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/
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/
@ 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?)
“The Netherlands Proposal” gets a run, this sounds like the beginning of the end for the IPCC!
Harry Passfield says:January 28, 2014 at 2:39 am…
I’m not sure that Prof Myles Allen understood his point so I couldn’t speculate on what he actually thinks.
Hoskins asserts that we should “just accept the IPCC’s range (for CS) and move on and do something about it”.
Yeeah, he thinks politicians won’t understand what that says about his ability to justify the range? Bloody fool.
“Skeptics get a seat at the table.”
I am a skeptic of the flat Earth theory but despite the invitation to sit at the table with flat Earthers, I much prefer to bury them conceptually and intellectually by every means possible.
This is finely tuned politics and it appears you just don’t get it, as long as the proponents of human control over global temperatures own the education system and drive the curriculum you can present any common sense arguments you like,they will disappear like writing on the sand is washed away by the incoming tide.
The issue is modeling vs interpretation and the limiting factors which drive most people into showdowns like this current issue. Those with a higher reasoning standard don’t do these things and that is the direction people with integrity,intelligence and courage must take. Von Humboldt nailed the problem down in such a way that it is ever more relevant –
“This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions.” Von Humboldt ,Cosmos
It’s the first time I’ve had an opportunity of seeing Allen in the flesh, so to speak. He really loves himself, doesn’t he? At the very beginning he even made an obsequious plea to the other two at the table on the grounds that he was jealous that they were FRSs – the underlying hint being: please make me one too…..
Just like to say, as a Brit, that I’m quite proud of the Mother of Parliaments.
They aren’t that useless, really.
@Harry. Allen getting is Appeal to Authority in early.
I’m not someone given to violent tendencies but Myles Allen has a face you’d never tire of slapping, just to remove that self satisfied condescending expression.
Graham Stringer MP (Labour) is questioning the political nature of the IPCC. Stott is waffling and stated a blatant falsehood; viz “Scientists have the final say on what goes into the Report”, but that is NOT true of the SPM which is the only part read and cited by politicians.
If anyone gets the chance, please take a look at the video around the beginning at 9:48, when John Robertson (fat MP on left) asks first question and discusses aerosols. Am I right in thinking he assets that as the ‘public’ have aerosols they would understand this point in the science quite easily?
Does anybody believe this man?
>Do you see it as a problem that their a reso many political activists with Greenpeace and WWF involved in the process?
Hoskins, “No, I don’t see it as a problem at all…”
Well, he’s entitled to his opinion but does anyone find him credible on this point?
Answer:
(°x°)
M Courtney:
At January 28, 2014 at 2:48 am you say
She tests evidence and argument about policy ‘On The Corridor’ as is being done here, and she tests the person applying policy during Ministerial Questions (including Prime Ministerial Questions, PMQs). Few other systems do both in so open a manner.
Richard
Well I think the fact that half the participants are skeptics and the debate is held before parliamentarians is a far cry from where we were in 2009. I will wait to see Hansard but it does sound as if the believers are having to work for a change.
When you have high confidence of something and miss your target you should then have less confidence not more…
A fair point from the Rt Hon Graham Stringer MP.
But this is declared to just be natural variability.
So are we more confident that natural variability is important but… that doesn’t help witht the anthropogenic does it?
Oh, but we expect the warming to pick up later. No explanation as to why we would do, though.
Stott has just said there is “evidence of energy increasing in the climate system”!
Say what! Does his “evidence” include assertions of undiscovered heat hiding in the oceans?
This is pretty good stuff. The warm-mongers are squirming. Stringer is stringing them up.
Hoskins and Stott in particular sound remarkably defensive…
Is anyone else watching this and swearing at these bozos?
Myles totally on the mat over Jones and his fellow travelers!
Love the question
“how have we managed to survive?”
“Scientists have final word in policy maker document”
This is an outright lie as far as I can work out. According to the IPCC procedures documented here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
The SPM (Summary for Policymakers) undergoes the following Approval process:
Step 5: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are both tabled for discussion in the Session of the Panel:
– The Session of the Panel will first provisionally approve the SPM line by line.
NB “Session of the Panel” refers to a series of meetings at the plenary level of the governmental
representatives to the IPCC.”
According to the IPCC, the final approval (line by line) for the SPM comes from the Panel of Governmental Representatives.
Is it a crime to lie to Parliament in this way?
In fairness to the Royal Society being an FRS does mean something.
Prof Myles Allen made the point at the start that he hadn’t made the grade and I think his performance demostrated the significance of that.
I can’t edit my comment, but the key paragrpah in the IPCC proocedures is this one:
“The final text of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will be adopted and the SPM approved
by the Session of the Panel.”
Again, the “Session of the Panel” refers to Governmental Representatives – not “scientists”
Lindzen: “In the US, the reward for solving a problem is to have your funding withdrawn”
Brilliant!
How right you are Professor Lindzen.
“The reward for solving a problem is to have your funding ended”
Lindzen says, “The present evidence is consistent with there being nothing to worry about”.
Yeo’s sounding distinctly nervous dealing with Lindzen
Lindzen is great! He is really duffing up Yeo. See how droll he is when he asks Yeo, is there a problem?
FYI: Mr Tim Yeo (Chair) is a Conservative. Rt Hon Graham Stringer MP is Labour.
See in the UK it really isn’t a Left-wing / Right-wing issue.
I pointedly choose not use the Rt Hon in Yeo’s case.
Tom:
re your question at January 28, 2014 at 3:08 am.
Yes, it is a lie (as I pointed out) up-thread. Laframboise is (politely) pointing that out now.
And, yes, it is literally true that one can be imprisoned in the Tower of London for deliberately misleading Parliament because Parliament acts for the Crown so deliberately misleading Parliament is High Treason.
Richard
Lindzen oozes with the confidence of an expert in command of his field and just as comfortable telling you what ge doesn’t know as what he does.
There is no greater builder of trust than that. A scientist who knows it all and is certain is no scientist.
Nic Lewis is not a good ‘performer’. He may know his stuff, but sceptics needed a contrast to Lindzen’s quiet style so the ‘message’ is clearly delivered to all receptors.
The hesitancy of Lewis may be nervousness but makes him a bad choice (I can bare witness that nervousness is natural before a Select Committee).
Tim Yeo is the chair. He keeps trying to misrepresent the words of the witnesses.
Surely this is noticed by his fellow comittee memebrs?
Let’s send a video of this to Yeo’s constituents.
They are already trying to <a href="http://order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/"force the guy out.
Every little helps.
I missed some because it has ‘gone’ from the TV so I had to find the web cast. Did I miss anything important, please?
Lindzen just oozes confidence of a man utterly in control of his brief and knowledge.
A really smart man dealing with absolute idiots…..
On the animation you can see exactly how a shift polar vortex causes the inflow of warm air over the Arctic Circle. It has nothing in common with “global warming.” A height of 30 km. The temperature depends only on the amount of ozone.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-339.64,116.24,302
Brilliant from linzen.
Your spending billions on something what won’t have any effect on your weather or climate or is an actual problem.
Lindzen speaking truth to power, wonderful!
The fat Labour MP (no TV so proper title gone) is doing a good job of investigating ‘man in the street’ questions.
Lewis is giving good answers so possibly has now ‘found his feet’.
You just missed a plea for the sceptics to persuade the comitte that the mainstream is wrong and also a contention that money has warped the debate.
Highlight: Nic Lewis – all the money is on the IPCC side.
This surprised the MP (John Robertson – Labour I think).
MP John Robertson keeps misspeaking and calling Lindzen’s statistical interventions as “statistical mythology” (guess he meant: methodology.) What a waste of space this MP is.
