A report on the AR5 hearings: ‘Unsettling the “Settled Science” of Climate Change’

Video of the session 2 follows.

The committee for Energy and Climate Change must be in line for an award. Its performance this week was exceptional.

The mental level of Yeo’s committee is – well, the climate debate is so rancorous let’s try for decorum.

Suffice it to say that John Robertson’s questioning would have been a credit to a clever dugong. Albert Owen nearly grasped the idea that that a Greenpeace activist in charge of an IPCC Chapter might lack objectivity. And Tim Yeo’s chairing was as good as a golf club captain in a Saturday night lock-in.

The committee had just received three mainstream climate workers and now, to say they had looked at all sides, they had three sceptics.  

No doubt their sceptical remarks are contentious, their facts arguable and their conclusions unusual – but the three of them certainly gave the lie to the claim that “the science is settled”.

Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, in his low-key, diffident manner, looked placidly into the committee’s apocalyptic future. How that annoyed them.

The Chairman asked a number of leading. loaded or frankly loopy questions .

Such as:

“So, you think the report should be compiled on a more slipshod basis?”

And:

“Are you saying the Government is deliberately appointing scientists who aren’t as good as others?”

And, here’s an exchange worth quoting at length.

Yeo pressed Lindzen to get a Yes to the question, “Was 2000 to 2010 the hottest decade on record?”

Lindzen: (Eventually) Of course it was.

Yeo: It’s interesting you’re using that as evidence that somehow global warming has stopped. That we’ve just gone through the hottest decade of all time (sic) and that this is actually evidence that global warming is not taking place.

Lindzen: You’re saying something that doesn’t make sense.

Yeo: Oh, so it is continuing!

Lindzen: How shall I put it? On a certain smoothing level you can say it’s continuing. It hasn’t done anything for 15 years.

Yeo: Except we’ve just had the hottest-ever (sic) decade . . . If I was clocked driving my car at 90 mph, faster than I’d ever driven it before, I don’t find that convincing evidence I haven’t broken the 70mph speed limit.

It dawns on Lindzen the chairman has special needs. He explains how a 16-year smoothing average means one thing, how a pause and plateau means another.

Yeo responds: Just because we’ve had the hottest decade on record doesn’t seem conclusive proof that global warming has come to an end.

After a chorus of contradiction:

Yeo: I thought Professor Lindzen was saying the upward trend has come to an end.

Lindzen: (quite sharply, for him) No! I never said it’s come to an end! I said for 16 years it hasn’t increased!

Yeo: I don’t think we’ll get much further on this. I’m happy to be judged by what’s on the record.

I bet he won’t be.

Read more here: SKETCH: Unsettling the “Settled Science” of Climate Change

Now compare that with what the execrable Bob Ward ( who’s paid by “Big Climate” to have an opinion, unlike Donna Laframboise who paid her own way there, and asked for help from the skeptic community to defray travel costs) had to say about it:

For example, Donna Laframboise, the world’s leading producer of conspiracy theories about the IPCC, was asked by Mr Stringer why she thought the organisation should be abolished. Her reply was extremely misleading: “When the IAC [InterAcademy Council] reported in 2010 it said that there were significant shortcomings in every major step of the IPCC process. That is not a mild criticism. That suggests that there are serious reasons to be very careful about the conclusions of the IPCC process.”

Conspiracy theories? He must be talking to Cook and Lew. Ward’s rant, complete with all the denigrating labels necessary for his craft, is here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/Jan/Blog-on-Select-Committee-Hearing.aspx

You can watch the session here, thanks to reader “Jabba the Cat”:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

135 Responses to A report on the AR5 hearings: ‘Unsettling the “Settled Science” of Climate Change’

  1. Ed_B says:

    I think the skeptical view was for once well articulated. Unfortunately, it is complex, and the general public would not be able to understand what was being said most of the time. The panel should have understand though, that the best policy is to do NOTHING.

  2. LKMiller says:

    Professor Lindzen could have easily put Yeo in his place, had he responded thusly:

    “In a good dictionary, please look up ‘warm,’ and ‘warming.'”

  3. JimS says:

    LOL! Oh yes, 2000 – 2010 was the hottest decade “on record,” and the record goes back to only 130 years.

  4. wws says:

    No one in the general public is paying attention to any of this nonsense anymore, they’re tuning all of it out. Nobody but the True Believers and the Committed Skeptics even knows that hearings were held, or cares.

  5. M Courtney says:

    Ah, Guido. So negative all the time.

    OK. Rt Hon John Robertson’s contribution was embarrassing and Tim Yeo needs incarcerating on grounds of feeble-mindedness as well as corruption. Agreed.

    But the rest of the committee were OK.

    Rt Hon Graham Stringer was particularly on the ball. He seems to know about Bayesian statistics than the two FRSs on the panel. And he wiped the floor with Prof Myles Allen (for what that’s worth).

  6. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    It is interesting how hard they are working to try to keep the general public from realizing there has been no warming for 15-17 years. It means the CO2-connected temperature meme is accepted behind the scenes as having been broken and they are trying to make sure people don’t find out. That is what a conspiracy looks like: concerted effort to mislead and hide with many hundreds of like-minded co-conspirators willing to pitch in with bilge, wails and howls on cue.

    It doesn’t seem to bother them in the least they are sounding more desperate each time.

    Re the hottest decade: Well 11 more years of what we have now and the hottest decade (assuming the 1930’s are not un-revised to their former glory) will be behind us. Maybe by then they will have implemented whatever their crafty plan is, though it hasn’t gone too well thus far.

    Donna is now a top flight skeptic? Because she wrote a book? Isn’t putting journalists in places where scientists should be how we got into this CAGW mess? I think an IPCC ex-reviewer who left in disgust over the corruption, scientific fraud and deception would have been a better choice. Oh…right.

  7. richardscourtney says:

    M Courtney:

    In your post at January 30, 2014 at 11:09 am you comment

    Rt Hon Graham Stringer was particularly on the ball. He seems to know about Bayesian statistics than the two FRSs on the panel. And he wiped the floor with Prof Myles Allen (for what that’s worth).

    So, Myles Allen is a floor cloth? Ah, I knew there had to be a use for him.

    Richard

  8. vukcevic says:

    Question: Are solar cycles important?
    Lindzen: It is pretty clear that actual solar variability is small.
    (as reported by JC’s blog)

    Hmmm…
    According to the latest Stamford-WSO data, its polar field is moving back into ‘negative’ polarity.

  9. pdtillman says:

    Note the extensive coverage in the international press/media of this hearing….
    /sarcasm

  10. dbstealey says:

    JimS says:

    “…the record goes back to only 130 years.”

    Actually, the record goes back much farther. There are numerous ice core records from both hemispheres, which go back hundreds of thousands of years.

    The planet has been warmer, and [much] colder in the past. Current temperatures are very mild, and they are certainly not unusual. The temperature fluctuation over the past century and a half has been an amazingly steady and low ±0.8ºC.

    But prior to that time, global temperatures have varied by tens of degrees, within only a decade or two. If that happened now, there would be mass global starvation.

    People just do not understand how good the present climate is.

  11. Hmmm says:

    I think what Lindzen should say is that it has certainly not increased as fast as was projected, and that most skeptics agree that that there should be increases/record decades. Basically that the pause should be making the skeptics to luke-warmers mainstream rather than the CAGW high sensitivity crowd on which the UK has been basing policies.

  12. Steve from Rockwood says:

    wws says:
    January 30, 2014 at 11:09 am

    No one in the general public is paying attention to any of this nonsense anymore, they’re tuning all of it out. Nobody but the True Believers and the Committed Skeptics even knows that hearings were held, or cares.

    This is more important than anything anyone on either “side” may have said.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    dbstealey says: @ January 30, 2014 at 11:26 am
    …..The temperature fluctuation over the past century and a half has been an amazingly steady ±0.8ºC……….People just do not understand how good the present climate is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes! Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change 16C and 8, 10C in dramatically short times.
    Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. for well over a decade. In 2002, the NAS (alley chair) published a book “Abrupt Climate Change”:

    . From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:
    “….Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age….”

    In his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years….

  14. M Courtney says:

    Thinking about this hearing I came up with three findings that need to be remembered (and which were overshadowed by the looming idiocy of Tim Yeo).

