Anthony Watts @wattsupwiththat throws caution to the wind...

I spoke too soon.

In a fit of recklessness Anthony Watts has posted an article with the title:

EXPOSED: David Rose rips UK climate change committee for being on the take

I've archived the WUWT article here and the David Rose article in Mail Online here.

Caution to the wind

UK Climate Change Committee "on the take"? Anthony Watts is accusing highly respected and prominent UK citizens of criminal activity.  He is probably leaving himself open to being sued by members of the UK Climate Change Committee if not the UK Government itself.  And maybe even by The Daily Mail and David Rose. Would any of them bother?  I don't know.

The Rose article stops short of alleging that the members of the UK Committee on Climate Change are "on the take" but he does skate very close to that, implying that there is potential for them to benefit, writing:

The Mail on Sunday’s investigation has established that four of its nine members have recently had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings.

So which of the nine members does Rose allege "had or still have financial interests in firms that benefit from its rulings"?  David Rose draws a very long bow and is walking a thin line, and arguably is on the wrong side of that line.  Anthony Watts crossed right over the line.

About the UK Committee on Climate Change

First of all, the Committee on Climate Change.  The purpose of the Committee is described as follows:

The Committee on Climate Change (the CCC) is an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008. Our purpose is to advise the UK Government and Devolved Administrations on emissions targets and report to Parliament on progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate change.

It recommends emissions targets and reports on progress in meeting the targets.  A fuller description of its statutory duties are provided in its framework document.  It's not the sort of committee from which its members could directly benefit.  The members are listed here with brief bios.

Just what is the benefit from all the work they do on the committee? The members get a sitting fee and it's not much. Only £800 a day for members and £1,000 a day for the chair, which is a pittance for the job particularly for people of such high status as this, but probably standard for government sitting fees.  They meet once a month.  They aren't in it for the money, that's for sure.  (The fake sceptics at WUWT probably paid more than that on a per day basis, to send Anthony Watts to AGU13!)

Fake smear attempt by David Rose

And what is David Rose alleging?  Nothing at all when you boil it down.  His article is smear and innuendo for his ignorant readers, full of language designed to stoke the rage of the denialiti .

As for his "three months investigation" - he's slow.  You could investigate a lot of it in a few minutes on the internet.  For example, his main "allegation" about the members of the Committee on Climate Change is nothing more than a regurgitation of their bios as listed on the Committee on Climate Change website.

Here is a rundown of David Rose's "allegations".  Top secret stuff publicly available to all!

One member of the Committee, Professor Dame Julia King DBE FREng, is also a non-Executive Director of the Green Investment Bank.  "So what?" you might ask.  Exactly.  There is no conflict of interest there.  The Green Investment Bank provides finance to UK companies that are "green and commercial".   David Rose is really stretching to argue that " The more the CCC’s rulings favour renewable subsidies, the better the bank is likely to do."  I doubt that her stipend as a Director would be affected by how well the bank performs.

In case any of David's readers clued into the fact that there's no conflict of interest there, he pointed out a damning piece of evidence - Dame Julia also owns a house! She's owned it since 2002.  She bought it six years before the Committee on Climate Change was created. David even ferreted out what it's worth, which is utterly irrelevant.

He then tackles Professor Lord May of Oxford, OM AC FRS, another one of the most respected figures in the UK, on the grounds that in addition to being on the Climate Change Committee, he is also a member of the Sustainability Board of the global banking giant HSBC and has various other interests.  What does he want him to do with all his days between the monthly meetings? Twiddle his thumbs or use his expertise?  None of the interests David Rose lists could be seen in any way as conflicting with his role on the Committee on Climate Change.

After that he tries to smear by innuendo The Rt. Hon John Gummer, Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change.  He tackles him on the grounds that until a recent restructure, he was Chair of Veolia Water UK PLC.  Veolia Water is mainly in the business of water, waste water and organic waste.  It also has a an infrastructure division which "provides multi-utility services including large electrical grid connections for renewable energy producers of waste, wind, and anaerobic digestion".  David Rose is stretching about as far as Dame Julia's house when he tries to claim that there is any conflict of interest in that regard.

He then tries to smear Professor Sam Fankhauser, who is Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics and a Director of an economics consulting firm, Vivid Economics.  The smear this time is because Vivid Economics has as one of its practice areas "Energy and Climate Change".

David Rose rounds off his pseudo-attack by observing that other members of the Climate Change Committee have expertise in climate change.  Well, duh!  You'll like the way he describes it though:

Other CCC members have  spent their careers as  academics in fields that help fuel green campaigns.

Sir Brian Hoskins, a fierce critic of climate sceptics, is a climatologist at Imperial College, London, where he is director of another institute funded by Grantham.

Jim Skea is also at Imperial, where he is Professor of Sustainable Energy, and was launch director of the Low Carbon Vehicle Project.

At the very bottom of the article, after all the smears and garbage, David Rose writes:

A CCC spokeswoman said it  had ‘rigorous checks and balances to ensure that there are no conflicts of interests for committee members’.

And if you doubt it, you can read all the minutes of every committee meeting.  They are all available on the Committee on Climate Change website.

I'm hanging out for David Rose to do an expose of the UK Competition Commission, there are bound to be some members on that who compete.  Or the Financial Conduct Authority, whose Chair used to head up KPMG Europe - an accounting and audit company, and whose members include people with a lot of expertise relevant to financial conduct in the public and private sectors! Who'd have thought.

Better yet, I expect still on David Rose's "to do" list is an investigative report into the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The future is renewable but UK taxpayers still subsidise dirty coal

By the way, half of David Rose's article has nothing to do with the UK Committee on Climate Change. In the top half of the Rose article he describes how there is money to be made in renewables.  The slant he takes is that the money being made at present hinges on subsidies.  That may be so now but it won't always be the case.

What David Rose doesn't let on is that the fossil fuel sector in the UK is getting greater subsidies than wind power in the UK.

Nor does he let on to his readers that UK taxpayers will be subsidising dirty coal in the UK for years and years.

From the WUWT comments

The article is long enough, so I'll just show a small number of comments from the fake sceptics.  Silly stuff. There's nothing you haven't read umpteen times already. I've updated the WUWT archived version here.


Eric Simpson, a chattering monkey from the WUWT chorus, says:

December 14, 2013 at 5:40 pm
Put the bozos in jail.

A.D. Everard has no insight into what was written but he she "believes" Anthony's arguably libellous headline and says:

December 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm
Well, this will raise the blood pressure of those on the committee and many others in the Green ranks.

Of course this news is no surprise to us, but how wonderful to see it in the news and not just in the opinion column, out where everybody can see it. Facts and figures and photographs. This will get the general public fuming, and I hope it does! The general view some years ago seemed to be “Why would they lie?” Well, now their finding out!

Dare I say, maybe some ministers will wake up to how they are being used?
Hopefully, too, this will trigger other countries to look into their own climate change committees. More of this exposure is essential.

(And here I was thinking Sundays were slow-news days.)

Reed Coray says:

December 14, 2013 at 7:22 pm
Smells a lot like legalized larceny.

noaaprogrammer is still convinced climate science is a hoax and says:

December 14, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Assuming that eventually the AGW scam and its perpetrators are effectively dealt with, is there any legal way that the tax payers around the world can be reimbursed even a small percentage of what the warmists have stolen?

For the U.S. I suggest that presidential wanabees for 2016 include promises of such reimbursements through lower tax rates for the number of years equivalent to a complete restitution of the theft.

John@EF makes a wry (cynical?) comment - my guess is he's a 1 per center:

December 14, 2013 at 5:29 pm
David Rose is reporting this? My, this is serious …