God, this is depressing viewing (watching it now, live).
If ever an example of a government completely in thrall to a toxic political ideology was needed, this pathetic ‘Climate Change Committee’ is a perfect, if unedifying, example. Tim Yeo – a man whose at best clouded ‘impartiality’ is forever hopelessly compromised (i.e. non-existent) by his own murky business links to ‘green energy’ – exudes the kind of sneering belligerence towards his critics that is so beloved – and well practiced – of warmists everywhere.
This Committee is a p*sspoor pantomime of fools. Lindzen and Laframboise try their best, making perfectly logical arguments in the face of tedious interventions from the likes of Yeo, and get precisely nowhere in enlightening the dogmatic morons they are faced with.
Why did I ever expect anything other than this travesty?
All this beating around the bush because no one can plainly say the temperatures are fudged, the models don’t work and whole AGW shebang is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. I despair at how we got to this point.
M Courtney: Yes, John Robertson – on which side the money is on – alleged that on the basis that he had been to the USA, he could see that the skeptics were very well funded.
And now Robertson is quoting a line from a MOVIE!!! The Core!!! FFS!!!
According to Wikipedia, John Robertson doesn’t appear to be much of a fan of science, nor a sceptic in any sense of the word:
“He is a supporter of homeopathy, having signed an early day motion in support of its continued funding on the National Health Service sponsored by Conservative MP David Tredinnick.[13]”
John Robertson making a good case for Scottish Independence here.
I’m English
Rt Hon Ian Lavery MP (Labour) seems to be asking better questions so far… Back to climate sensitivity.
Lindzen just gave a superb put-down to a stupid question. This adds to his credibility for British politicians.
Sadly, the stupid credibility was from an MP representing my political party (Labour).
WTF?
Well, I think he meant it should cancel out.
Seems reasonable to me, probably.
Phil Ford:
re your post at January 28, 2014 at 3:40 am.
It seems you may have missed the first session where the Select Committee was similarly aggressive to the ‘warmists’. This is reported by the above ‘running commentary’ provided by some of us for those in parts of the worls who cannot get the web cast.
Richard
Yeo’s seems to have made something of a fool of himself by asking if Lindzen believes CO2 has no effect at all – Lindzen put him down rather nicely
Good point about natural variability swinging both ways and the IPCC only reporting on one side of the swing.
Lindzen’s very loud ‘guffaw’ to the question of whether he believed the IPCC’s contention that the hiatus was caused by volcanic aerosols was just so articulate!
As the questions are all on the science (or bad science fiction movies, sigh) it seems a shame that Donna is taking up a seat.
Hope they do go onto the reliability of the IPCC later ps as she can shine.
And now Yeo’s being openly partisan – “is the decade 2000- 2010 the hottest on record”?
What a dickhead.
Yeo demanding a Yes / No answer on is this the hottest decade on record and then changes to Hottest of all time!
Now, Yeo can’t understand the difference between speed and acceleration!
Ha ha ha…
Tim Yeo:
Yeo is an idiot!
Correction: “So is that a resignation?” were my words.
I’m laughing too much.
Yeo! Dickhead! Arrogabt sod arguing with Lindzen like that! Just shows how stupid he is.
Everyone should watch at 12:05
Yeo just tried to make Lindzen look stupid. He failed. But Lindzen was not as cogent as he could (should?) have been.
Yeo claimed that the most recent decade was the warmest on record and, therefore, warming has not stopped.
Lindzen pointed out the logical disconnect but not effectively. He would have done better to provide an anology; e.g. the last decade was when I was the tallest on record but I stopped growing decades ago.
Arrogant! (I’ve got M Courtney’s fingers on the keyboard. 🙂
If anyone with a shred of common sense would put the following information before any committee or commission the issue would be far more urgent and decisive –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/los-angeles/hourly
The question would be – How ,for goodness sake, did a society manage to lose the ability to read the most immediate experience of enormous temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour cycle due to one rotation of the Earth ?.
These people are dealing with fractions of degrees over long periods while being unable to handle huge differential within the daily period and the fact that a politician can force the issue in getting these guys to admit carbon dioxide serves the function of a global thermostat is all they wanted to hear.
You are all so much in a conceptual rut that,even with the strongest effort, you cannot see the enormous lapse of reasoning that occurred when they decided to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and this problem has spread from astronomy into terrestrial sciences. The politicians have come out of that hearing better than the science commentators who merely traffic in modeling voodoo and fluff.
Sir Robert Smith West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Liberal Democrat) asks if consesnsus could lead to understimating the seriousness of the issue.
Lindzen can’t see much evidence for that.
Inconclusive bout.
Graham Stringer (Labour) asks about the impact of solar variation.
Lindzen is giving a measured response about cosmic ray influence ampliftying the impact of solar variation.
“That’s an unknown at the moment”.
Donna’s turn; Graham Stringer (Labour) asks if she still thinks the IPCC should be disbanded.
Her reply is hesitant and nervous to begin with.
Someone else report how she does, please.
Albert Owen (Labour) is on now… what did I miss?
Why can’ I find the stream. It doesn’t appear at the link above on my device. Only the Commons.
richardscourtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 3:50 am
You must be in desperate straits to be a supporter of millipied. 😉
Albert Owen (Labour) has led to the idea of focussed IPCC reports.
Interesting.
Now “is it skewed to the WWF?”
Donna points out that Chapter 2 is led by an activist. Another author writes for 20 years for WWF and Greenpeace.
Can their views be ignored just because they have an activist background (views change over time)?
Yes, says Donna.
Strongly challenged by Albert Owen.
Albert Owen (Labour) “Doing nothing is not an option”
Lindzen “I don’t believe that”
The stream seems to be gone now.
Waiting for Hansard then.
OK, it’s over. One of the best committee meetings I’ve seen. I loved Lindzen’s parting reply to the committee, which is based on the great Keith Waterhouse’s dictum: “Don’t just do something, stand there!”
Ah, it has ended. Quite enjoyable.
Nice to see Myles Allen get caught out telling porkies.
He looks oleaginous in a room with Tim Yeo.
M Courtney….(on doing nothing) Of course, it is in the make-up of MPs that they could never ‘do nothing’. They whole raison d’etre is to do something – and then cock it up!,
M Courtney: “Nice to see Myles Allen get caught out telling porkies.
He looks oleaginous in a room with Tim Yeo.”
Well said!! Props!
Friends:
Now it is ended I write to provide a personal view based on immediate reaction.
Both Sessions were interesting.
The alarmists were most politically effective. (Sadly, in my view).
Lindzen was the star (and not only because he was most solid on the science).
The Select Committee made three good choices on the alarmist witnesses and one good choice on the sceptical witnesses. I have not seen the written submissions of the witnesses, but British politicians ascribe value to evidence using assessment of the people who provide it.
On balance the alarmists did better than the sceptics. Sigh.
Richard
And doing anything will have no known effect on the climate but a big effect on the people, as LIndzen said.
But what do people matter (as the Rt Hon Albert Owen MP implied but dared not say explicitly)?
richardscourtney: “On balance the alarmists did better than the sceptics. Sigh.”
Possibly, but in this context, we’re still at the stage where merely the presentation of an opposing view to alarmists is progress.
I thought Donna Laframboise was quite solid. She kept her cool and responded directly and she had her facts at hand. Lindzen chipped in to support her on the review process being something other than “peer review”.
I’m currently watching the Lindzen stream again – Jesus, but Yeo’s a pratt….
Andy Dawson says: January 28, 2014 at 4:04 am
And now Yeo’s being openly partisan – “is the decade 2000- 2010 the hottest on record”?
