The UK's lead G8 negotiator rejected moves from Germany and France to make climate change a key talking point. Officials from the two countries are said to be disappointed their suggestions were rebuffed. There appears to be a view within Whitehall that a limited agenda has a better chance of success, and that focusing on the economy amidst an increasingly bleak financial landscape is a sensible ambition. Blocking climate change from the main agenda appears an odd move given the profile it has had at previous meetings. --Ed King, The Guardian, 26 March 2013
Two significant announcements from No 10 this morning that should give the carpers something to cheer quietly about. John Hayes is leaving the energy brief to become the Prime Minister’s senior parliamentary adviser. The appointment of Michael Fallon to the energy brief will delight everyone. He shares the climate change scepticism of his predecessor, but will keep his focus on the point George Osborne keeps making: how to keep costs down for consumers, and how to secure long-term cheap energy. --Benedict Brogan, The Daily Telegraph, 28 March 2013
It was Georges Pompidou, the most neglected of president of the 5th Republic and perhaps the most interesting, who said: ‘There are 3 roads to ruin. Women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is with technicians.’ I wonder what he would have said if he had met a climate scientist. For what distinguishes the age of global warming is that scientists — particularly climate scientists — had more impact on public policy and on the destiny of nations than in any other era. --Rupert Darwall, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 27 March 2013
The Committee on Climate Change has given its view on the much-discussed recent article on global warming predictions in the Mail on Sunday, written by David Rose. However, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins and Dr Steve Smith misuse statistics. If this kind of data were from a drugs trial it would have been stopped long ago, even allowing for the little understood stopping bias effect which occurs when looking for the first signs of effectiveness or harm in such trials. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 27 March 2013
Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The mismatch between rising greenhouse-gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now. The mismatch might mean that—for some unexplained reason—there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy. --The Economist, 28 March 2013
A paper published today by James Hansen has some startling admissions, including: the effect [forcing] of man-made greenhouse gas emissions has fallen below IPCC projections, despite an increase in man-made CO2 emissions exceeding IPCC projections; the growth rate of the greenhouse gas forcing has “remained below the peak values reached in the 1970s and early 1980s, has been relatively stable for about 20 years, and is falling below IPCC (2001) scenarios.” Hansen believes the explanation for this conundrum is CO2 fertilization of the biosphere from “the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal.” --The Hockey Schtick, 27 March 2013
