Skip to content

Climate chief told staff to ‘kill’ negative net zero story

March 10, 2024
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Doug Brodie

 

 image

The head of the Government’s climate watchdog told officials to “kill” a negative news story with “technical language”, The Telegraph can disclose.

Chris Stark, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), drafted the response when asked for clarity over claims of a “mistake” made by the body.

“How’s this – kill it with some technical language,” he told his team.

The exchange was revealed in a Freedom of Information request submitted by The Telegraph after apparent obfuscation by the climate watchdog over a story published by The Telegraph in January.

It raises questions about the transparency of the committee, which has been pushing the Government to impose more radical net zero targets.

Mr Stark, a senior public servant whose pay package amounts to more than £170,000 per year, is bound by the Nolan Principles of Public Life, which require “openness” and “accountability”.

David Jones, a Tory member of the Commons public administration committee and former Cabinet minister, said: “Chris Stark steps down as chief executive of the CCC next month. Before he goes, he has some serious questions to answer.

“On the face of it, urging colleagues to ‘kill’ a reasonable request for information with technical language looks very much like an attempt at obfuscation.

“Mr Stark will undoubtedly understand the crucial importance of academic integrity when addressing such an important issue as climate change. A full and immediate explanation is called for.”

On-the-record denials removed

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business and energy secretary, said: “This seems outrageous – a public servant seeking directly to obfuscate. At least Sir Humphrey did it subtly.”

Mr Stark’s comments were made in private emails exchanged within the CCC after The Telegraph contacted the body for a response to a planned article in January.

The article reported a claim by Sir Chris Llewellyn Smith, who led a recent Royal Society study on future energy supply, that the CCC had privately admitted that it made a “mistake” when it only “looked at a single year” of data showing the number of windy days in a year when it made pronouncements on the extent to which the UK could rely on wind and solar farms to meet net zero targets.

Referring to The Telegraph’s initial query about Sir Chris’s comments on Thursday, Jan 18, Mr Stark told staff: “I’m happy with a short response. If you need more, here’s what I suggest. But it may just feed the beast – so less may be more here.”

He added that the Royal Society would be “very embarrassed about this”, and one of his officials contacted the body to alert them.

An unnamed individual – apparently a representative of the Royal Society – stated that Sir Chris “says the comments about privately conceding a mistake were made to him by Chris Stark”.

In the internal emails, Mr Stark insisted to staff that “we absolutely have not conceded that there’s a ‘mistake’ in our work”.

But, despite repeated questions from The Telegraph about whether he did make the comments described by Sir Chris, Mr Stark removed suggested on-the-record denials from the body’s response, telling staff: “No need to fuel a fight.”

‘We stand by the analysis’

In emails to The Telegraph, the CCC said Sir Chris’s comments, in a presentation given in a personal capacity in October, following the publication of his review, related solely to a particular report it published last year on how to deliver “a reliable decarbonised power system”.

But The Telegraph pointed out that its original recommendations in 2019 about the feasibility of meeting the 2050 net zero target were also based on just one year’s worth of weather data. The recommendations were heavily relied on by ministers when Theresa May enshrined the 2050 target into law.

The Telegraph put several questions to the CCC, including asking to what extent the 2019 recommendations – and the predicted cost of the 2050 target – would have been different had they relied on a greater amount of weather data.

In response, an official suggested to Mr Stark that the CCC simply reply stating that “we stand by the analysis” of its 2019 recommendations, adding of Sir Chris’s comments: “We welcome Sir Chris’s work, which considers other aspects of the energy challenge in 2050, under different assumptions about the future energy mix.”

But Mr Stark replied: “How’s this – kill it with some technical language.”

He suggested an extra sentence, which was then issued as the CCC’s official response to The Telegraph, stating: “Our recent report modelled Britain’s power system in 2035 using hourly energy demand across that year and real weather data from a low-wind year, stress-tested with a 30-day wind drought.”

Sir Chris’s report for the Royal Society, published in September, concluded that a vast network of hydrogen-filled caves was needed to guard against the risk of blackouts under the shift to wind and solar generation, which the Royal Society described as “volatile” because it depends on wind and sun to produce energy.