And the answer is that yes, the hottest decade on record is behind us.
I do like these hearings better than the stage managed affairs we get from the U.S. Senate. Folks actually get to fully reply without the need to stonewall until the politicians clock runs out.
There was no knock-out punch from either ‘side’, so the contest has to be decided on points. Points may to some extent be in the eye of the beholder, but it my eyes, the 3Ls made at least a couple of dozen good ones, while the ASH team were largely, and not very convincingly, on the defensive. If the committee is a rational one, I think this hearing today will serve to have broadened and deepened their grasp of key issues, and to have shifted them away from the sort of dumb deference to the IPCC that has so disfigured such as the Royal Society in its political posturings for example.
richardscourtney: “On balance the alarmists did better than the sceptics. Sigh.”
Nope, just not looking like crazies will have helped.
And the clearest win – the most memorable moment – came when Yeo got confused beween “Warm” and “Warming”. Nouns and Verbs are just so confusing.
Unless the committee was overwhelmed with their love and respect for their Chairman then that will be the take home moment. A win for the sceptics.
And the review of the paper will show that Myles Allen was wrong about the political independance of the SPM.
John Robertson’s clearly out of his depth…
Andy Dawson says:
January 28, 2014 at 4:59 am
I’m currently watching the Lindzen stream again – Jesus, but Yeo’s a pratt….
.
Can you help me please?. How do I replay the committee video to review some bits? Is it immediately archived somewhere?
Ta
Jonesey
Andy Dawson, agreed. But other than John Robertson the committee were quite impressive.
Well,OK, there is also the Chair.
But Yeo may be biased yet he’s also too thick to be a problem.
Very interesting to see the British Parliamentary system in action.
What a shame Anthony Watts was not invited to give a presentation! Or say Bob Carter for instance… maybe next time?
I have great sympathy for Donna in particular – it must be very difficult to face such a barrage.
Bravo all the sceptics – keep up the logical arguments.
“Can you help me please?. How do I replay the committee video to review some bits? Is it immediately archived somewhere?”
there’s a “play from the start” option – take that and then go to about 11:15
try from about 11:36:00 and you’ll see Robertson trying desperately to look as though he’s got the faintest understanding what he’s hearing.
Aha…Ta…
Wow , cheering on peter Lilly, who’d have thought that.
Jonsey: If you click on this link it will take you to the Parliament channel. You should see a multi-colour-banded screen. Just move the viewing bar a touch along the bottom of the screen to get into the session.
sceptics could do worse than copy and distribute Robertson’s performance in terms of “these are the ar*sholes who’ve bought into global warming”
This link: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741
Arrgghh! And now the screen has disappeared from the link! Sorry Jonesy.
No…It’s working fine.thank you.
M Courtney:
I write to make only one comment on your post at January 28, 2014 at 5:06 am which provides a very different opinion to mine.
For the benefit of non-Brits I respond with pertinent information.
Select Committees exist to scrutinise government policy. Parliament has two Chambers; i.e. the Commons and the Lords. Each Chamber appoints a Select Committee to consider the policies overseen by each government Department. The Sessions under discussion in this thread were public scrutiny of witnesses called to appear before the House of Commons Select Committee which oversees the Department for ‘Energy and Climate Change’.
Select Committees are formed from Members of a Chamber and consist of Back Benchers (i.e. MPs or Lords who are not Members of the government) who offer themselves to be Members of Select Committees which they specify themselves. The Chamber selects from the offers to appoint the Members of each Select Committee. Equal numbers are appointed to be Members of a Select Committee from the political party (or parties) of HM Government and from HM Loyal Opposition.
The Chairman of a Select Committee has to be a Member of the governing political party (or parties) and is elected by the Members of the Select Committee. The Chairman organises the business with the help of Civil Servants and Chairs meetings and Sessions of the Select Committee.
A Select Committee will often elect its lease useful Member as Chairman because that frees them from administrative duties so they are more able to do real work of the Committee.
Yeo is a prat and a Tory (so eligible as Chairman) and the Committee was certain to have made him Chairman.
Richard
Assuming WUWT readers are not complete duffers all your Parliament TV is here:
http://www.parliament.uk/
You will find live links and links to the archives.
OOPS!
I wrote
A Select Committee will often elect its lease useful Member as Chairman
I intended to write
A Select Committee will often elect its least useful Member as Chairman
Richard
Richard:
Members are all for lease, aren’t they, or at least for rent? Except those already owned outright.
To add to Richard Lindzen’s parting shot, I quote Ernest Benn, Tony Benn MP’s late uncle: ‘The art of politics is looking for trouble; finding it everywhere; diagnosing it wrongly and applying unsuitable remedies…’
milodonharlani:
re your post at January 28, 2014 at 5:47 am.
Thanks for that! Good one!
But, to be sure people are not misled by my enjoyment of the joke, I have known several MPs on both sides of the House who are honest, honourable and good. As example of an honest and principled politician I cite Nigel Lawson (now Lord Lawson). He was one of my greatest ‘hate figures’ when he was an MP. Indeed, the privatisation of the electricity supply industry (which led to the present mess in generating capacity) only happened because he was the only politician sufficiently competent to do it and he acted according to his principles; i.e. principles which I disagreed and I still disagree. I do not think he has ever been ‘for sale’ because he is honest to his principles. And I can cite similarly honest and principled politicians whose political principles I share.
Richard
Lindzen was brilliant as ever, and Laframboise too, but I think they could have nailed a few points down a bit harder, rhetorically. When the issue of a greenpeace-related chapter leader was discussed, they could have asked “so what would you have said if it turned out that the chapter head of a CAGW-critical chapter was related to big oil”?
Anyone know where can I find the names and CVs of those “heavyweight” politicians in the committee? (I’m not british, so I’m struggling to find out which one is who).
JP:
re your question.
Go here
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/
and follow the links.
Also, most MPs have their own web pages so you can search by name.
And remember that each country has a unique political system. As I am often puzzled by the US system which makes no sense, the peculiarities of our system may be incomprehensible to someone from a non-Brit culture.
I hope that helps.
Richard
How long till we can get a t-shirt with the best Lindzen one liners from today’s event. “Climate is serious” are climate models any good ” of course not!!!”
D.L. Was invited to be sneered at. The fat one quipping that she was here to plug her book, a-hole. Lewis was talking a foreign language, as far as the MPs were concerned. Tim Yeo ( trougher as he is known) The sort of person extradition treaties were designed for. Any takers?
Who’s Bill Cheney? 12:20:23
richardscourtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 2:30 am
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.
=============================================================================
You are mistaken. In order for C02 emissions to drop to zero, everything would have to already be dead, including the micro-orginsms that drive organic decay.
If this is global warming, what the freak does global cooling look like? If it keeps warming like this, we’re all going to freeze to death.
Did anyone get an exact count of the number of times the ASH panel said “uncertain”, I lost count. Pretty impressive for a team of experts of a “settled science”. They are pathetic!
The best reponse and quote by far was the witty respone highlighted above
Albert Owen (Labour) “Doing nothing is not an option”
Lindzen “I don’t believe that”
i.e doing absolutely nothing and stop worrying is possibly the best course of action possible.
JP says: @ January 28, 2014 at 6:49 am
they could have asked “so what would you have said if it turned out that the chapter head of a CAGW-critical chapter was related to big oil”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t think that would work. Ged Davis when VP of Shell Oil wrote scenarios for the IPCC.
Ged Davis E-mail
The next time someone yells skeptics are funded by Big Oil, had them this information.
had = hand (I wish we could correct our snafus.)