    1 Myles Allen doesn’t think climate sensitivity is the important factor in Climatology. That needs following up on because if sensitivity to CO2 isn’t important then…

    2 Myles Allen informed the committee that the science comes before the political input. This is wrong with respect to the SFPM and he wasn’t helped by his fellow panellists (who knew). Hiding the politicisation of the IPCC was a theme for the non-sceptics; it was far more important than the chances of the world ending.

    3 When the UK’s mainstream climatology elite were asked about the IPCC AR3 and the Hockey stick the answer was “mistakes were made…” It seems to me that the MWP is back in, Michael Mann is way out and anything will be jettisoned to hold the IPCC close.

  15. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Just a comment for everyone who reads WUWT who ISN’T a Brit…Mr Time Yeo is seen here as an arse. For which, read Guido’s blog http://order-order.com/tag/tim-yeo/

  16. Jimbo says:

    Tim Yeo
    “Was 2000 to 2010 the hottest decade on record?”

    Tim Yeo
    It’s interesting you’re using that as evidence that somehow global warming has stopped. That we’ve just gone through the hottest decade of all time (sic) and that this is actually evidence that global warming is not taking place.

    Spot the sneaky insertion? From the “hottest decade on record” to the “hottest decade of all time” bull faeces. Good old Tim should have been reminded about the Holocene Hypsithermal.

    Here is the real Tim Yeo.

    Tory Tim Yeo’s hopes of avoiding the sack as an MP suffered a setback last night after three fellow grandees piled the pressure on him.

    Mr Yeo has been criticised for earning £400,000 from green energy interests since 2009 while chairing the Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee since 2010.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546060/New-blow-Tory-MP-Tim-Yeo-hopes-avoiding-sack-suffer-set-snubbed-Conservatives.html

    Yet this, it would seem on first glance, is what Yeo has been caught doing on camera by a newspaper sting operation.

    “The reporters approached Yeo posing as representatives of a solar energy company offering to hire him as a paid advocate to push for new laws to boost its business for a fee of £7,000 a day. He told them he could commit to at least one day a month, despite the fact that he already held four private jobs and was in negotiations to take a further two. Setting out what he could offer, the MP said: “If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I can use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections.” Asked if that extended to government figures, Yeo replied: “Yes.” The House of Commons code of conduct forbids members from acting as paid advocates, including by lobbying ministers. Yeo also said he could help them by guiding them on submitting evidence to his own committee, which he described as “a good way of getting your stuff on the map”.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220897/trougher-yeo-we-mustnt-laugh/

  17. Sabertooth says:

    I’m driving a car at 40 mph and then accelerate 70 mph.

    Now I’m driving for a time with my speed fluctuating between 70 and 75 mph.

    Am I still accelerating, since my most recent miles were travelled at my
    highest speeds?

    Yes, because I’m using kph as a proxy, and the numbers are worse than we thought.

  18. M Courtney says:

    Let’s not let this turn into a report of Tim Yeo’s failings. He is not important to the debate on climate science in the UK.
    The hearing was.

    And no-one has time to list or even read all of Tim Yeo’s failings.
    Let’s just hope the deselection passes and he can flow out of Parliament in one bowel-like motion

  19. Eustace Cranch says:

    Here’s a new set of stairs. I walk up a few steps and stop. I am now the highest I’ve ever been on those stairs. That has *no predictive value* on what I will do next.

  20. Yeo as well as being an idiot, is chairman of a renewable energy company (cannot remember the company’s name) and like everyone else who promotes AGW stands to lose thousands of £’s if said AGW is disproved.
    The people who promote AGW, despite all the mounting evidence that it is not happening are :
    a) Making lots of money from it.
    b) Socialist control freaks
    c) Hypocritical socialist control freaks making lots of money from it

  21. u.k.(us) says:

    From:
    http://order-order.com/2014/01/30/sketch-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/

    I pull this quote:
    “She [Donna Laframboise] also suggested that the review editors should be chosen by and report to people outside the IPCC. That the summary-writing process should be televised. And that the scientists involved shouldn’t all be appointed by governments.”
    ==============
    If indeed, this is a threat to mankind’s future, shouldn’t the process be televised ?
    Why is it hiding behind closed doors ??
    Donna is gonna smoke’em out, we’re lucky to have her.

  22. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    This is a momentous and historic moment because I write to completely agree with M Courtney when he writes his three points at January 30, 2014 at 11:37 am here.

    And, to avoid WUWT regulars writing to check, yes, this agreement is from me astonishing as it may seem.

    Richard

  23. Ken Hall says:

    Lindzen should have asked Yeo at what age he stopped growing and if he considers himself to be still growing, because his height over the last decade is as high as it has been during his life?

    What part of NOT WARMING ANYMORE do these people not understand? There has been no warming at all this decade, or this century or even this millennium so far, in spite of more CO2 being pumped out this decade than in any previous decade since man walked on earth.

  24. Any non UK readers that follow the link to Guido’s site should be forewarned that Anglo Saxon language is fully accepted within the moderation of the comments. Think of Viz does politics.

  25. Jimbo says:

    For our American friends here is more on Tim Yeo (Conservative) from the Daily Telegraph blogger (conservative) Delingpole.

    “Tim Yeo: No Headline Can Do Him Justice.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100195422/tim-yeo-no-headline-can-do-him-justice/

    “Just Why Is Tory MP Tim Yeo So Passionate About Green Issues”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100144779/just-why-is-tory-mp-tim-yeo-so-passionate-about-green-issues/

    “Tim Yeo: like a cross between Ebola and Chris Huhne”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100172094/tim-yeo-like-a-cross-between-ebola-and-chris-huhne/

    “Lilley Sticks It To Trougher Yeo”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100213192/lilley-sticks-it-to-trougher-yeo/

  26. jai mitchell says:

    It is too bad that Mr Lewis had to misquote Lyman and Johnston (2013) results to assert his belief that the ocean is not storing as much heat as the AR5 says (time 48:30).

    He says that the Argo data shows a total heat uptake from 0-1800 meter depth of .3 watts per meter squared but the paper he is quoting says that the 0-1800 meter depth is actually .56 watts per meter squared and the 0-700 meter depth is the region that has the .3 watts per meter squared ocean heat uptake.

    I wonder if, given the correct information, whether he might come to a different conclusion, namely that the science is completely settled and that attempts to cast doubt on this body of work will be shown, in the hindsight of future generations, to be the greatest intentional crime of our modern age.

  27. Resourceguy says:

    Clearly a high plateau on global temps is not enough. Not to worry though the declining AMO and other long cycles will slowly convert this debate into how long the decline will continue after a few episodes of excuses about random down years. Assuming (cautiously) that policy response and cost assignment to global warming remains marginal and not egregious, then the damage to growth and prosperity from policy fail will be undone before a generation is harmed. If on the other hand, a cap and trade law is forced through on some midnight vote with many thousands of pages and interlinked to the federal budget on a level comparable to the marriage penalty, then some poor generation will realize they cannot afford to unwind the damage done even with overwhelming science evidence to the contrary. At that point a name change of the issue will be required to calm nerves by calling it Pollution Whathaveyou or Miscellaneous Assigned Pollution.

  28. Gail Combs says:

    wws says:@ January 30, 2014 at 11:09 am
    No one in the general public is paying attention to any of this nonsense anymore, they’re tuning all of it out. Nobody but the True Believers and the Committed Skeptics even knows that hearings were held, or cares.

    Steve from Rockwood replies: @ January 30, 2014 at 11:36 am
    This is more important than anything anyone on either “side” may have said.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>…
    The people on the eastern seaboard of the USA are going to care within a couple years. Most of the plants shutting down are in a seven state area around Washington DC. Seems the EPA is aggressively pursuing its WAR on COAL. Only they miscalculated.

    According to EPA, their modeling of Utility MACT and CSAPR indicates that these regulations will only shutter 9.5 GW of electricity generation capacity.

    …The Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently announced that coal plant owners and operators expect to retire about 27 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity by 2016 — four times the 6.5 gigawatts of capacity retired between 2007 and 2011. In 2012, electric generators are expected to retire 9 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, the largest amount of retirements in a single year in America’s history.

