax shifts: from income to energy consumption taxes and from income to HST taxes.

Furthermore, BC’s Fiscal Plan explicitly estimates the values of all tax rebates and credits. If 100% of the estimated HST rebates and carbon tax credits are paid out to families in the two lowest income quintiles, they still fail to cover the net increase in tax liabilities those households will experience if they maintain taxable goods and services consumption at 2009/10 levels. This is before accounting for the fact that in Budget 2010 Finance Minister Hansen cut back, absolutely, the total funds available for income supplements and social services for low-income families for 2010/11 through 2012/13.
Given that 40% of those families don’t own even one car (and haven’t since 2006) and 60% of them rent accommodation in buildings in which they have no control over their energy consumption or costs, it is difficult to see how those families can change key consumption patterns to mitigate their net carbon and HST tax increases.

These calculations also do not account for the increases in health care, social insurance premiums and community service fees that will be required to cover the portion of the carbon tax and HST that government agencies, universities, schools, hospitals and not-for-profit providers of community services are expected to pass through to the communities they serve. Note that when any government finances income tax rate cuts with new consumption taxes, they actually effect a tax burden shift from the private sector to the public sector, which the public sector has to cover with increases in fees for public services.

Minister Hansen’s budget explicitly anticipates that municipal governments will pass at least 25% of their new HST liabilities through to property tax-payers as fees or tax increases; charities and not-for-profit services providers will pass through 43% of their new HST costs; schools will pass through 13%; universities and colleges will pass through 25%; and hospitals will pass through 44%.

The BC 2010 Budget does not disclose Minister Hansen’s estimates of the percentage of these public institutions and service providers’ carbon tax liability that will be passed through to citizens as fee and insurance premium increases. Crown corporations—BC Hydro, BC Transit, BC Ferries, the Insurance Corporation of BC, BC Lottery Corporation, etc.—are presumed to be able to pass 100% of their new HST and new carbon tax liabilities to the citizens of BC as rate and fee increases.

So Minister Hansen’s budget says that BC citizens’ individual tax liabilities will increase, absolutely and faster than their taxable income will grow.

Charles Lammam and Niels Veldhuis say that BC’s tax shifts will drive personal incomes up faster than personal tax liabilities will grow. Minister Hansen’s budget clearly forecasts that the provincial government will net $0.41 in income, carbon and HST taxes out of every $1.00 in income increase realized by BC citizens over the next 3 years. This is a very significant net increase in BC’s effective marginal tax rate for individuals.

Minister Hansen’s budget clearly forecasts that the provincial government revenues will increase 16.5% over the next three years, while personal incomes will increase only 13.%, and corporate income tax remits will decline, absolutely 3.3%. Charles Lammam and Niels Veldhuis say that BC’s tax shifts are “revenue neutral” for government. Minister Hansen’s budget explicitly forecasts that BC’s economy will add only 0.48 jobs for every person who will join the labour force—swelling the ranks of those looking for a job—over the next 3 years.

Lammam and Niels Veldhuis say that BC’s job supply will grow faster than otherwise as a result of the Province’s recent tax shifts.

Who and what should we believe?

Aldyen Donnelly, June 22, 2010

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Global warming strategist scores New York Times coup

Posted on June 21, 2010 by energyprbe

(Jun. 21, 2010) Stanford University’s Jon A Krosnick, a communications guru and advisor to the global warming camp, scored a coup in a New York Times oped last week that discredits polls by firms such as Gallup and Pew Research Center. Continue reading →

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Global warming strategist scores New York Times coup

Posted on June 21, 2010 by energyprbe

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
June 21, 2010

Stanford University’s Jon A Krosnick, a communications guru and advisor to the global warming camp, scored a coup in a New York Times oped last week that discredits polls by firms such as Gallup and Pew Research Center. The highly cited oped, entitled “The Climate Majority,” claims that these pollsters and others have it backwards and that “huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it.” For example, Krosnick’s own poll shows, “When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74% answered affirmatively. And 75% of respondents said that human behaviour was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred.”