I watched the whole thing from beginning to end as well. I agree that in general the 1st panel came over a little bit better. And in fact they occasionally made some very good points. For example, Hoskins suggested the reason the models diverge since the FAR is because at that stage they far too simplistic and not able to capture sufficiently the internal variability at that stage, so it could never have predicted the hiatus. My problem with that argument is simply that, well – you could always say that any stage – you need to say what would falsify your understanding of the climate.
My problem with the second panel (and to the first to some extent) is that they often struggled to point out issues in a way that was relevant to them as policy makers, in a way that they could come to some clear understanding what is they need to know and take into account of when developing policy. I thought Richard Lindzen did the best in this respect, but also failed to help the grasp the scale of the issue. I think the reason for this is it is sometimes hard for an expert to remember what it is like not to know something.
For example, to a politician, some on the 1st panel (Hoskins again I think) made a valuable point regarding society’s vulnerability to climate change via extreme weather events. He wisely did not suggest that those events were not caused by climate change (necessarily) just that they remind us that we are vulnerable. Our society has developed within narrow parameters of climate that suit us, but these may change. A politician may regard emissions as a risk that should be responded too – and in a sense that’s fair enough. But they need some understanding of the scale.
I would have liked it pointed out that CO2 alone is not the cause for concern, it is feedbacks (climate sensitivity). I am pretty certain that with the possible exception of Graham Stringer, they may not realise that the effect of adding CO2 is logarithmic – that it requires more and more CO2 in order to have the same warming effect. Also some perspective on the scale of our contribution next to natures. If the climates response to the increase in CO2 is negligible, other than the effect of CO2 on its own, then there is little urgency wrt mitigating our emissions and our effort would be best spent on adaptation which is needed regardless of the cause of the change in climate.
I was very curious at the downplaying of sensitivity by Myles Allen. I am still mystified as to the justification for that.
Finally, a point that was not addressed by either panels, except extremely obliquely on the comsic rays question, was unknown unknowns and confidence that everything has been accounted for in the energy budget. It is self evident that the planet has seen warming and cooling periods on various time scales and if you can’t fully account for the cause of these in the past then it stands to reason you may not be fully accounting for them in the present. Some acknowledgement of that would have been good.
Gail Combs says:
January 28, 2014 at 8:01 am
Gail, in europe we have known about shell’s deep (very deep) involvement with the greenie beenis. They have funded several lavish ‘brainstorming’ sessions per year for the greens. They want to discredit oil and coal in order to promote their main product of gas. We all know that the major corporations have been funding less than fully legal activities for years to improve their profit magins and diversify their portfolios. Shell have struggled recently with their profit being hard hit and one of their major greens has left the company.
Lindzen was awesome I thought! Ditto Ms Strawberry. Lewis eventually got there! Wonder how much will make it to the BBC News desk – not probably!
Stephen Richards says: @ January 28, 2014 at 8:16 am
….Gail, in europe we have known about shell’s deep (very deep) involvement with the greenie beenis….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Good to know but it is still a point worth pounding on.
I always try to be aware of WUWT’s unseen audience who may just have stopped by for the first time. This is why I try to repeat points old time WUWT people know by heart. My company always figured one complaint letter represented 100 unseen customers. I apply the same principle here at WUWT.
So all I’ve gathered thus far is that these men really, really love their computer models.
richardscourtney
Re your post at 5:35am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/28/the-ar5-hearings-live-stream/#comment-1552241
I wish to correct you on one point. Not all Committee Chairmen are from the governing political party (or parties). I give you Keith Vaz (Home Affairs) and Margaret Hodge (Public Accounts) as examples.
Your point about Yeo being a prat is, if anything, understated.
Here’s the counter: For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded,, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
MattS:
re your point at January 28, 2014 at 7:49 am.
Yes, of course you are right. I was one of the people trying to give a real-time report for people who were interested but could not obtain the live link. In terms of what I was doing I don’t think my rapidly-made point was wrong.
But I am grateful for your clarification which corrects my quick note. Thankyou.
Richard
Mr Green Genes:
Thankyou for your post at January 28, 2014 at 9:10 am which corrects a point I made.
As you say to me
Yes, the House appoints the Chairman of a Select Committee and normally does it according to the stated desire of the Committee.
There are three main reasons why a Committee desires a specific Chairman; i.e.
the choice is convenient and there is no Member of the Committee who is clearly preferred
OR
the choice has sufficient expertise and ability that they can be fully aware of everything so guide the Committee
OR
the choice is seen as a liability so they are made Chairman to consume some of the time they would otherwise spend interfering in the real work being done by the Committee.
It is an unwritten rule that the Chairman is a Member of the government’s political party. Most things in our system are unwritten rules which – being unwritten – are ignored when desired and nobody objects. It is such a breach of an unwritten rule when the choice of a Select Committee Chairman is made on the basis that the person’s guidance and judgement outweighs political party considerations.
I was providing an explanation for non-Brits to help them understand what a Select Committee is and does. Explanation of the nature and purpose of unwritten rules would have been impossible to explain to e.g. Americans and was not needed in my explanation of the Select Committee being considered.
Anyway, you are right. And I thank you for pointing out that my explanation was not completely true. It was also not complete.
Richard
Donna Laframboise hit a nerve with Albert Owen witnessed by this interchange:
12:28:42 Owen – ” .. back to you Donna on the objectivity of the IPCC .. remarks you’ve made or attributed to you with regards to documents linked to activist organizations – you’ve think it’s heavily weighted to the WWF and the Greenpeace and others of this world?”
Laframboise – “The problem is that there are those people who are involved and involved in very senior roles so, I know this about working group one, but working group two is about to come out in a couple months and there are three authors, lead authors not coordinators, ~?~ chapter leaders, who have very definite activist mindsets. Okay, one gentleman has worked for an activist organization for more than twenty years and, according to his official biography, he is still advising them. He’s not merely contributing, he is in charge of a chapter. We have another gentleman in charge of a chapter who has spent much of his career writing for pay for the world wildlife fund and greenpeace.
You know that is going to affect his view. He’s not objective, he has a very particular actvist world view and he has been put in charge of a chapter of what is supposed to be an objective scientific report.”
12:29:58 Owen – ” ~?~ young activism ~?~ whatever what role ~?~ mature ~?~ have different views as they progress when they see the evidence?”
12:30:08 Laframboise – “Well it’s possible but if we were….”
12:30:10 Owen interrupts her (doesn’t want to give her the chance for anyone to hear after the ‘but’) – “No, it’s kinda likely isn’t it?”
12:30:13 Laframboise – ” Well no, if you’re holding a criminal tr……”
12:30:15 Owen now becomes obnoxiously immature , interrupting her again, refusing to hear her answer – “Well I don’t hold exactly the same views as I did when I was 16 17 18 ~?~ and an activist in some organizations (~?~)”
12:30:20 Laframboise tries again – “If we were holding a criminal trial we would not … would not …”
12:30:23 Owen interrupts her yet again – “~?~ But this is not a criminal trial.” (something like that)
12:30:25 Laframboise – “Well but it is, it’s, the question is, is CO2 responsible for causing dangerous climate change. We would not …”
12:30:33 The b’tard Owen cuts her off again refusing to let her finish one sentence! – ” ~?~ but do you think that view should be ignored then, or that these people should be side-lined just because they have strong views or an activist background?”
12:30:39 Laframboise trys to answer him before he rambles on any further- “Yes, ~?~ … yes if you’re telling me this is an objective assessment you cannot put people who are bringing all this activist baggage.”
12:30:49 Owen – “So you’ve gotta have a ~?~ process where everybody has independent views that come on this body; is that what you’re telling ~?~ ?”