    In 2011, there were 1,387 coal-fired generators in the United States, totaling almost 318 gigawatts. The 27 gigawatts of retiring capacity is 8.5 percent of total coal-fired capacity. The 2012 record retirements are expected to be exceeded in 2015 when nearly 10 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity are expected to retire. [i]

    Most of the units retiring are located in the Mid-Atlantic, Ohio River Valley, and Southeastern United States as shown in the map below….
    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/08/01/generating-companies-are-shuttering-coal-plants-at-record-rates-eia-reports/

    Look at the map of retiring Coal plants and then look at the Weatherbell January polar vortex model…. OOPS.
    http://blog.chron.com/weather/wp-content/blogs.dir/2579/files/2014/01/gfs_z500_uv_noram_15-600×450.png

    or the Acuweather map
    http://www.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/650x366_01Change-in-poloar-vortex-wind-pattern.png

    MORE POPCORN

    If you live in those areas time to buy a wood stove….

  29. Dire Wolf says:

    It seems to me we need a better analogy for the low-information congressperson. I suggest the following:

    “I climb a mountain for 20 miles ascending 15,000 feet. Now for the last 15 miles I have been walking on level ground. Though the last 15 miles I have walked have been the highest on record of my journey, the mountain isn’t going up. Indeed, the mountain may never go up. I may be at the summit and the mountain may go down.

    In the same way, we have walked up warming from 1975 to 1998. Yet, for the lat 17 years we have been walking on a plateau. Is the warming continuing? No more than the mountain was. Indeed, we cannot see whether the temperature will go up or down or at what rate. The fact that the last decade was the warmest merely means we have not ascended further.

    Indeed, if the world temperature begins to decline, the 2000s may be the warmest decade on record for many years to come.”

  30. chillguy33 says:

    5 top believers should commit seppuku. The underlings can then begin construction on another mindless “scientific” fraud. Without a game or fraud running, they will surely starve.

  31. richardscourtney says:

    andrewmharding:

    The execrable Tim Yeo is a Conservative (Tory) and not a socialist.
    The socialists on the Select Committee are Members of the Labour Party.

    If you want information on the Select Committee and its Members then go here
    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/
    and follow the links. The Tab to Members lists each Member and his party affiliation.

    Also, most MPs have their own web pages so you can search by name for more information on them.

    Richard

  32. jai mitchell says:

    dbstealey says:
    But prior to that time, global temperatures have varied by tens of degrees, within only a decade or two. . .

    and then shows a link to a graph that doesn’t show global temperatures (but rather only central Greenland temperatures) and doesn’t show a link that has a time scale of “decades” but rather shows a time scale of thousands of years.

    pretty darn sloppy, is this how you try to be accurate on things like, say, dinner dates?

    I mean, that is like saying, “I will meet you at the chez panisse at 12″ and then you actually end up somewhere in the middle of a different state sometime over the next 20 years and throw a fit because your date didn’t show up. . .

  33. Mark Bofill says:

    Laframboise also annoyed Albert Owen.

    He took exception to her suggestion that a Greenpeace and WWF activist should not be put in charge of a Chapter. She had said: “That is going to affect his view. He’s not objective. He has a very particular activist world-view”.

    Albert Owen: (incomprehendingly) “Do you think people should be sidelined if they have strong views?”

    Laframboise suggested that putting an activist in charge of official information was not very healthy.

    priceless

  34. wws says:

    for Richard S. Courtney: I think what he meant was that, in the interest of Truth in Advertising, that the Committed Socialist Tim Yeo is only temporarily claiming to be affiliated with the Tory Party because it advances his power seeking and pecuniary goals.

    Whether or not someone is a “socialist” is a state of mind. As I’ve said before, from America it look like UKIP are the only group that even comes close to being able to claim the name of “conservative”. As far as the current Tories go, calling them “conservative” is like a herd of cats deciding to call themselves “The Dogs.”

    Tim Yeo, case in point.

  35. Ken Hall says:

    Correct wws. The current Conservatives are nothing like the Conservatives under Thatcher. Gone is the passionate embrace of free market competition, family values, low tax, low spending and meritocracy and in comes liberal left political correctness, market corrupting corporatism and cartels, high tax and spend, big government. They are much closer to Obama and Blair than to Thatcher or Reagan.

    This is why I shall be voting UKIP at every election from now on.

  36. richardscourtney says:

    wws:

    re your post at January 30, 2014 at 12:10 pm, if that is what andrewmharding meant then he is as wrong as you.

    Yeo is a Tory. He is NOT a socialist. He has been a Tory Cabinet Minister!

    Your claim that everyone you don’t like is a “socialist” is daft.
    It is as stupid as calling everyone whom one does not like an American.

    The socialists on the Committee are members iof the Labour Party.
    I gave you the link so you can identify those Members for you to aim your bile towards.

    Richard

  37. M Courtney says:

    This ain’t about Yeo.
    This ain’t about the political affiliation of the committee.
    This is bout the evidence of the experts and the fact that they were all called.

    So let’s look at the what the experts said, instead of Tim Yeo.
    His dumbness was meant to drown out Lindzen and it looked like it worked.

  38. Thanks for your reply Richard, I know Yeo is a Conservative MP, but the Conservative party is a broad church and as such has members who are not right wing by nature (Michael Heseltine is another one). Tim Yeo is making a lot of money from the AGW scam so has a lot to lose if it goes belly up.
    wws makes a good point about this, unfortunately the Conservative party has veered to the Left following the veering to the Right by Tony Blair, the perception being that the public want centre ground policies.

  39. Katabasis says:

    Ahhh, my old friend Tim “It will be a dark day in Parliament when outside financial interests are not allowed” Yeo.

  40. Mr Green Genes says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2014 at 12:01 pm
    =========================
    There’s absolutely no ideological barrier to arrant stupidity, is there? On one side we have Yeo (Con) and Robertson (Lab) displaying all the attributes of … well, I can think of no more insulting comparison than to say Michael Mann. On the other side sits Graham Stringer (Lab) and Peter Lilley (Con) who was, incidentally, one of only five MPs to vote against Ed Milliband’s excrable Climate Change Act. They have both been unafraid to stand against … well, the Michael Manns of this world, and should be applauded for that.

    We in the UK are horribly badly served by our elected so-called representatives – I’m sure the same applies to those in the US.

  41. TB says:

    Anything that involves a politician regardless of allegiance is going to turn into a farce… the only thing that separates politicians is How long it takes them to turn any given serious issue into a farce.

  42. John Cooknell says:

    This bit about the warmest decade on record stated by Tim Yeo confuses me, my understanding is this “warmest decade” comes from the adjusted temperature record, my understanding is that adjustments are made to the raw temperature record to account for increasing urbanisation etc, in effect historical temperature records (say before 1960)are adjusted downwards making it appear cooler than the actual raw record.

    This makes “the warmest decade on record” meaningless in the commonly understood sense, unless it is put into context of an adjusted record that is attempting to identify other things like long term trends etc.

    Is my understanding correct?

  43. Lawrence13 says:

    Its hard to be totally clear but I’m convinced that the labour MP John Robertson says something at 9m:47s Like

    “Eh Jimmy..hairysoles, need to be highlighted more as the public use them”
    http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741

    I truly believe he’s done a Hank Johnson and believe that the aerosol particulates spoken of in AGW which are said to be having a cooling effect are the same aerosol cans that people pray under their arms or on their hair , paint even. He’s probably read something about ozone depletion and got the whole thing cock eyed. I believe this is the case as Allen, Hoskins and Stott start to almost snigger.

    Have a look and tell me if I’m wrong.

  44. ZootCadillac says:

    It’s interesting that after the article Anthony chooses to sue the word ‘execrable’ because that was the word which immediately came to mind when I saw the header of this article. Execrable most definitely suits the vile Paul Staines, the man behind the Guido Fawkes website.

    Whilst I am all in favour of exposing this review and especially Tim Yeo ( his conflicts of interest in this are many and lucrative ) I’m disappointed to see articles from this particular website here. Using extremists because they agree with you is never good.

    As an aside my ex wife used to work directly reporting to Mr Yeo’s wife and socialising at fundraisers was part and parcel of that. I have to say that I found Mr Yeo very easy to dislike.
    @wws Tim Yeo would not comprehend a socialist ideology if you slapped him with it. He is a committed Tory establishment figure firmly of the old-school right-wing.

  45. richardscourtney says:

    Mr Green Genes:

    re your post at January 30, 2014 at 12:26 pm.

    YES! I agree.

    The insistence of the US ultra-right that the AGW-scare is “left wing” and “socialist” hinders those of us who are “left wing” and “socialist” from opposing the AGW-scare. Their insistence is not only untrue, it is downright harmful.

    But, as in this thread, they disrupt any discussion they can with their daft notion.