‘Informal language between colleagues’

The report was one of the starkest warnings to date of the risks faced when relying on intermittent weather-dependent energy sources without sufficient backup.

It stated: “The UK’s need for long-term energy storage has been seriously underestimated… Studies that do not consider long sequences of years underestimate the need for long-term storage. Studies of single years cannot cast light directly on the need for storage lasting over 12 months and overestimate the need for other supplies.”

In a presentation delivered on Oct 31 2023, Sir Chris said: “By looking at one year you underestimate storage and you grossly overestimate the need for everything else. That’s exactly what the Committee on Climate Change have done.”

He added: “The Committee on Climate Change, as I already said, looked at a single year and they have conceded privately that that was a mistake. But they are still saying they don’t differ that much from us. Well, that’s not quite true.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/climate-chief-told-staff-to-kill-negative-net-zero-story/ar-BB1jC6Qd

31 Comments
  1. Dennis Roy Roy Hartwell permalink
    March 10, 2024 9:39 am

    Shades of ‘Climategate’ !!

  2. Mrs Green permalink
    March 10, 2024 9:40 am

    Gotcha! Another lying, overpaid, dangerous climatidiot.

  3. March 10, 2024 9:40 am

    Obfuscation on net zero won’t surprise many.

  4. March 10, 2024 10:10 am

    “The Committee on Climate Change, as I already said, looked at a single year and they have conceded privately that that was a mistake

    There should be no “private” where taxpayers’ money is concerned.

  5. glenartney permalink
    March 10, 2024 10:28 am

    Having listened to much of the Post Office enquiry even before the ITV drama then this sort of thing is no surprise. It’s particularly fascinating listening to the investigators and legal people being unable to remember anything even when presented with things they’d said and written.

    I expect there’ll be similar levels of amnesia in the unlikely event of anything happening as a result of these revelations

  6. glenartney permalink
    March 10, 2024 10:48 am

    Not entirely off topic

    Developers are to be handed more cash to erect wind turbines and solar farms near towns and cities in a bid to get more power generation near to where it is needed.

    Renewable energy companies will be allowed to charge customers more for their power if they generate it close to where it is needed, rather than in sparsely populated parts of the country

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/10/wind-solar-farms-south-england-charge-more-energy/

    • It doesn't add up... permalink
      March 10, 2024 11:52 am

      I doubt it will have much effect on wind farm location because wind is poor away from the hillier countryside, and AONBs will still be out of bounds. However, there is already a rash of solar farms across England from AR5. See this mouseover map: onshore wind is largely confined to Scotland where the curtailment payments have been lucrative.

      https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/N76ms/3/

  7. madmike33 permalink
    March 10, 2024 10:48 am

    Now the advice from the CCC has been seen to be based on dodgy data and therefore very suspect, what is the Government going to do about it?

    At the very least it should trigger an inquiry and a rethink of our energy policy. Abolishing the CCC would be a step too far for them I suspect but that is what anybody in industry would do.

    • renewablesbp permalink
      March 10, 2024 4:40 pm

      Exactly, this is their chance to unwind the great betrayal May inflicted upon the great British electorate without any scrutiny. The little justification put forward to adopt a legal net zero target without any cost estimates has now been shown to be fraudulent, in essence.

    • HarryPassfield permalink
      March 10, 2024 6:34 pm

      What are the government going to do about it, Mike? Keep quiet. They don’t want the public to get too much knowledge about how their money is being wasted. That will never do. They must keep the public in the dark – in more ways than one.

  8. It doesn't add up... permalink
    March 10, 2024 11:32 am

    Utterly scandalous behaviour meriting immediate dismissal without compensation.

    Let me put it starkly in simple ways.

    This is equivalent to doing flood planning based on a drought year’s rainfall.

    But of course it only lifts one corner on the catalogue of unicorn assumptions made by the CCC and its crew of pet consultants at their behest. Impossibly low costs for renewables and heat pumps and EVs. Massive power cuts to get through his lowered wind period (which IIRC is just a month during which there is 7 days of low wind). Completely unrealistic assumptions about the average load factors of renewables generation, and efficiency of heat pumps and EVs. Huge reductions in energy use in the economy. Always available power and markets via interconnectors. 