12:30:55 Laframboise – “Yes I am.”
12:30:58 Owen then resorts to direct condescension – ” Do you think that’s a little naive? Has that ever been achieved anywhere?”
12:31:02 Laframboise – “If the future of our children and our grandchildren are at stake I think we should make an effort…”
12:31:08 Owen steps on her yet again. ” ~?~ thing these ~?~ have strong beliefs as well as the future of our children you can’t just dismiss somebody because they have been an activist in the past.”
12:31:17 Lindzen jumps in – “Nobody is dismissing them …”
12:31:19 Owen – “Well that’s the way I read it sorry and that’s the way I think it’s been explained.”
(Oh REALLY Mr. Owen? You never gave Ms. Laframboise the chance to finish a sentence let alone ‘explain’ anything you do not care to hear!)
12:31:17 Lindzen – “If you’re greenpeace or world wildlife fund you’ve made your views perfectly clear ~?~ massive advertising campaigns to now put yourself in a position where also determine the information that it used by the ~?~ .. is not very healthy.”
12:31:41 Owen with subterfuge -“Okay well we try to get a balance here” blah blah blah …
(more interchange…)
12:32:28 Owen – “….. I would just say that we need a good mix.”
Which of course was exactly what Donna Laframboise was trying to say Mr. Owen if you had allowed her. There is certainly NOT a “good mix” at the IPPC when you have activists on your side in charge of entire chapters and absolutely nobody supplying any “balance” against them!
Agnostic:
At January 28, 2014 at 8:11 am you say
Oh! That is A BIG ISSUE and WUWT readers who are Constituents of Members of the Select Committee may wish to lobby their MP about it.
There are three reasons for playing it down and all three were discussed in the Sessions. The justification for playing it down is the fear that when the politicians understand those issues then the AGW-scare is over.
Firstly, there is no possibility of significant AGW if climate sensitivity is low.
We know as certain fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the GHE to raise global temperature ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. But all other things are not equal in the complex Earth’s climate system: any change to one thing can change everything else.
So, the direct raise to global temperature from doubling atmospheric CO2 from present level would be about ~1.2°C if all other things remained unchanged. And that would not be a problem. But things will change in the climate system and that may increase the raise in temperature (positive feedback) or lower the raise in temperature (negative feedback).
I think the feedbacks are negative so the raise to global temperature from doubling atmospheric CO2 from present level would be less than 1.2°C; i.e. no problem at all.
The IPCC thinks the feedbacks are positive so the raise to global temperature from doubling atmospheric CO2 from present level would be more than 1.2°C; possibly enough more to be a problem.
Nobody knows the truth of this but there is much evidence to support my view that negative feedbacks provide very low climate sensitivity so AGW cannot be a problem.
Secondly, the ‘pause’ is forcing the IPCC to agree that climate sensitivity is much lower than was stated in the AR4. Recent papers suggest that feedbacks are positive but have little effect so doubling atmospheric CO2 from present level would be not much more than 1.2°C and not a problem.
Thirdly, the IPCC published high values of climate sensitivity in the recent AR5 SPM but later published lower values in the so-called scientific Report. And did NOT revise the SPM which is for politicians to digest.
Hence, in its Summary for Policymakers the IPCC has deliberately attempted to mislead politicians into thinking any AGW will be higher than its so-called Science Report says. Monckton provided an article about this on WUWT here
I hope that is adequate explanation.
Richard
I am left with the impression that the chairman was biassed, attempted to misrepresent what the sceptics were saying and prevent them from clarifying, and was seriously intellectually challenged especially on the issue of warm decades. It was apparent to me that Lintzen was doing his best not to put Yeo down.
Tim Yeo is Chairman of TMO Renewables and non-executive chairman of Eco City Vehicles plc and AFC Energy plc so sadly his bias is to be expected.
Thank you for your efforts Richard. I cannot watch the session, as, apart from being in France, I cannot watch anything with Trougher Yeo in it without hurling my laptop into the fire. Your commentary was most useful.
Also thanks to: M Courtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 4:39 am…the person who introduced “oleaginous” to my vocabulary in referring to Myles Allen.
The pathetic few groats that I managed to scrape together for Donna’s travel were well rewarded.
These days Select Committee Chairmen are elected by MPs rather than being appointed.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2010/06/Candidates-for-Commons-select-committee-chairs-announced/
@richardscourtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 10:16 am
Richard, thank you very much for your response. Yours is one of the voices here I pay attention to as you clearly know your stuff and are measured and reasonable in general.
I have been following the debate for a long time now (i got involved in order to try to refute grumblings of my skeptical father and ended up becoming skeptical myself) and I am fully aware of the consequences of low climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks being generated by forced warming such as that from anthro-emissions.
To my mind, climate sensitivity has always been the main measure of whether there is concern, and I was surprised to see it down-played. But I am struggling to believe that the 1st panel would be so wilful as to deliberately downplay it in order to hide the suggestion of low sensitivity and the implications for policy. There may be other reasons why uncertainty surrounding it might be unhelpful to policy makers in determining whether there is something they need to act on, such as other “lines of evidence” that indicate there might be something to gauge the scale of the problem. I just didn’t here what they might be – that is to say, downplaying it felt unjustified to me.
I’d be interested to know if there are any arguments that support viewing metrics other than sensitivity in gauging the degree of the problem human emissions may cause.
I learned from Dr. Lindzen that the lower the climate sensitivity of CO2 the shorter Transient Climate Response. And then he pointed out in that regard that the current empirical record indicates a climate sensitivity on the low end of the scale.
I did not know this, and now I do (-:
My last thought on this.
There were two big losers here today:
Tim Yeo (Conservative) – looked stupid, dishonest and clearly embarrassed his fellow committee members when he got confused between “warmest” and “warming” decades.
John Robertson (Labour) – out of his depth
All the witnesses and other MPs left without shame.
But note the details that were conceded.
1) Prof Myles Allen got the facts wrong about the political independence of the SPM. He looked incoherent a few times when you inspect his words in detail. Often he got confused between models and reality.
2) The issue of climate sensitivity must be lower if the cooling impact of man is lower was understood by the committee and at that point he whole concept of climate sensitivity was downgraded. That’s the end of the climate models basic aim.
3) The hockeystick was questioned and it was conceded “mistakes were made”
Mann overboard!
It doesn’t add up…
Thankyou for your post at January 28, 2014 at 10:48 am with its link which confirms my statement that said
Thankyou.
Richard
I think the hearing failed to question more thoroughly Prof Hoskins and Allen and Dr Stott on what evidence they had to discount that the 0.74C rise in global temperatures during the past century could not have been partly or primarily due to natural variability changes (like the warming leading up to the Medieval warm period and other warm past periods ] They seem to imply that natural variabilty could account for the decadal changes but not for the steady slow warming over the 20th century, implying wrongly that natural variability is on a decadal level only . Natural variabilty can have multitude of cyles and of varying length
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
For the love of all that is worthy, no, this is one question that absolutely should not have been asked unless one’s purpose in asking was to demonstrate beyond any doubt that one is an idiot. Fortunately, Lindzen is an actual physicist and would never ask a leading, irrelevant question about something he understands perfectly well and that is utterly divorced from the questions being discussed.
Let’s see, can I guess that you’ve been banned and are back with a new login (or are trying to fly under moderator radar by using a new id anywa)? In that case, please don’t. In fact, don’t ever, every bring up sidereal and synodical time again until you actually understand it.
rgb
Agnostic:
At January 28, 2014 at 10:50 am you say to me
I do not know of any, and I fail to understand how there could be any.
