Summary of #21 - Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) on the hockey stick farce & his work w. GWPF/Net Zero Watch

00:00:00 - 00:50:00

Andrew Montford, also known as Bishop Hill, discusses his journey as a blogger and his work with the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Net Zero Watch in the UK, starting with his skepticism towards the climate change theory and his interest in Steve McIntyre's investigation into Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. He highlights the flaws in the peer review process and institutional science, as evidenced by the IPCC's defense of the hockey stick graph despite being proven false. Montford also addresses the cost of green energy and the difficulty of reaching neutral people and presents a detailed account of the formation and structure of the GWPF and Net Zero Watch. He stresses the importance of looking at the cost of net zero and the role of renewables in achieving it and discusses his investigation into the story of walruses falling off a cliff as presented by David Attenborough.

• 00:00:00 In this section Andrew Montford, also known as Bishop Hill, talks about how he became a blogger and his work with the Global Warming Policy Foundation and Net Zero Watch in the UK. He originally started blogging about libertarianism and politics but gained popularity when he wrote a post about Steve McIntyre's investigation into Michael Mann's hockey stick graph. Montford explains how his science background and writing skills allowed him to explain technical findings in a way that the man on the street could understand, which he did for many years in the blogosphere.
• 00:05:00 In this section, Andrew Montford, better known as Bishop Hill, discusses the early days of the climate change controversy and his skepticism towards the theory. He recalls discovering a legendary early skeptic site called Still Waiting for Greenhouse and his growing interest in the subject once Steve McIntyre appeared on the scene. Montford worked hard to grasp the abstruse statistics McIntyre and others were discussing and enjoyed the learning experience. Later, he discusses The Hockey Stick Illusion, a book he authored about the controversy, where he highlights the farcical aspects of the story, such as how, despite being proven false, the "hockey stick" graph made it onto the front page of the IPCC's third assessment report. This prolonged debate destroyed Montford's trust in institutional science and strengthened his natural distrustful instinct.
• 00:10:00 In this section, Andrew Montford talks about the ClimateGate scandal, where thousands of emails were leaked about climate scientists communicating with each other and engaging in unethical behavior. Montford was excited about the scandal as it occurred just a month before the publication of the "hockey stick illusion." He wrote a book about the scandal called "Hiding the Decline," which detailed the institutional science cover-up that occurred as a result. Although not central to the case for energy policy, Montford says that the scandal is critical as we are supposed to spend 40 trillion dollars based on the idea that temperatures were a hockey stick, which has been largely proven false.
• 00:15:00 In this section, Andrew Montford discusses the issues in the peer review process and institutional science with regards to the flawed graph of the hockey stick model. Despite the evidence that it was wrong, it was defended by the IPCC, showing a problem in the system's bias and lack of accountability. Montford points out that climate science needed a sales pitch, which was the hockey stick graph and the fact that it was a sales tool tells us something about how science is being done. McIntyre, a mining analyst, says that a hockey stick is a well-known thing among geologists, and all sorts of cherry-picking had to be done to produce the hockey stick. Montford says that climate science has led society to a dangerous place, as most of the UK has been completely led astray, and even the political machinery has bought in. He believes that it's time to say that we can't decarbonize completely, as it is going to be a disaster, but no politician is going to say that at the moment.
• 00:20:00 In this section, Andrew Montford expresses his concern that people have bought into the climate emergency narrative so deeply that it will take bad things happening for them to turn against it. He argues that even if there were blackouts or other bad events, it may not be enough to make them rethink their views. Montford notes that Germany and Italy are in real trouble due to their policies, and while the UK is a little behind, it is catching up fast. Montford also discusses the lifting of the fracking moratorium in the UK, which he sees as a good sign, but he also criticizes the regulations, which he sees as designed to kill the industry.
• 00:25:00 In this section, Andrew Montford discusses the cost of green energy. He highlights the trick of using generic names to avoid awkward cost-related questions. Montford states that storing green energy poses a significant challenge that could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per household. He also talks about how climate change has caused people to overlook these costs and focus instead on the emergency of the situation. Montford also discusses fracking in the UK and how environmentalists have used lies to oppose it, ultimately leading to its shutdown. He believes that the campaign of lies is what they are fighting against and that power cuts could be the thing that would change people's minds. Finally, Montford talks about his current work with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), whose mission is to question the accepted views on climate change and highlight alternative solutions. Despite being ignored by the media for many years, Montford feels that the recent shift towards energy being a political story has given GWPF more attention.
• 00:30:00 In this section, Andrew Montford discusses the growth of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the formation of Net Zero Watch, a separate organization that can criticize existing policies and say things more directly policy relevant. Although media outlets such as The Guardian and the BBC have long since banned them, other places are starting to report their views and the word is getting out. Montford talks about the difficulty of reaching neutral people, but the recent growth of media outlets like GB News and Talk Radio has allowed them to get their message out, with Montford being interviewed on various TV and radio stations. However, he does worry about preaching to the converted and the difficulty of reaching those who don't care about social media and the news.
• 00:35:00 In this section, Andrew Montford discusses the structure and people behind the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and Net Zero Watch. Benny Paiser is the boss of both organizations, and Montford is in charge of publications. Both organizations have a board of trustees who run the governance of the organization, and they include financiers, academics, politicians, and Bishop of Chester, among others. They also have a panel of academic advisors, including prominent climate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Bill Clinton-Mont. Montford notes that they receive surprising intellectual firepower, and it takes some degree of bravery for these people to work with them because they go places people don't want to go and say things that upset people. Finally, he discusses the papers by Richard Lindzen and Bill Clinton-Mont that question the greenhouse effect and suggest a more sophisticated way of looking at the question.
• 00:40:00 In this section, Andrew Montford, also known as Bishop Hill, discusses his lack of focus on greenhouse theory and how the GWPF directs its efforts towards being effective in persuading the public and politicians by looking at policy and the cost of net zero. Montford explains that their recent work with Net Zero Watch has been to remove their focus away from climate and onto energy, particularly the cost of net zero, which is already costing thousands of pounds per household every year. Additionally, Montford reveals how he has been able to add considerable value to their work due to his previous experience as an accountant, and how the Freedom of Information request was used to acquire the figures that revealed the actual cost of net zero. He also highlights the importance of looking at the cost of renewables and the role it plays in the net zero project.
• 00:45:00 In this section, Andrew Montford (also known as Bishop Hill) discusses the misconception that the cost of renewables has been plummeting. He notes that while the industry claims offshore wind costs have halved, financial accounts of offshore wind farms show that from the first wind farm in 2002 to 2013, every wind farm that came on stream after the first one was more expensive. Montford stresses that gas-fired electricity in the UK has a long-term cost of £40, whereas offshore wind costs £120, a price which is triple the cost of gas. However, convincing politicians that renewables are not as cheap as they are being advertised is difficult since they see it as an "article of faith." Montford believes filing FOI requests is the only way to get the real numbers.
• 00:50:00 In this section, Andrew Montford and the podcast host discuss their investigation into the story of walruses falling off a cliff that was presented by David Attenborough. They analyzed photographs of the place where walruses had previously fallen off the cliff in Russia and compared them to the ones shown in Attenborough's film to prove that the story was a fraud. They found an exact match and concluded that polar bears had driven the walruses off the cliffs, not carbon dioxide. Attenborough knew about the involvement of polar bears, but he presented a different story in the BBC series on climate change. Montford's books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding the Decline" are recommended for readers.