    AGW is a left-right issue only in America and their insistence makes AGW-opponents this side of the pond seem to be some kind of nutty consp1racy cranks.

    “Whether or not someone is a “socialist” is a state of mind”!? That assertion is a “state of mind” commonly called lunacy. And they are tarring serious AGW-opponents with that.

    Richard

  46. Steve says:

    A socialist is someone who wants to take money off everybody else, by force if necessary, then reallocate those funds thru a process of central planning, ie spending other peoples money on their own crazy ideas. I think Tim Yeo falls easily into this group.

  47. Gail Combs says:

    Lindzen should have answered Yeo with Which data set. (Think Greenland and Antarctic ice core data and all the other proxies showing the Holocene optimum was warmer.)

  48. u.k.(us) says:

    If I’ve gotta scroll thru all these comments, could someone at least explain whom, this Yeo guy is ?
    I feel left out.
    Sarc/

  49. Curt says:

    The argument I have used, very successfully, to counter the idea that because the last decade has been the warmest (in whatever), the planet is still warming, is, “That’s like saying a 30-year-old person is still growing because his last decade has been his tallest ever.”

    Even people as conceptually challenged as Yeo can get that example (but they can’t rebut it).

  50. philjourdan says:

    Apparently alarmist have problems with words. Warm does not require warmING. It does require warmED. To use Yeo’s example, when he was driving 90, was he still accelerating? He was driving faster than ever, but he was not accelerating.

  51. pierre charles says:

    per richard courtney et al – I would say that the impact of “climate mitigation” policies is to reverse social and economic progress, destroying the energy basis of economic growth and the gains made by the working and middle classes over the past two centuries. It would be extremely helpful if American champions of the working class realized this, rather that subsume climate politics into their anti-capitalist cant.

  52. RichardLH says:

    Also on youtube

  53. Gail Combs says:

    Ken Hall says: @ January 30, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Correct wws. The current Conservatives are nothing like the Conservatives under Thatcher….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    In the states we call them RINOs (Republican In Name Only)

    However please remember the ‘Socialist’ vs ‘Conservative’ crap is just the propaganda used to keep us fighting among ourselves while Big Government and Big Business (who are actually ‘socialists’) promote ‘Neo-Corporatism’ or ‘Fascism’ or the ‘Third Way’ or ‘Neo-Feudalism’ or ‘Sustainability’ or ‘Communitarianism’ or Agenda 21 or whatever the newest phrase is for the latest flavor of totalitarianism.

    Ever notice that no matter who is elected the ‘Agenda’ of the wealthy elite is alway advanced?

  54. richardscourtney says:

    pierre charles:

    Thankyou for your excellent post at January 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm.
    Exactly so.

    I provide this link to your post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/30/a-report-on-the-ar5-hearings-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#comment-1554937
    and also this link to the equally excellent post of Mr Green Genes
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/30/a-report-on-the-ar5-hearings-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#comment-1554897

    Together those two posts say all that really needs to be said about the side-track, so the thread can ignore it from now on.

    Richard

  55. Stephen Richards says:

    Think of Viz does politics

    Now that is exposing your age. :)

  56. Stephen Richards says:

    @wws Tim Yeo would not comprehend a socialist ideology if you slapped him with it. He is a committed Tory establishment figure firmly of the old-school right-wing

    HE IS A TROUGHER !! Dyed in the wool is almost an insult to real tories.

  57. Euan Mearns says:

    Solar influence on glaciation in Greenland

    In the GISP2 ice core, Greenland summit, Dansgaard – Oescheger (D-O) warm events 2 to 8 [1] are all associated with low 10Be events most likely caused by active solar magnetic activity. The simplest explanation is that warm D-O events are caused by an active Sun.

    Anthony, in your spat the other week with Rog you said you had pretty well rejected “barycentric” discussion of solar activity. I have no axe to grind here, but my current thinking is that the unexplainable is perhaps best explained by variations in solar activity (magnetic field, TSI, spectrum) that is way outside of the past 34 years of satellite measurements. And this needs to be reconciled with the 41,000 y and 100,000 y cycles. I’m very interested to know what your current favoured hypotheses are.

    Sorry, don’t read these pages every day, too much to keep up with, but I’m very interested to know your opinion on climate drivers on all relevant time scales.

  58. DirkH says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2014 at 12:37 pm
    “The insistence of the US ultra-right that the AGW-scare is “left wing” and “socialist” hinders those of us who are “left wing” and “socialist” from opposing the AGW-scare. ”

    That makes no sense at all.

  59. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    January 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    “That makes no sense at all”

    To clarify: The Left has by and large not arrived at the conclusion that CO2AGW is real because the evil right made them do it. Rather, they have erroneously mistaken CO2 for all the evil chemicals we started to control in the 70ies, and with good reason at the time. Assuming in their cluelessness that anything coming from a smokestack or exhaust pipe must be equally evil, they all blindly followed their leaders, who, being slightly more cunning, instigated the whole affair as a vehicle of change, like the Left has always used groups or causes as vehicles of change, a tactic that is familiar to them since at least Marx.

    So don’t blame the evil right for your Frankfurt School tactics on the left. Blame Marx, Engels, Adorno, Markuse, Horkheimer, Münzenberger, Gramsci.

  60. ren says:

    It is very cold forecast for the U.S. in February.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.gif
    What determines the temperature in the stratosphere? The amount of ozone. What determines the amount of ozone? Working Sun. Is that so hard to understand?

  61. Steve from Rockwood says:

    ren says:
    January 30, 2014 at 1:37 pm
    ——————————————-
    You need to fill in the blanks for us arm-chair climate scientists.

    1. Colder stratosphere leads to colder surface temperatures?
    2. Less ozone leads to colder stratosphere?
    3. Lazy sun leads to less ozone?
    4. What is a lazy sun? Less radiation , less solar magnetic activity, both?

  62. Sean P Chatterton says:

    Evening All

    I watched the whole thing live. With the exception Yeo (who clearly had an agenda) The Scottish chap (I’m crap with names) ripped into the Met office chap, and Professor Myles Allan (the chap on the left?) and to me, he squirmed. The chap in the middle, Professor Sir Brian Hoskins(?) Repeatedly said “I wasn’t involved with that” or “I wasn’t in that meeting”. Which gave me the impression that he has trying to distance himself from the AR5 report as often as he could.

    After Dr Peter Stott from the Met office explained that they now believe that aerosols had a great cooling effect than first thought. The Scottish chap asked him if he had run the models again with the new information, to which he squirmed and eventually admitted that they haven’t. When asked why, Prof Myles Allan said they can take years to run!!

    In my opinion Professor Richard Lindzen shot himself in the foot a bit with his intellectual snobbery about the best & the brightest doing math & hard sciences. BUT out of that he made it clearly known that climate science practically didn’t exist before 1980. Something which the CAGW crowd frequently don’t mention. Another thing that he mentioned, which I thought was rather interesting was that 58% of the authors in the AR4 report did not want to be a part of the AR5 report. No further details were mentioned as to why.

    In my opinion two of the MP’s did ask serious questions of the CAGW bods. I also thought that Prof Myles Allan *tried*, (but the salesman smarm did him no favours IMHO) to give the “settled” science bit that people weren’t now talking about the lack of climate change but where the readings where within the climate models. He failed to mention that 18 out of the 20 where wholly incorrect, and of the remaining two the recorded temperatures were at the bottom of the scale.

    On another positive note, Nicholas Lewis pointed out that the IPCC figure were out three fold. The actual figures were 0.1 and the estimated figures were 0.3 regarding the ocean temperature rises. He also pointed out that the IPCC’s “the temperature gains are hiding in the deep ocean” lacked data to support this theory.

    Donna Laframboise gave clear and concise answers, and to me, she looked as if she had been told to rein in some as she clearly had a lot more that she *could* have said. She did make the point that 60% of the papers in AR4 were not peer reviewed. Which was glossed over by Tim Yeo.

    Sorry if my ramblings aren’t in the order they were spoke about in the meeting, and I’ve probably got a few names round the wrong way. But on the whole, I thought that with the exception of Tim Yeo’s stupidity, there were appropriate questions asked. Wether or not this was just a circus show just for the public remains to be seen. However, I am rather surprised that there has been an absolute lack of reports on this debate.

  63. Hot under the collar says:

    In case any non UK skeptics don’t know why he is known as “Trougher Yeo” (as in pigs with their nose in the trough) and why he may be so keen on green, you need to read this;

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100144779/just-why-is-tory-mp-tim-yeo-so-passionate-about-green-issues/

    Apparently it’s ok that he has received all the money from the green company’s “because he has declared it” !