I refer you back to my post which stated the VERY IMPORTANT political point which I think merits lobbying of Members of the Select Committee. And I strongly suggest that you read the article it links from Monckton. To help you find my post again I provide this link
Richard
PS No need for the flannel. I always try to answer posts addressed to me if can.
Otherwise, BTW, I think it is very promising that some competent skeptics were present at the hearing and gave a credible reason to doubt the IPCC party line, especially the SPM. I’m guessing that they were still way too easy on the GCMs, but it is difficult to do the failure of the GCMs justice without having an audience that understands statistics pretty well (and without graphs and charts and so on).
One really has to deconstruct figure 1.4 of the AR5 SPM by showing before and after pictures, showing how the figure was altered to hide the fact that there has been no warming and that this is significant to the question of the believability of the GCMs under a massive tangle of spaghetti. It also wouldn’t hurt to show the unreliability of GCMs compared one to another on identical problems. I actually think it would be pretty easy to completely shred almost anyone’s confidence in the predictions of GCMs in general, at least at this time.
rgb
Lindzen needing to explain the difference between a continued warming trend and the warmest decade on record basically sums up the Warmist’s understanding of the debate. How do you explain something as complex as global climate to someone that doesn’t even understand that difference? I don’t think you can.
“M Courtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 12:57 am
So panel 1 starts at 930am (about 30 minutes time).
The Grauniad is already up in arms about this. Panel 2 should be enlightening.”
…………………………………………………………………………….
Wow… visited the website and there are a huge number of comments being deleted by the moderators. Looks to me a lot of censoring going on against the non-koolaid drinkers. Is the Guardian is taking the tactic of censoriing out anyone who doesn’t agree with them now?
I watched with interest. I never studied climate science because I was rather good at mathematical physics. I didn’t know any climate scientists at university but also those studying economics, politics etc were not as clever as me and my maths/science mates. That was clearly reflected in the climate committee today where apart from the chemist and the physicist on the committee, the rest were poor, very poor.
Alan the Brit: If you then insist on making bad jokes about Donna Laframboise’s name, it’d be RASPberry, not strawberry 🙂
I guess he hasn’t mastered the fraise yet…
PM – “We need a colorful mix” of opinions in the IPCC report.
Really? How many scientists that work for energy companies are lead authors on the report?
Committee hearing available on BBC iplayer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03t7lhw/Select_Committees_Live_Climate_Change_Committee/
If outside UK you may require a VPN to access.
One last thought: I have been saying that those that go into climatology are not the cream-of-the-crop for some time now as it is reasonable to assume that most of the intellectual talent has gravitated to where there is money to be made. Hearing Dr. Lindzen say this was quite unexpected and assuring to know that I wasn’t a complete arse when making this assumption.
Robert W Turner said at 11:38 am:
Lindzen needing to explain the difference between a continued warming trend and the warmest decade on record basically sums up the Warmist’s understanding of the debate. How do you explain something as complex as global climate to someone that doesn’t even understand that difference? I don’t think you can.
Lindzen could have been more direct and have said, “Of course the last decade is the warmest decade on record” right off the bat and then explained how it could not be. But he tried some weasel words first which didn’t cut it.
Folks on the skeptical side of the debate should should simply state that it is warmer. Then add how much warmer, then that it’s much less than the models predict, then that it is overwhelmingly a good thing, that trying to change the direction is a fool’s errend, costly and detrimental to our civilization.
The available iplayer link supplied unfortunately is not the whole committee hearing, it finishes after 2 hours, I don’t know how long the actual session was.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03t7lhw/Select_Committees_Live_Climate_Change_Committee/
Perhaps Anthony could supply a link at the top of the post so those able to view can?
Well done!
1. Amazing to see. how British MPs even tried to go into Batesian mathematics. One of them even schooled the alarmist alarmist panel, that by diverging expectation from measured data should increase uncertainty and not decrease it.
Very interesting note from Nic Lewis, that Francis Zwiers book, climate science #1 source for statistics, does not even contain Bayesian maths.
2. Nic Lewis focussed on “his” 2 points and the panel clearly got the message. Sensitivity is low and climate models are failing.
Which new study was he talking about, with ocean heat uptake now halfed for 2004-2011 ?
3. Tim Yeo – of course – an utter and painful disaster. Should be noted, that elsewhere in the US Congress, such disruptive behaviour was common practise from Boxter / Clinton and friends.
alcheson says: @ January 28, 2014 at 11:38 am
…. there are a huge number of comments being deleted by the moderators. Looks to me a lot of censoring going on against the non-koolaid drinkers. Is the Guardian is taking the tactic of censoriing out anyone who doesn’t agree with them now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They and the BBC have been for a while.
JP says: @ January 28, 2014 at 11:44 am
Alan the Brit: If you then insist on making bad jokes about Donna Laframboise’s name, it’d be RASPberry, not strawberry 🙂
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I call her La Raspberry because I murder French and my husband cringes.
rgbatduke:
re your point about GCMs in your post at January 28, 2014 at 11:35 am.
As you say, the issue was raised in the Sessions. Hence, it can be followed up by the Committee either in writing or by recalling the witnesses before another Session.
Very good Civil servants support each Select Committee. If they assess that issues were not adequately covered then they will advise the Select Committee. Indeed, over coffee after the Session a Civil servant may seek out a witness and ask for clarification to enable advise to provide the Committee (I have experienced this).
If you feel a desire to advise the Committee of your concerns then you can provide a written Submission and it will be assessed by a Civil Servant considering what to advise the Committee. If you do this then please include information on your academic position. Remember that you not being a Brit does not matter: two of the Witnesses were Americans. The Committee is charged to oversee policy and it can obtain information it needs from anywhere. You never know, they may Call you.
I hope that helps.
Richard
Manfred says: @ January 28, 2014 at 1:27 pm
… Tim Yeo – of course – an utter and painful disaster. Should be noted, that elsewhere in the US Congress, such disruptive behaviour was common practise from Boxter / Clinton and friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why Robert made his Rules.
richardscourtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 1:55 am
“Reprated assertions that ‘the models ARE climate’; e.g. internal variability of the climate is the same as variability of the models.”
This is a truly damning statement and especially so since they are now making the assertion openly. For years, they have used obfuscation as their only tool in dealing with questions of natural variability. Now they admit that for them “natural variability” refers to the model rather than nature. In other words, they do not so much as recognize natural variability where it exists, outside the models in nature. Natural variability is simply what Mother Nature can do on her own. We have some historical records of Mother’s feats in decreasing or increasing temperatures. The extremes in our data records are what we know of natural variability. Those data records must be used to test models.
Any “natural variability” built into the model will amount to nothing more than a tautologous part of a larger tautology and, as such, cannot tell us anything about nature.
Hot under the collar says:
January 28, 2014 at 12:32 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03t7lhw/Select_Committees_Live_Climate_Change_Committee/
For non UK residents unable to access iPlayer – Media Hint addon for Firefox (and Chrome?) is a simple workaround.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-hint/
Thanks much to Richardscourtney, M Courtney, and all Brits for very helpful comments.
Everyone please check out judith Curry’s running comments on her site.
rgbatduke wrote –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
For the love of all that is worthy, no, this is one question that absolutely should not have been asked unless one’s purpose in asking was to demonstrate beyond any doubt that one is an idiot. Fortunately, Lindzen is an actual physicist and would never ask a leading, irrelevant question about something he understands perfectly well and that is utterly divorced from the questions being discussed.”
People who can’t interpret a basic temperature graph where temperatures rise and fall within a 24 hour period which correlates directly with one rotation of the Earth are lost souls much less intelligent and reasonable.
