Skeptics get a seat at the table.
IPCC 5th Assessment Review Meeting starts at 9.30am GMT
Witnesses
- Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office
- Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nicholas Lewis, Climate researcher, and Donna Laframboise, Author
Live feed link follows.
Purpose of the session
Topics being examined include:
- IPCC AR5 key findings on climate change;
- Consensus and uncertainty about climate change;
- Reliability of climate models used by the IPCC;
- Areas of scrutiny (climate sensitivity, the hiatus etc.); and
- The structure and practices of the IPCC.
Watch here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741
The ECC home page: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So panel 1 starts at 930am (about 30 minutes time).
The Grauniad is already up in arms about this. Panel 2 should be enlightening.
Definition: noun: hiatus; plural noun: hiatuses1. a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process.
Anyone wishing to contribute to Donna Laframboise’s trip expenses can do so via the tip jar at http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
@ur momisugly Lewis P Buckingham, re transcripts, hopefully there will be some by Hansard on the UK Parliament website, which could be linked to. Otherwise, I might have a go with some of these.
I am not very up to speed on internet technology but is there any way of getting some kind of automated tomato-throwing app on the live feed?
Straight into the decrease in the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets.
Can we here about the two separately?
Ow.
Asked about the Hockeystick and the answer is “mistakes may be made”…
Anyone watching Mann’s Twitter feed?
Just getting a seat at the table is a huge step forward. From examining the list of participants, only 50% of them believe in CAGW. If they are talking about uncertainty, then the science must not be settled. All kinds of canards going down.
Lewis P Buckingham says:
January 28, 2014 at 12:57 am
Knowing this blog, somebody somewhere, will oblige! As already stated, the official record should be available from Hansard. I reluctantly support the HoL enquiries, after all it was they who after the previous enquiry, with witnesses such as Prof Richard Lindzen & Prof Paul Reiter, that the UN IPCC should be disbanded for poor performance. Sadly, the then Socialist Guvment in charge chose to ignore that particular Inconvenient Truth, after all, they were the ones who demanded that Al Gorical’s wonderfully scientifically accurate movie be available (compulsorily) to every state school in the UK! BTW, brainwashing of school children is a criminal offence in the UK, but hey, let’s not let things like Law, Crime, Ethics, & Morals, tarnish a bloody good thing on a roll! After all, what kind of adult Human being enjoys scaring the wits out of young children with scary stories?
Sorry folks, the word “concluded” should have been in there! 🙁
M Courtney says:
“Ow. Asked about the Hockeystick and the answer is “mistakes may be made”… Anyone watching Mann’s Twitter feed?”
It appears that the lawsuits may be having a beneficial effect. This is the first time I can recall that Mann has admitted to possible ‘mistakes’.
Usually Mann is insufferably arrogant, eg: even when presented with examples showing that he never received the Nobel Prize, as he regularly claimed. Maybe that was a “mistake”, too. Just like his ‘mistake’ of hiding his “censored” ftp file containing data that would have debunked his hokey stick.
The live feed link does not work here in British Columbia. All I see is a listing of later sessions
So, ‘climate sensitivity’ is “just one parameter of many” and is not important!
I hope Lindzen ridicules that.
Richard
Reprated assertions that ‘the models ARE climate’; e.g. internal variability of the climate is the same as variability of the models.
The ‘toy’ Excel model provided to the MPs is said to indicate all possible climate futures on the basis of input scenarios.
OK. So why should MPs fund the Hadley GCM if they have been given a ‘toy’ model that does the same?
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SPM ‘CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND THE REPORT ‘SENSITIVITY’ IS BEING QUESTIONED.
Go for it Select Committee! Go for it!
Prof Myles Allen “There are certian things I would never use these models for there are other things I would”.
Fair enough.
But it does acknowledge the subjectivity in the IPCC reports, doesn’t it?
“There’s a 1 in 3 chance of the models being wrong after 35 years too.”
And that’s the model supporters view
It is all “Expert Judgement” based on “a variety of lines of evidence” of which “the models are only one”.
Everything is now asserted to be OPINION and not conclusion. Science, wherefore art though?
Sorry, dbstealey (January 28, 2014 at 1:50 am) Mann did not admit a mistaje.
The UK climate experts talked about the mistakes being made when asked about the Hockeystick.
Prof Myles Allen “When you say the models agree with reality less, it depends which aspect of reality you take”.
Texas Sharpshooter?
Allen says,”You should not expect uncertainty to only reduce as you move into the future”!
Say what! Science is about determining uncertainty and reducing it.
Peter Lilley MP (Cons) is seeing through the BS and is pointing out logical error by Allen.
Prof Myles Allen has lost it entirely. He has got confused between the models and reality.
So we have greter confidence in the warming effect because we have greater confidence in the cooling effect from man. But he can’t see that the balancing warming must be less too.
In my biased opinion, Rt Hon Peter Lilley MP sounds like an academicand Prof Myles Aallen sounds like a politiician.
Allen said, “Until we get CO2 emissions to zero we’re going to get continued warming”.
WARMING STOPPED 17 YEARS AGO. HUMANS CONTRIBUTE SMALL CO2 EMISSIONS. IF ALL CO2 EMISSIONS WERE ZERO EVERYTHING WOULD DIE.
Yeah, right.
M Courtney says: January 28, 2014 at 2:05 am
Prof Myles Allen “There’s a 1 in 3 chance of the models being wrong after 35 years too.”
And Allen goes on to say that the models are 1 in 3 accurate when taken with empirical readings, yet only 1 in 10 by themselves. (unless I misunderstood his point?)