  64. richardscourtney says:

    DirkH:

    This is a response to the stinking piles of excrement you have posted at January 30, 2014 at 1:23 pm and January 30, 2014 at 1:30 pm.

    What I wrote made perfect sense. READ IT.
    I did not “blame” the right for anything other than what I wrote. READ IT.
    And the rest of your steaming ordure has no relation of any kind to what I wrote.

    The important issue is as I said in response to pierre charles. I will copy it here because your display of reading difficulties indicates you would have problems finding it.

    Thankyou for your excellent post at January 30, 2014 at 12:57 pm.
    Exactly so.

    I provide this link to your post
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/30/a-report-on-the-ar5-hearings-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#comment-1554937
    and also this link to the equally excellent post of Mr Green Genes
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/30/a-report-on-the-ar5-hearings-unsettling-the-settled-science-of-climate-change/#comment-1554897

    Together those two posts say all that really needs to be said about the side-track, so the thread can ignore it from now on.

    But you could not “ignore the side-issue” because you saw it as yet another opportunity to disrupt a thread with your prejudiced bollocks. This thread is about the AR5 Hearing and it is not merely another excuse for you to proclaim your political prejudices.

    Richard

  65. Andrew says:

    “Re the hottest decade: Well 11 more years of what we have now and the hottest decade (assuming the 1930′s are not un-revised to their former glory) will be behind us.”

    Weeeelllll, 2013 was hotter than the 2001-10 avg (just). But the “hottest evah” meme is dead. 2002-11 was below 2001-10; 2003-12 was lower still. 2004-13 just closed lower again. (HadCRUT4 – it’s more pronounced in others) Keep that stat handy.

  66. DirkH says:

    Well, Richard, claiming that the Right makes the Left believe in CO2AGW is a bit idiotic, and that’s what you did. The Left; they have all the big brained intellectuals, like Noam Chomsky. Shouldn’t they be able to think a problem through on their own?

    Nighty-night; I see I irritate you.

  67. richardscourtney says:

    Sean P Chatterton:

    Thankyou for your good report at January 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm.

    I think you may want to read the thread on the ‘Live Link’ which is here.

    The impressions of viewers and discussion of the Hearing are in the thread. They are below the ‘live reports for people unable to get the live stream’ which you probably want to scroll down past.

    Richard

  68. Gunga Din says:

    I didn’t watch the videos but from what is in the post, the exhange went something like this (It’s 12:45 pm and Yeo works for a company that makes sunglasses):

    Yeo pressed Lindzen to get a Yes to the question, “Was 11:30 am to 12:30 the brightest hour of the day?”

    Lindzen: (Eventually) Of course it was.

    Yeo: It’s interesting you’re using that as evidence that somehow brightening has stopped. That we’ve just gone through the brightest hour of the day and that this is actually evidence that global brightening is not taking place.

    Lindzen: You’re saying something that doesn’t make sense.

    Yeo: Oh, so it is continuing!

    Lindzen: How shall I put it? On a certain smoothing level you can say it’s continuing. It hasn’t done anything for 15 minutes.

  69. Zeke says:

    DirkH, please continue to comment. RichardCourtney is not a moderator, and is not applying any of the written policies for WUWT, which are provided under About/Policy. He has invented his own blog rules and is also enforcing them.

    Any objective observer knows that you have followed policy, eg: “Respect is given to those with manners,” and “The idea of the blog is to learn, discuss, and enjoy the interaction. Please try to keep that in mind when making comments.” Also, you have never “dominated a thread with excessive posting.”

    Your perspective and knowledge of history are esp. important right now.

  70. richardscourtney says:

    DirkH:

    Don’t flatter yourself. You don’t “irritate” me. Your untrue twaddle which side-tracks threads infuriates me. And, as a matter of historical fact, the right-wing Margaret Thatcher started the political AGW-scare; see this.

    Hopefully you have cleared off so the thread can now return to its subject.

    Richard

  71. vukcevic says:

    If you are in Port Moresby you might be interested in this .

  72. Mr Green Genes says:

    DirkH says:
    January 30, 2014 at 1:30 pm
    ===========================
    Once more with feeling …

    This is NOT a left vs. right thing, at least not in the UK (which is, after all, the country at the centre of this thread).

    Sigh.

    PS I’m a libertarian so I don’t tend to get involved in left vs. right arguments as a rule as I believe that they fundamentally miss the point. I am, however, happy to make an exception in this case so I can point out the irelevence.

  73. ren says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
      1 Colder stratosphere is colder surface leads Temperatures?
    2 Less ozone leads a colder stratosphere?
    3 Lazy sun leads is less ozone?
    4 What is a lazy sun? Less radiation, less solar magnetic activity, both?
    The amount of ozone over the polar circle depends on the UV and cosmic radiation? Therefore, the amount of ozone depends on the magnetic field of the Earth. Cosmic rays will reach unheard of, as in 2009 and 2010.
    Is it contrary to the observations?

  74. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell commented that I posted…

    “…a link to a graph that doesn’t show global temperatures (but rather only central Greenland temperatures) and doesn’t show a link that has a time scale of ‘decades’ but rather shows a time scale of thousands of years. pretty darn sloppy, is this how you try to be accurate on things like, say, dinner dates?”

    Aside from jai’s need for a dinner date [unlike me: I have been married since before the Civil War], let me point out that I’ve posted many links proving that both hemispheres show concurrent warming and cooling. Therefore, the Greenland record is also a global record. [I will post links showing the clear correlation between the NH and the SH again for jai, if he asks.]

    Regarding jai’s clumsy attempt to show cherry picking [obvious projection], I posted the longer time scales specifically because another commenter had said the record only went back 130 years. But the record goes back far longer than that.

    Usually, I am the one attacked for showing shorter time scales, so I keep a folder of time scales from hundreds of years, to hundreds of thousands of years, and everything in between. I will also post those links if jai wishes.

    jai mitchell has never risen early enough to catch the worm in this forum. He is always playing catch-up because he’s not the early bird type. More like Chicken Little ☺.

  75. Gail Combs says:

    Steve from Rockwood says: @ January 30, 2014 at 1:45 pm
    3. Lazy sun leads to less ozone?
    4. What is a lazy sun? Less radiation , less solar magnetic activity, both?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    NASA: Solar Variability, Ozone, and Climate

    NASA: Ozone Production and Destruction

    NASA on the Sun:
    2008 NASA: Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low

    NASA: EVE: Measuring the Sun’s Hidden Variability

    NASA: Quiet Sun Means Cooling of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

    2008 NASA: Giant Breach in Earth’s Magnetic Field Discovered

    NASA on Ozone
    NASA: Ozone

    NASA: UV and Ozone

    NASA: A violent Sun Affects the Earth’s Ozone

    Well you did ask. :>)

  76. ren says:

    Cosmic rays depends on the magnetic field of the Earth.
    http://www.geo-orbit.org/sizeimgs/magcolorr.gif

  77. t would seem that Tim (Trougher) Yeo is not going to be the Parliamentary representative of the constituency that he represents,but in which he chooses not to live, for very much longer.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-25808012

  78. Juan Slayton says:

    We could save a lot of bandwidth puzzling over party labels if citizens on both sides of the pond were willing to listen to George Washington:

    “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true–and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

  79. Ian McLeod says:

    Classic zinger by Lindzen,

    Lindzen: …science is an interest in its own right. If you are going to go down that path, you have to take account of the fact that scientists have their own interests…science, particularly climate science, is virtually a governmental monopoly.

    Politician: …why then are all these national governments going down the road they are going on then?…if you are right we paying for a lot on things we shouldn’t be paying out on…

    Lindzen: …all I’m saying is…there would be no disagreement here that whatever the UK is deciding to do vis-à-vis climate…there will be no impact on your climate. I think you’ll all agree that it will have a profound impact on your economy…so you are making the decision to take a problem, which might not be a problem…take actions which you know will create problems, and feel on the net you’ve done the right thing. That’s for you to decide.

  80. Zeke says:

    An attempt has been made to make sure that neither of the main parties differ in energy and socialized medicine in many countries. But this is not cohering, and challenges are once again coming from conservatives.