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/los-angeles/hourly
Within that ‘solar vs sidereal’ fiction is a catastrophic amount of damage where cause and effect are concerned insofar as if you can’t match the rising and falling of temperatures at your location with a turning Earth then there is no longer any point to science and certainly no mandate to discuss it.
So,what commission can you convene to discuss why every astronomer on the planet has trouble ascertaining the cause of the most immediate experience of global temperature fluctuations if they insist there is one more rotation than there are days in a year with all the effects within that day ?.
The three sides in that sideshow today were out of their depth as they are merely inheritors of late 17th century fluff and voodoo and particularly due to the single greatest act of vandalism perpetrated on astronomy .It is the reason contemporaries are exceptionally poor at cause and effect –
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
This attempt to create an set of observation from Earth (relative space and motion) with a transferable hypothetical modeling as seen from the Sun (absolute space and motion) robbed the original discoveries of their substance as all observations are seen from a moving Earth and all effects are a consequence of a moving Earth including the daily temperature fluctuations and the annual set. The fact is that the modelers in astronomy never understood their own system,they loved the voodoo but never understood what Newton was doing even though he literally spells it out as I have just explained –
“It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space,in which those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which the causes and effects of the true motion.” Newton Principia
None of you would give up Newton and his agenda but that is at the bottom of this current modeling mess and although Von Humboldt was not the first or last to talk up higher reasoning against the agenda based on speculative/predictive assertions,his was the most expansive in pointing out that higher reasoning undoes the damage –
“These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning” Leibniz
In short,you cannot model your way out of a mess the same way you modeled your way into one and that is the answer behind an impasse that suits only those with reputations and salaries to protect.
Thanks clipe, but I notice the BBC iplayer recording cuts off most of the skeptic’s presentation. Why am I not surprised?
I don’t know if it is ‘selective hearing’, but at 34:50 when Peter Lilley asked about a study showing the models converging because they were all overemphasising or using warming in the arctic, I am sure you can hear one of the IPCC faithful (or at least someone) say “shit” ?
rgbatduke wrote in response to what is possibly the dumbest statement ever coming from the minds of men –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
“For the love of all that is worthy, no, this is one question that absolutely should not have been asked unless one’s purpose in asking was to demonstrate beyond any doubt that one is an idiot. Fortunately, Lindzen is an actual physicist and would never ask a leading, irrelevant question about something he understands perfectly well and that is utterly divorced from the questions being discussed.”
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/los-angeles/hourly
Talk about a pyramid built on its apex with all the instability that follows !. The only question worthwhile asking is how an entire generation lost the correlation between daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period and one rotation of the planet. The answer is surprisingly complicated but when you insist on an imbalance between rotations and 24 hour days you are encountering a glimpse at a sideshow that has lasted for a number of centuries in astronomy but has now entered terrestrial sciences through modeling.
The human mind that dwells on either the daily temperature graph or the statement is forced into a conclusion sooner or later because the strain of trying to get rotations to diverge from the daily spiking and descent of temperatures is untenable. People may refuse to believe the solution is just that simple but boy does it open up the can of worms concealed within a lot of voodoo and fluff since Flamsteed first jumped to that rash ‘sol;ar vs sidereal’ conclusion and Sir Isaac built on it.
The sideshow today is a symptom of errors inherited from previous centuries so drop the celebrity hero worship of Newton and deal with the matter in the objective way it should be treated. If they ever do convene a commission on the matter as to how an entire generation of astronomers lost the basic correlation between planetary dynamics and daily temperature rises they will find Newton’s agenda at the core of that hideous error passed of currently as ‘fact’.
Sorry Mod, thought the other reply didn’t make it.
Just curious, are the two Courneys (Richard S and M) related?
Still just going through. Never in the past did I hear Stott. All the bad things said about him that I said must be exaggerations that I out of hand disclaimed I now see were understated. All I can say thus far from what I have heard is:
‘And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
’cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
Blind justice, and there wasn’t nothing he could do about it, and the
Judge wasn’t going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
Pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
One explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. And
We was fined $50 and had to pick up the garbage in the snow, but that’s not
What I came to tell you about.’
MattS says: @ January 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Just curious, are the two Courneys (Richard S and M) related?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard is M’s Father, but are very much individuals.
[The mod’s are thankful that neither Janice, Gail nor Pamela are (or will claim to be) related to either Courneys …. Mod]
MattS:
At January 28, 2014 at 2:44 pm you ask
It is no secret that Mathew is my son.
As most people have noticed, he and I disagree on most things (e.g. as in this thread). But I would not want a son who agrees with me, would you? It might be a problem if we were in close and frequent contact but we are not; e.g. we only meet once or twice a year. So, we enjoy our disagreements especially when together.
Richard
Thanks Richard and M Courtney for the live comments! Quite interesting that it even is possible to invite an equal panel of pro’s and con’s for a parliament committee. Far from the possibilities in my own country. The Netherlands is a lot farther in that way…
MattS, It has been stated that Richard S Courtney is my father on this thread by several commentators and also elsewhere by my mother; so in this I suspend my scepticism (at least until someone richer seeks to make me his heir).
However, I am not one to always leap to my father’s defence and do not always agree with his judgement. For example, his summary of this event is completely wrong with respect to who won the event (in my opinion).
Also we live four hours apart and will probably not see each other as often as twice this year.
Just read rest of the comments.
It seems that Richard S Courtney cannot spell my first name.
Hmm…
Perhaps I was too credulous.
M Courtney:
You say concerning you being my son
Seems it is time for you to seek that “someone richer” which should not be hard 🙂
Dad
Sun Earth relation.
http://spaceweathergallery.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=93459
[The mod’s are thankful that neither Janice, Gail nor Pamela are (or will claim to be) related to either Courneys …. Mod]
I have an English great-grandfather….
Courtneys – five minutes in the penalty box for hockey-sticking 🙂
Interesting how this blog, in addition to having wonderful science and increasingly broader excursions into excellent writing about and in defense of science, also brings folks (and families) together from around the world, with many viewpoints and ideas from which we all benefit. Aren’t there other Sr./Jr. posters here, e.g. Phil and Phil’s Dad, and the Pielkes?
Ahh, families, can’t live with them, can’t live without them (spoken as the parent of a teenager…my sister tells me it gets better….)(Mom always (still) liked her best :))…
Jeff says: @ January 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm
. Aren’t there other Sr./Jr. posters here…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes Dr. Tim Ball & son.
Isn’t it truly stunning what Nic Lewis has already achieved ?
Not only did he force the IPCC into that embarrassing corner of avoiding a central estimate of the most important climate parameter at all,
now he even motivated British MPs to look into Bayesian Mathematics !
Wonderful achievement. Imagine Barbara Boxter or Al Gore doing this. Absolutely impossible. So big thanks and merits also to these British MPs who still have some democratic spirit hardwired in their brains.
That means nothing less, than these MPs no longer believe what their experts say and want to check by themselves. Huge success for citizen science and democracy.
Tom says:January 28, 2014 at 3:46 am
“He is a supporter of homeopathy, …”
Abraham Lincoln, upon having the homeopathic theory of dilution explained to him, paused and said : “That sounds like trying to fertilize a field with a fart!”
Well. I watched it and was impressed by the mere fact that it was held at all. I did feel the chairman was biased against Lindzen over the hottest decade ever definition but that simply showed his ignorance. The positive however is that some of the parliamentarians were being exposed to another point of view which explains the apoplexy over at the Guardian newspaper. Lindzen the scientist tried to tell the pollies that no action was better than wrong or useless action (think wind turbines) while the pollies feel obligated to “do something”. Mind you if they did do nothing they would have to explain that AGW was a false alarm and all that money they spent was actually wasted. Not likely to happen just yet.