    That’s just for starters.

  9. Sean Galbally permalink
    March 10, 2024 11:44 am

    This is exactly what the truth seeking public is up against. Agenda 21 and World Order have no interest in the truth.If it undermines their agenda they do everything to conceal it.

  10. Gamecock permalink
    March 10, 2024 11:47 am

    Captain Renault called. He is shocked.

  11. George Lawson permalink
    March 10, 2024 12:03 pm

    The Telegraph have blocked comments on the story as they know they will get too many comments. I was going to blog to congratulate the Telegraph on printing the story, and ask them to keep up the pressure on Stark and the government for answers and to insist the government ease the Net Zero programme as a result of theses falsehoods, but it seems they still want to make it difficult for the truth to come out against the fraudsters that are making so much money out of the scam. Can I appeal to the Telegraph editor to now have the courage to change their paper’s belief in the climate change falsehood and lead the MSM into killing the lies that abound about global warming? They could massively be responsible for contributing to the recovery of the nation’s economy if they did so!

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      March 10, 2024 12:14 pm

      The DT know that if they go to far, they will lose advertising and the Gates money.

      • March 10, 2024 2:43 pm

        The DT publishes CAGW sceptical articles every week, if not more often and nearly alwaysallows comments on them

    • March 10, 2024 2:43 pm

      The DT publishes CAGW sceptical articles every week, if not more often and nearly alwaysallows comments on them

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      March 10, 2024 3:56 pm

      Comments are now open. Around 100 so far. Stark and the CCC are getting it good and hard.

  12. Phoenix44 permalink
    March 10, 2024 12:20 pm

    I find these stories perplexing. Does anybody actually believe Stark got the job because he’s open-minded about climate change and our response to it? He got the job because he will do and say what is expected by those who appointed him. And he will employ only those who agree with him.

  13. gfjuk permalink
    March 10, 2024 12:25 pm

    Just been for a walk along Aberdeen’s seafront. I was wondering if anyone knew when we could expect some global warming. It’s bl00dy freezing. I can hardly wait.

  14. jeremy23846 permalink
    March 10, 2024 12:51 pm

    The last time he was in the news it was to admit he doesn’t have a heat pump. Time he went.

  15. catweazle666 permalink
    March 10, 2024 2:38 pm

    If you can’t dazzle them with science, baffle them with bullshit…

    SOP.

  16. gezza1298 permalink
    March 10, 2024 3:17 pm

    Hang him as an example to the others.

  17. ralfellis permalink
    March 10, 2024 3:55 pm

    Worse still, was the C C C using kw for units of energy storage, rather than kwh.

    They copied that paragraph from a website, which contained the same errors.

    R

  18. 2hmp permalink
    March 10, 2024 5:36 pm

    I should like to see a crowd funded Judicial Review of the NetZero Act on the grounds that the evidence for it was wrong and willfully altered.

    • George Lawson permalink
      March 10, 2024 6:30 pm

      How about organising one then, you’ll get a lot of support?

      • 2hmp permalink
        March 10, 2024 7:52 pm

        I should have been only too willing were I younger but I am 85 having studied AGW for over 30 years.

  19. liardetg permalink
    March 10, 2024 7:25 pm

    But why – again – is Stark and the CCC wittering on solely about electricity generation which we all know cannot be decarbonised while ignoring lorries. aviation. Shipping. Construction, agriculture motor transport, diesel railways? Btw the level of carbon dioxide doesn’t matter.

  20. March 11, 2024 2:51 am

    Par for the whole mendacious, corrupt, ruinous Course-

  21. March 11, 2024 9:22 am

    “How’s this – kill it with some technical language,” he told his team.

    There’s an intent there which suggests institutional corruption, which is not the same as taking a bribe.

    The “… kill it with some technical language,” comment should now undemine every utterance and every action by Stark and his cronies.

Comments are closed.