    For example:
    1. Australia has elected a new government with the mandate to repeal the carbon tax.
    2. The US has still a small majority in the house which has attempted to repeal Obamacare and exempt America over 30 times. These representatives include Sen Inhoffe and others who have made passage of green nonsense so difficult that the carbon tax has been put off until now.
    3. In GB, the UKIP opposes worthless wind turbines, grandiose public transportation projects; supports leaving the EU and educational choice; and opposes unlimited immigration mandated by the EU.

    In Canada:

    Conservative Party launches radio ad on Thomas Mulcair’s Carbon Tax

    November 07, 2012

    In a fragile global economy, we know that Canada’s Economic Action Plan is the right plan to create and protect jobs, increase the growth potential of the Canadian economy, and ensure the long-term prosperity of Canadians.

    Thomas Mulcair’s NDP wants to bring in a carbon tax that will not only take $20 billion out of the pockets of Canadians by raising the price of everything, it will also cripple Canadian businesses and kill Canadian jobs.

    And experts say the NDP’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas by 10 cents a litre.

    We can’t afford Mulcair’s NDP.

    So it is important to ensure Canadians understand the threat posed by Mulcair’s risky and dangerous economic plan.

    That is why the Conservative Party of Canada is launching a radio ad informing Canadians we cannot afford Thomas Mulcair’s NDP that will weaken our economy and our country.

  81. AJB says:

    Picture of Tim’s trough from 2012.

  82. John V. Wright says:

    I watched the whole thing live on my Mac, here in the UK. The warmists came over mainly as specious and the skeptics mainly as honest and straightforward. Prof. Linden was heroic – the one trick he missed was to demonstrate more forcibly that even if AR5 was completely correct, it would not amount a hill of climate change beans. Otherwise, pretty good.

    By the way, I agree with other commentators here that the voting public in the UK would have no idea that this hearing had taken place. Despite the science and the fantastic work done by Anthony and the mods, it is the MEDIA where this battle will be fought and won.

    So dear WUWTers, please keep on keeping on.

  83. Martin says:

    dbstealey says:
    January 30, 2014 at 11:26 am
    JimS says:

    “…the record goes back to only 130 years.”

    Actually, the record goes back much farther. There are numerous ice core records from both hemispheres, which go back hundreds of thousands of years.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Past_740_kyrs_Dome-Concordia_ice_core_temperature_reconstructions.png

    Is the “NOW” on that graph 2013 or 1950 or 1860?

  84. Steve from Rockwood says:

    @Gail Combs. You’re the best !

    Dang, now I’m going to have to read and think (instead of just reading).

  85. rogerknights says:

    Hearings like this one should have been held ten years ago and repeated annually, in every country’s parliament. Why weren’t they? Because the politicians were snowed.

  86. Gail Combs says:

    rogerknights says: @ January 30, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    Hearings like this one should have been held ten years ago and repeated annually, in every country’s parliament. Why weren’t they?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because the globalists had hoped to get a global tax put into place before the weather cycles turned cold. That was what Copenhagen was all about.

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan ” “strongly supports finding new sources of funding” Politician speak for taxes.

    You can see the globalists dancing around the issue HERE

    …Meanwhile, significant portions of the international system lack sufficient funding to deliver meaningful progress in critical areas – a problem that will only worsen as the needs and expectations of an ever-expanding global population grow. In this context, progress on global issues like climate change, cybercrime, income inequality, and the chronic burden of disease are proving elusive….

    Overcoming twenty-first-century challenges will require a comprehensive review and renewal of international institutions. In its report Now for the Long Term, the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations – a group of experienced leaders and scholars (including us) convened to help formulate responses to global challenges – proposes mechanisms for undertaking this process.….

    Overcoming twenty-first-century challenges will require a comprehensive review and renewal of international institutions. In its report Now for the Long Term, the Oxford Martin Commission for Future Generations – a group of experienced leaders and scholars (including us) convened to help formulate responses to global challenges – proposes mechanisms for undertaking this process….

    From an older source that talks of New York City, 2000: The United Nations Millennium Summit, Sept 6-9

    …This website makes liberal use of the We The Peoples Millennium Forum Declaration and Agenda for Action which was adopted last May.[2000]

    From above document and others on the website we can glean that the following are on the agenda:

    3. A global system of taxation: [the Forum urges the United Nations] “to introduce binding codes of conduct for transnational companies, and effective tax regulation on the international financial markets, investing this money in programmes for poverty eradication.”
    link

  87. jai mitchell says:

    dbstealey,

    I spent a break today and plotted the GISP2 data in excel to check your claim about how fast the temperature has warmed. In the GISP2 graph the largest warming happened during the younger dryas from 11,857 years before present (1950) and 11,258 before present. in this largest jump the temperature record went up by 12.84 degrees over the course of 599 years or an average rise of 2.14 degrees per century.

    Since the younger Dryas the temperature fluctuations have been much more steady (during the Holocene) The next largest rise occurred just after the younger dryas increase, from 8,190 before present to 7,817 before present. the temperature went up by 3.54 degrees over the course of 373 years, or an average rise of .949 degrees per century.

    The third warming period I studied happened when the northern hemisphere was going into the medieval warming period. this happened beginning in 1,206 before present (again present is 1950 here) and ended in 999 before present (in the year 949 AD) The temperature went up 1.51 degrees over the course of 208 years, or an average rise of .728 degrees per century.

    The reason that this is significant is because the Greenland temperature change that you show is about 3 times the global average. so, when the younger dryas went up by 12.84 degrees, the global average temperature went up by a little over 4 degrees.

  88. garymount says:

    As the months and years roll on by, stating that the 2000’s was the hottest decade will lose its effectiveness.

  89. richardscourtney says:

    Gail Combs:

    I completely agree with your argument in your post at January 30, 2014 at 4:14 pm.

    Before Copenhagen the AGW-scare was on a roll. But following that failure the scare was sure to fade away. The HoC DECC Select Committee Hearing asking for AGW-sceptic witnesses is an example of slow withdrawal from the scare as a result of the failure at Copenhagen.

    And the ‘pause’ provides politicians with justification to slowly move away from the scare. The Hearing is a sign of politicians starting to place on record reasons for reducing their responses to the scare: i.e. we must continue to take action but we now know we have more time because we are getting evidence it is not as urgent as we thought. Input from sceptics is needed for those reasons to be entered into Hansard.

    Please note that the pro-AGW Session had three scientists as Witnesses. Donna L. is a journalist who was invited to be a Witness in the anti-AGW Session, and her inclusion ensures that doubts about the IPCC will now be recorded in Hansard.

    The eventual HoC DECC Select Committee Report promises to be interesting as does the response to it from HM Government.

    Richard

  90. JP says:

    Obviously the Alarmists do not understand the idea of a plateau. Global Surface temps plateaued 15-18 years ago. Ergo, the last 10 years could be the warmest and there could be no warming since 1996. Is that difficult to understand? Can the guy read a graph?

  91. Zeke says:

    Correction: “These representatives include all of the Republicans in the House [not Inhofe, he is in the Senate] in 2012 who have made passage of green nonsense so difficult that the carbon tax has been put off until now.”

    If you catch your own mistake, it never happened!

    10% of the Carbon Tax in Oz is being transferred to the UN Climate Fund according to JoNova. Therefore, carbon tax = tribute payments to the World Empire (“UN”), as Gail is also documenting.

  92. Ed, Mr. Jones says:

    richardscourtney,

    Please do not ever stop posting here.

  93. Two Labs says:

    So, is Yeo an idiot, or does he just play one on TV?

  94. kylezachary says:

    If a car goes 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds and then it takes 10 minutes to go from 60 to 61 mph you could say “OMG we are going the fastest we ever have, the car is going to break apart at any moment if we keep going at this rate in another 10 minutes 4 seconds we will be going 122 mph. But that isn’t very honest. In that scenario there wouldn’t be much to worry about as the speed appears to have leveled often. And in 10 minutes it is more likey to go from 61 to 62 than it is to go from 61 to 122.

    Hopefully that made some sense.

  95. ZT says:

    A short segment with Prof. Lindzen (patiently) explaining things to Yeo: http://youtu.be/HUT7hLtFXIk

  96. Chad Wozniak says:

    @richardscourtney –
    The connection may be different in the UK, but there is a definite ideological link between AGW and socialism in the US. AGW is a key part of the US left’s justification for excessive taxation and regulation. It is seen here, inter alia, as a rationale for wealth redistribution, both within the US and between the US and third world countries.