There will probably be a gradual disengagement from climate matters but like all addictions it will need to be replaced. How about nuclear energy? That should keep everyone at each others throats.
Thought I read recently that Tim Yeo’s local constituency party had had declined to nominate him for re-election…………maybe because of his willingness to lobby Parliament for a fee………or maybe because he’s a complete pillock.
So is Mr. Yeo really not getting the part of the record high at the plateau, or was he just pretending to be thick in order to troll on record?
JP:
Yeo really is that thick. He does not need to pretend. If you do the search by name I suggested as part of my answer to your question, you will see that it is common knowledge as is his sleaze.
Richard
I would have loved for rgb to be on one of the panels. That would have been highly entertaining.
I did stay up to watch this live, and it’s been interesting to “hear” the views of others – particularly (earlier today) Judith Curry’s amazing reportage. So I would definitely second Theo Goodwin’s exhortation:
Here’s the link. You might want to skip the 300+ comments – far too many of which emanate from the angry keyboard of David Appell and other known thread-derailers and/or sneer ‘n smear artists.
A few background items that I haven’t seen mentioned in the comments here that I believe one should keep in mind. In addition to the oral evidence presented, I believe that the Select Committee’s report will also incorporate** the written evidence submitted by the witnesses (as well as evidence submitted by others), some of which were predictable, but many of which are definitely worth reading.
Paul Matthews has a post in which he provides an overview of the written evidence provided as of Jan. 8.
** IMHO, it is not unreasonable to suggest that when the report is written, it will cover all the Terms of Reference (TOR) – not only the 5 topics listed for this session. Since “oral evidence is ongoing”, there will be at least one additional session before the report is written. It’s also worth noting that, notwithstanding the December 10, 2013 deadline for written submissions, there appear to be at least seven submissions that were probably received after this deadline.
Perhaps those who feel that some points could have been expanded on by “Team Triple L”, might want to make their own follow-up submissions
I’ve never appeared before a Parliamentary committee, but I have been on the witness stand at a quasi-judicial tribunal (and in the hot seat on live TV!) So, I know from experience that no matter how well one knows one’s subject matter, one never knows what questions one might be asked – or how boorish and ill-informed some of one’s interlocutors might be! Unless, of course, one has the “benefit” of some “coaching” sessions – as did the UEA/CRU “witnesses” prior to the U.K. parliamentary enquiry pursuant to Climategate.
If you study the TOR for the current enquiry, I’m sure you’ll recognize that there is an implicit recognition of the issues that have been raised by skeptics over the years. This being the case, to borrow and rephrase the immortal words of Poor Phil, I cannot imagine that Lilley and Stringer will permit the report to be written without the inclusion of many significant arguments presented by the skeptics in their written submissions.
P.S. @richard Courtney, in your msg to RGBatDuke, you wrote:
I believe you may be mistaken; to the best of my knowledge all three of “Team Consensus” are Brits, as is Nic Lewis; Richard Lindzen is American, but, like me (although I’m a transplanted Brit) Donna is Canadian 🙂
richardscourtney said:
JP:
“Yeo really is that thick. He does not need to pretend. If you do the search by name I suggested as part of my answer to your question, you will see that it is common knowledge as is his sleaze.”
Thanks for the links, Richard, I had already checked them and they were very useful. Unfortunately, I have not found any primary school grades that allowed me to estimate his mental constraints.
JP
M Courtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 3:20 am
FYI: Mr Tim Yeo (Chair) is a Conservative. Rt Hon Graham Stringer MP is Labour.
See in the UK it really isn’t a Left-wing / Right-wing issue.
I pointedly choose not use the Rt Hon in Yeo’s case.
_____
I don’t think either MP may properly be styled “Rt Hon”; both are “Mr”.
Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001):
At January 29, 2014 at 1:57 am you write
Many thanks for this correction. I genuinely appreciate it.
I misunderstood that Ms Laframboise was an American.
I intended no offence to anybody by this mistake and I wholeheartedly apologise for it.
Again, thankyou.
Richard
I’m sorry that I can’t seem to get over this, but if Mr. Yeo is, how shall I say it, clearly not the brightest light bulb, excuse me, CFL in the shop, AND he has strong eco-green commercial connections, how ON EARTH did he end up chairing that particular committee?? I admit I know relatively little of UK politics, but as far as I understood, the UK was not on the list of banana republics. {Suppressing the urge here to extend the metaphor towards green banana’s}
The hearing is now available on YouTube:
J.P. Sorry about Tim Yeo. He is an embarrassment to the UK.
In fairness, the British people are aware of his failings and are trying to get him sacked.
But he has contacts with the influential and a long history near the trough of power and so he is hard to scrape off.
Tim Yeo is in the last throws of his tenure as an MP in the UK. He is under tremendous pressure to stand down and his constituents are planning to de select him. A range of scandals surround this chap, he is not a straight shooter. How he got the chair of this committee needs to be investigated given his fiscal ties to the great green machine.
JP:
At January 29, 2014 at 7:08 am you ask
It is a long thread so it is easy to miss things. I answered your question here Please note the third of my three reasons.
Richard
Now having just sat through the whole thing, I must disagree with the person who thought the warmists were the most impressive. Richard Lindzen on his own wiped the floor with them, but the sceptics as a whole came across as altogether more clued up, serious and considered despite some barracking. But it’s not just them: the warmist MPs came across as plainly partisan and clueless. I think anyone with no axe to grind would agree with me.
The biggest liability on the warmist side was Tim Yeo, who made a complete twerp of himself, but aside from that, in Britain it’s well known he’s a shifty customer, and that he has a financial interest in promoting green issues. It’s quite likely that he will be deselected as an MP by his constituency, who are (quite rightly) teed off with his absenteeism from that constituency, not to mention his miraculously having been let off on the charge of breaking parliamentary lobbying rules. Check this out if you don’t know the story–won’t take long to get the gist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/09/tim-yeo-tory-mp-filmed-by-undercover-reporters_n_3410857.html
All in all, I’m pleased by the performance, and I can’t say I was very optimistic at the outset.
Richard S Courtney, You make a common mistake when you confuse the Crown with the King or queen of England. It is the Crown of the City of London, whose vast tentacles held many lands in sway back when the map of the globe was nearly covered with pink and the sun never set on the British Empire. Thus the Queen bows to the Lord Mayor of London when she enters the City.
Why are my comments today in Mod limbo?? No sense to it and inconsistent also.
DavidG:
re your post at January 29, 2014 at 4:03 pm.
I will not get into your silly argument about the Crown or the Sovereign.
Suffice it to say that the armed forces swear loyalty to the Sovereign, and the Crown Estates are “Property owned by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom “in right of the Crown” “.
Post whatever else you want to on the matter. I will ignore it.
Richard
Guido Fawkes, far and away the UK’s biggest political blog, has published a sketch on the hearings:
http://order-order.com/2014/01/30/sketch-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#more-159718
All UK politicians and hangers-on read every word that goes up on Guido, some of them will be finding out some interesting things for the first time…
So the Hearing is being discussed on the World’s Most Viewed Climate Blog (WUWT) and the UK’s Most Viewed Political Blog (Guido Fawkes). Quite a combination. As Jonathan Abbott states above, the Guido Fawkes blog is closely watched by all on the UK political inside track. I believe it was even quoted by the Prime Minister during a Commons debate. Public awareness of the growing doubts over CAGW is accelerating.
It is for good day
Everbody dance now
Клара у клавы1