Krosnick, an expert in questionnaire design, produces studies geared to explaining why people answer the way they do, and how to get them to answer differently. One recent paper dealt entirely with one of the biggest embarrassments to the global warming camp, Gallup’s classic “Most Important Problem” question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”

When public opinion pollsters ask the public this question or variants of it, global warming invariably comes in dead last. Sometimes the surveys find that not one person answers “global warming.” To get a better result, Krosnick lumped “global warming” in with “the environment” and didn’t limit the question to the U.S., asking “What do you think is the most important problem facing the world today? 7% then answered “Global warming/the environment.”

Krosnick then found he could double that result by shifting the problem away from today, with the following question: “What do you think will be the most important problem facing the world in the future?”

The best question of all, Krosnick found, came from adding an assumption of pessimism:” What do you think will be the most serious problem facing the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it?” When put this way, 25% of the public responded with “Global warming/the environment.” Krosnick doesn’t tell us how many of that 25% choose global warming versus the myriad of other environmental issues, such as air pollution, food and drinking water safety, wildlife and species protection, farmland or woodlands protection.

Krosnick recommends that pollsters ask his 25% question, believing it will obtain a result more useful for policy makers. He also chastises the press for interviewing global warming sceptics along with global warming advocates, saying this creates in the public mind the impression that the science is not settled on global warming. 6% of articles on global warming last year included the views of sceptics, a percentage Krosnick evidently views as too high.

Krosnick gets different results than other pollsters do by asking questions that some might consider bizarre. For example, when people told him that they didn’t believe global warming was happening, he asked them to pretend they did by asking them, “Assuming that global warming is happening, do you think a rise in the world’s temperature would be caused mostly by things people do, mostly by natural causes, or about equally by things people do and by natural causes? He then lumped the pretend response from people who don’t believe in global warming with a similar question asked of people who weren’t pretending about their belief in global warming. The result of the merger of these two groups was: 30% blame global warming on humans, 25% blame global warming on natural causes, and 45% believe humans and natural causes are about equally to blame. In the New York Times oped, Krosnick summarized this finding by pretenders and believers as “75% of respondents said that human behaviour was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred,” even though many of those 75% didn’t believe that global warming was happening at all.

To see some of Krosnick’s questions, albeit in an odd format, click here (Krosnick did not release the full report to public scrutiny; neither did he show the public the context for his questions).

What do the major polling firms think of Krosnick’s work? Not much. Here’s a response from the President of Pew Research:

“Mr. Krosnick posits that his question is more legitimate than others. It is but one approach and hardly ideal. The question’s preamble is ‘you may have heard about the idea that the world’s temperature may have been going up slowly’ and then asks whether this is ‘probably’ happening. Such wordings often encourage a positive response: this is known in the polling world as acquiescence bias.

“There are many different questions about climate change, none of them perfect, but almost all, except Mr. Krosnick’s, show a significant decline in belief in climate change. Pew Research not only found fewer in 2009 seeing solid evidence of global warming, but also fewer calling it a very serious problem and fewer naming warming a top priority for the president and Congress.

“Mr. Krosnick unfairly faults Gallup for asking whether climate change has been exaggerated, saying that it taps into views of media coverage. But Fox’s rather direct question — “Do you believe global warming exists?” — shows the same trend: a 19 percentage point decline in belief in global warming between 2007 and 2009.

“And while Mr. Krosnick cites ABC News/Washington Post survey results as similar to his, he doesn’t note that this poll also found a 12 percentage point decline in the number saying global warming is occurring.

“Far from being definitive, Mr. Krosnick’s finding is but one indicator and an outlier at that.”

And here is Gallup’s conclusion: “Mr. Krosnick’s article gave the impression … of an attempt to dismiss certain survey trend results because they did not fit his overall thesis.”

The media-savvy Krosnick, of course, knows all this without advice from Pew and Gallup. As he also knows, a winning communication strategy and an accurate one are entirely separate things.