    I believe the link between AGW and socialism is inevitable because both call for increased taxation and more direct control over people’s daily lives. Socialism says, we know better what is good for you than you do, and AGW is one of those things that is better for you. And since AGW argues against cheap energy, it argues against capitalism which is dependent on cheap energy for maximum output and efficiency.

    Perhaps, if the real value and potential of capitalism and personal liberty were felt in the UK to the same degree and extent as they always have been here in the USA, the connection between AGW and anti-capitalist ideas like socialism would be more readily apparent to folks in the UK.

    As for Tim Yeo, I suspect he is rather more like some of our crony capitalists here in the US – der Fuehrer’s billionaire buddies – focused on making money off the scam that is AGW rather than on any ideological considerations. That doesn’t mean they aren’t socialist in their actions. There is plenty of history to demonstrate how socialist systems actually work to concentrate wealth in fewer hands – because power is concentrated in fewer hands and because of elite self-justification, which is essential to socialist thinking.

  97. ren says:

    Let us think, if cosmic radiation affects the state of the clouds in the troposphere, the more influence the state of the ozone in the stratosphere.
    http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startday=13&startmonth=01&startyear=2014&starttime=00%3A00&endday=31&endmonth=01&endyear=2014&endtime=00%3A00&resolution=Automatic+choice&picture=on

  98. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Richard Lindzen expressed a number of points particularly neatly. Read his way of expressing them far better than I summarise them here.
    1. Trenberth’s missing heat going into the oceans, if it happens, puts it in the category of natural variation and requires GHG influence to be lowered to reach the observed total.
    2. Aerosols. If their cooling effect is now estimated as lower than thought, this leads logically to a need to lower climate sensitivity, making GHG less important than before. (Nic Lewis also made this point clearly).
    3. Action to combat climate change. The ‘do nothing’ option leads to an outcome that is in the non-harmful range of climate model consequences. The ‘do something’ option is ‘feel good’ but it carries a harsh economic penalty, but in either case no action by Great Britain has any significant effect on the global climate.
    Donna was strong on the point that NGO activists are not wise choices for lead IPCC authors. (The Brits have a history such as spy rings of allowing people with strange, known backgrounds into positions of influence).
    The political response still remains NOT to understand the issues, but to align oneself to a group or hypothesis and vote by appeal to authority. This is understandable for busy non-expert people, but it is not optimum. Graham Stringer knows this problem. Tim Yeo avoids it by closing his eyes to it.
    …………..
    Sure, the evidence is lengthy, but it well worth the listen and study because some complex issues have been distilled into neat, useable expressions.

  99. M Courtney says:

    Sigh, I hoped this would be about the hearing not Tim Yeo but…
    Tim Yeo was put on the Government payroll as PPS (assistant) to Douglas Hurd, then Home Secretary.
    Under John Major, Tim Yeo was made Minister for the Environment during the privatisation of the UK energy system.

    He is a capitalist. He is not a socialist.

    People who are so right-wing that they can’t tell the difference between public ownership of utilities and capitalist ownership, should not bother to comment on politics. It is laughable.
    Truly, if those people did not exist then Greenpeace would provide those voices for this forum.

    Like GKell1, you are welcome to fill up the space here (and boost ad revenue) as that is the site policy.

    But do not expect to be taken seriously.

  100. richardscourtney says:

    Chad Wozniak:

    re your post addressed to me at January 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm.

    It seems to have escaped your notice that
    this thread is about THE UK HoC DECC SELECT COMMITTEE HEARING.

    This thread is
    NOT about American politics,
    NOT about delusional views propounded by the American ultra-right, and
    NOT about misrepresentations of socialism by American nutters.
    Indeed, those things all work to discredit AGW-sceptics on this side of the pond.

    In the Hearing one of the MPs said he visited the US and had learned their that opponents to the AGW-scare were well funded and politically motivated.
    Thankyou, Chad Wozniak et al., for that ‘help’!

    Please return to the subject of the thread.

    Richard

  101. The aspect I find most depressing is that politicians (and many others) clearly can’t be bothered to try to understand science, they just pick an expert view that coincides with their pre-conceived notions and run with that, ignoring any contrary views. I’ve written a blog post about it:

    http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/why-is-ignorance-ok/

  102. richardscourtney says:

    Jonathan Abbott:

    Your post at January 31, 2014 at 4:29 am says

    The aspect I find most depressing is that politicians (and many others) clearly can’t be bothered to try to understand science, they just pick an expert view that coincides with their pre-conceived notions and run with that, ignoring any contrary views. I’ve written a blog post about it:

    It is NOT the job of politicians to “understand” science, or economics, or military strategy, or energy issues, or public opinion, or ….

    Politicians are responsible for obtaining information of many kinds from many sources and to evaluate all of it so their resulting synthesis provides the ‘best’ option for policy.

    Civil Servants provide politicians with the information for evaluation. Clearly, the politicians cannot be sufficiently expert in everything for them to evaluate each piece of information. So, politicians rely on the Civil Servants to isolate ‘wheat from chaff’ and to only provide them with wheat.

    But information from different ‘experts’ may conflict although it is all ‘wheat’. In that case politicians assess the credibility of the sources of the information. And politicians are all expert in evaluating people: they have to be to get elected. Hence, they judge conflicting evidence by – mostly – judging those who provide the evidence.

    The present situation of the AGW-issue derives from two facts which affect existing policies pertaining to AGW. These are
    (a) A successor to the Kyoto Protocol is now beyond reach so adherence to policies agreed between countries has reduced in importance.
    (b) The ‘pause’ has reduced the credibility of assertions of need for imminent action to avoid catastrophic AGW.

    Hence, politicians are reevaluating their existing policies. An EU Commissioner has openly stated that EU Energy Policy requires revision while UK politicians are starting to place AGW-sceptics and their arguments on the record for assessment. The DECC AR5 Select Committee Hearing is part of this reassessment of present policy.

    Simply, the AGW-sceptics won at Copenhagen and nature has provided a siding in which to park the AGW policy ‘train’. AGW-sceptics are being heard because they never said the ‘pause’ would not happen, and they need to ensure the ‘points’ are switched to ensure the ‘train’ leaves the ‘mainline’.

    Richard

  103. Dave says:

    richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    DirkH:

    Don’t flatter yourself. You don’t “irritate” me. Your untrue twaddle which side-tracks threads infuriates me. And, as a matter of historical fact, the right-wing Margaret Thatcher started the political AGW-scare; see this.

    Hopefully you have cleared off so the thread can now return to its subject.

    Richard:

    WRONG Richard: it was Crispin TIckell who had nothng better to do at the time than find some cause for Mrs Thatcher to embrace. Tickell has much to answer for.

  104. Gail Combs says:

    Dave says: @ January 31, 2014 at 7:09 am
    And Crispin TIckell is entangled with the United Nations ====> Agenda 21.

  105. Richard:

    I’m not expecting them to be experts, just to understand enough to know the difference between ‘warmer’ and warming’. They are mostly ignorant of even the most basic tenets of science on a fundamental level. Did you read my article?

  106. richardscourtney says:

    Dave:

    re your post at January 31, 2014 at 7:09 am.

    Oh, for goodness sake! Another anonymous troll trying to disrupt the thread!

    READ THE ITEM AT MY LINK IN THE POST YOU QUOTE.
    Tickell gave Thatcher the idea and he told her why IT WOULD BENEFIT HER to start the AGE-scare.
    Thatcher considered that, and she decided to start the scare which SHE DID.

    Strewth! These cranks are a pain!
    “H1tler was left wing”, “Socialism is a state of mind”, “Thatcher didn’t start the AGW-scare”…
    There seems to be no end to the self-delusions of you lot.

    So, having given you a hint of my disdain and contempt for your trolling, I shall now return to the subject of the thread.

    Richard

  107. RichardLH says:

    Geoff Sherrington says:
    January 30, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    “Sure, the evidence is lengthy, but it well worth the listen and study because some complex issues have been distilled into neat, useable expressions.”

    I agree. I am looking forward to an official transcript becoming available as quoting from that will have much more gravitas.

    Worth while taking the time to go through the whole presentation as the ‘Warmist’ side did not get off as lightly as they would have liked. MPs do tend to play ‘devil’s advocate’ in questions, so may come of as hard on the ‘sceptics’ side if you only look at that half of the questioning.

  108. richardscourtney says:

    Jonathan Abbott:

    Your post at January 31, 2014 at 7:54 am says to me

    I’m not expecting them to be experts, just to understand enough to know the difference between ‘warmer’ and warming’. They are mostly ignorant of even the most basic tenets of science on a fundamental level. Did you read my article?