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Rejecting the good news

Posted on June 19, 2010 by energyprbe

(Jun. 19, 2010) The massive Interphone cellphone study released earlier this year dismissed its own work because it failed to prove what researchers were looking for, namely, evidence of adverse effects of cellphones. Also rejected was evidence in their research that showed cellphones may reduce brain-tumour risk. The Interphone researchers may well have missed the real story in their work because they didn’t want to see it. Continue reading →

Posted in Consumer Health | Leave a comment

Rejecting the good news

Posted on June 19, 2010 by energyprbe

Posted in Hormesis | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: Nightfall on the solar industry

Posted on June 18, 2010 by energyprbe

Solar may be a renewable technology but government subsidies to it aren’t, Europe’s solar industry is learning.

In Spain, under a 2007 law that guaranteed 25 years of way-above-market prices to solar power developers, industry invested $22-billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make Spain the solar showcase of the world. Now that Spain is flirting with bankruptcy, the government is planning to rescind those guarantees, the Spanish press reports.

Under the government’s expected change of mind, the revenue of most existing solar-power plants would be cut by 30% and for new ground-based photovoltaic generators by 45%. The government would rescind fewer subsidies for roof-mounted panels: 25% cuts for large roofs and 5% for small roofs. The result, according to Tomas Diaz, director of external relations at the Photovoltaic Industry Association in Madrid, would be bankruptcy for most of the country’s 600 photovoltaic operators.

In Italy, the government plans to scrap guaranteed prices paid to owners of so-called green certificates, which represent greenhouse-gas-free power. Without those guarantees, says the head of the Association of Foreign Banks in Italy, solar and wind companies that obtained some $6.8-billion in loans may be unable to make their loan payments, leading to widespread default. About two-thirds of Italy’s green loans come from outside the country. More loans to the sector are now in doubt.

In Germany, prospects have also dimmed for the renewable industry, with the government scaling back its renewable power incentives. The UK has already announced a review of renewable subsidies, leading Denmark’s Dong Energy, which accounts for a third of UK offshore wind capacity, to say future investments may dry up.

The exit of governments from the renewable subsidy field follows a collapse in public support for the theory that manmade global warming is a serious problem. Because the public no longer buys it, the politicians no longer fund it.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 18, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Lawrence Solomon: IPCC insider explains embarrassing disclosure that went viral

Posted on June 17, 2010 by energyprbe

On Sunday, I wrote a blog about an IPCC insider who stated that the IPCC had been disingenuous in claiming that 2500 scientists had endorsed the view that humans are responsible for global warming. By Monday, my blog had gone viral, appearing in thousands of locations in the blogosphere and garnering perhaps hundreds of thousands of hits. Earlier today, Hulme provided a convoluted response on his own blog site, in an attempt to counter my blog.

He should instead take his own advice, which he had given to the IPCC in his paper: Don’t be disingenuous, because it makes you vulnerable to criticism.

Let me dissect Hulme’s rebuttal (which you can see in full, here).

Hulme says: Various newspaper and internet blogs are reporting me as saying that the IPCC has ‘misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming’ whereas in fact only ‘a few dozen experts’ did so. … I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone.

Solomon responds: Hulme stated in his paper that the IPCC had been “disingenuous” in making claims “such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’” when the correct number was “only a few dozen experts.” Seems clear to me that misleading has been going on. You can read Hulme’s paper here (pages 10 and 11 have the quotes in question) and decide for yourself.

Hulme says: it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead.

Solomon responds: Hulme is correct in noting that the caricatured claims that “2500 scientists” endorsed the man-made global warming potential have the potential to mislead. Indeed, that caricature has arguably misled more people than any other claim in human history. However, the source of that caricature, which for so long so thoroughly fooled the majority of the press and public, was the IPCC itself – in the IPCC`s own public relations documents. Hulme’s paper correctly identifies the IPCC as the source of this misinformation at the top of page 11, when he identifies it and other misleading claims as coming from “IPCC reports.” To see the IPCC touting its 2500 scientists, look here.

Judging from the reactions on the blogosphere, Hulme has embarrassed himself and his climate change colleagues, leaving him with two broad choices.

To minimize further embarrassment for his colleagues, he can simply do what other scientists have done when they’ve felt the pressure of the climate change establishment: Recant.

Alternatively, to minimize further embarrassment for himself, he can stop digging himself deeper into the hole in which he finds himself.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, June 17, 2010

Posted in Climate Change, The Deniers | Leave a comment