    Your article is a good report of the Hearing. Why not copy it to here?

    At present you have only linked to it and not told people that it is a report of the Hearing which is the subject of this thread.

    ‘Trougher’ Yeo did not understand “the difference between ‘warmer’ and warming’”. He is too thick to know the difference between now and then unless someone pays him to say he knows it. He is – and always has been – a Tory toll (and, yes, I intend both meanings of that word).

    Richard

  109. richardscourtney says:

    OOPs!
    Tory tool
    not Tory toll
    Sorry
    Richard

  110. jonnya99 says:

    I’m glad you liked the article, Richard. I think it’s too long to post as a comment but yes, it is about the hearing but also touches on my frustration with the wider problem of scientific ignorance.

  111. richardscourtney says:

    Jonathan Abbott:

    Your post at January 31, 2014 at 4:29 am uses a different name and does not state where people to find the link to your commentary on the Hearing, so I take the liberty of copying it here to help others. Of course, this does not imply I agree all that it says
    http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/01/31/why-is-ignorance-ok/

    Richard

  112. jonnya99 says:

    Thanks Richard. The different name is because WordPress won’t let me change it when I am using my phone.

  113. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Man, the desperation is evident on the warmist side.

    I was thinking about the silly position of the Chairman on the ‘warmest decade evah’ and his aggression when trying to get some supporting confession out of Prof Lindzen (what an amazingly calm man!) that he could cite later and my thought on it is like this:

    Chairman: Did we or did we not just have the warmest decade ever, 2000-2010?
    Suggested response: The just completed decade was 2003-2013. Do you mean 2000-2010 or the most recent decade?
    Chairman (seeking to cherry-pick the 2000-2010 decade): 2000-2010. Do you agree or not agree that it was the warmest decade ever?
    Suggested response: The decade 2000-2010 was the warmest decade of the ‘instrumental period’…
    Chairman (interrupting): That is all I wanted to hear…
    Continued response: Of that we can be certain. The most recent decade 2003-2013 was not the warmest because it has cooled in the past 8 years.

    Some of the other panelists were positively sensible. I hope it goes to a vote. Laframboise’ comments on the IPCC process were devastating (and appropriate). A couple of the panel members would clearly not have met her prerequisites for impartiality, methinks.

    Crispin (not Tickell in spite of the uncommon name)

  114. richardscourtney says:

    Crispin in Waterloo:

    In your post at January 31, 2014 at 11:39 am you make a statement which needs important explanation for non-Brit readers. You say

    I hope it goes to a vote.

    No, there will be no “vote”: it is much more important than a vote.

    I will explain by historical illustration which shows the importance of Select Committees and how British Policy has fashioned considerations of AGW over the last decade.

    In 2005 the House of Lords Select Committee On Economic Affairs published an excellent Report titled “The Economics Of Climate Change”. It can be read here. It suggested complete reversal of Government Policy on AGW. Its recommendations included rejecting the IPCC as an arbiter of climate science, and UK Government abandoning mitigation policies in favour of adatation policies.

    The government has to act in response to a Select Committee Report otherwise it would be challenging the Authority of Parliament. Clearly, the government had few options because it did not want to change policy.

    The Blair government overcame the problem by a clever response to the Report. The government commissioned Lord Stern to do an economic appraisal which would assess the maximum possible costs if all worst case AGW possibilities were to come true and to compare that to mitigation costs. Stern did a fine job which included dubious – and subsequently often questioned – statistical practices to exaggerate costs even more. This produced the ‘Stern Report’.

    Subsequently, the UK government and subsequent UK governments have hidden behind the Stern Report whenever there is mention of the Report from the House of Lords Select Committee On Economic Affairs. And all AGW-supporters around the world have proclaimed the Stern Report as being the definitive study of the future effects of AGW.

    So, perhaps you can see what I meant when I wrote above saying, “The eventual HoC DECC Select Committee Report promises to be interesting as does the response to it from HM Government”.

    Richard

  115. Peter Ward says:

    The hearing has just been repeated on the BBC Parliament channel, and I caught the last hour or so. Prof Lindzen was excellent, Donna Laframboise was ok, Nic Lewis didn’t add very much while I was watching but perhaps he was better earlier. The politicians were for the most part awful, especially Tim Yeo who acted like a boor and a bully.

    The MP for Ynys Mons seemed typical of politicians. Apparently ready to listen to the arguments, his view was actually totally electorate-focused. While scientists like Prof Lindzen provide a balanced, non-dogmatic and carefully worded perspective, the politicians just want to be seen to be doing what’s right with the support of the science. No wonder an indication of consensus is so attractive to them, as it allows them to be seen to be doing something which they can’t be criticised for later. Prof Lindzen’s statement — sadly rather late into the hearing — that doing nothing for the next 50 years is the best option didn’t go down well with politicians for whom “doing something, anything” is what gets them re-elected.

    I feel that the two sides were generally talking past each other because their worlds are so different. One thing the “climate scientists” have achieved is to be able to wrap up their opinions into politician-friendly chunks. While the skeptic opposition remains so fair and reasonable, politicians won’t see the need to change.

  116. richardscourtney says:

    Peter Ward:

    At January 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm you say

    The hearing has just been repeated on the BBC Parliament channel, and I caught the last hour or so.

    It is still available on BBC i-player if you want to see some more.

    Richard

  117. RichardLH says:

    Also on YouTube as I posted above (and the full 3 hours!).

  118. u.k.(us) says:

    richardscourtney says:

    January 31, 2014 at 8:32 am
    “So, having given you a hint of my disdain and contempt for your trolling, I shall now return to the subject of the thread.”
    ======================
    You need your own blog.
    Then I could not visit it.

  119. richardscourtney says:

    u.k.(us):

    re your post at January 31, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    You need your own brain then you could learn to use it.

    Richard

  120. M Courtney says:

    The disappointing thing is that DirkH (and other, I’m sure) have valuable things to say. He isn’t always a monomaniac like Gkell1 or a pure troll trying to derail a thread.

    But on politics he is so angry that he never realises that other opinions can be in error too.

    DirkH has demonstrated that he has good insights into the corruption of the political process by the influence of venality.

    But then he always says that such corruption is due to socialism (meaning, as I read him, not prioritising private ownership as the highest Human Right).

    But the problems are vaguer; corruption and distorted interests.
    Socialism is not necessarily corrupt or perverting.
    He won’t accept that. This leads to destructive conflict.

  121. RACookPE1978 says:

    … that he has good insights into the corruption of the political process by the influence of venality.

    But then he always says that such corruption is due to socialism (meaning, as I read him, not prioritising private ownership as the highest Human Right).

    But the problems are vaguer; corruption and distorted interests.
    Socialism is not necessarily corrupt or perverting.
    He won’t accept that. This leads to destructive conflict.

    Well, true. Socialism itself is not corrupt nor venial nor (by itself) directly and deliberately killing people by the hundreds of millions (the last 140 years) ….

    It is, however, the people IMPLEMENTING socialism who ARE always greedy (for power, for money, for recognition, or for all of those), who are too often themselves evil, who are very, very seldom wise, knowledgeable, capable, all-knowing, infinitely patienec and forgiving, and so fully in control of everything that THEY are capable of stopping the greed, corruption, political evil and falsehoods that exist below them.

    Were we all saints, socialism might work. We are not, thus socialism fails. Kills. Hurts. Harms. Limits improvement to what the government allows, wants, and desires. More government.

  122. u.k.(us) says:

    richardscourtney says:

    January 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    u.k.(us):

    re your post at January 31, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    You need your own brain then you could learn to use it.

    Richard
    =================
    You’ve made mistakes, but never been wrong.
    A fair assessment ?

    [Both of you. Focus. State on the topic or be quiet. Mod]

  123. Gail Combs says:

    M Courtney says: @ January 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    The disappointing thing is that DirkH….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Actually I agree with E.M. Smith. A Mixed Economy is probably best. As much individual freedom as possible with enough laws and protections to keep things civilized. This is best done at as local a level as possible to keep the politicians responsive to the people as those of you in the UK, having to deal with the EU and the UN can understand.

    As someone else said the political spectrum is not linear and I do not think DirkH has figured that out. Also very nasty people hide behind various political names and give those names a stench. It does not mean they actually believe in the names they use.

  124. dbstealey says:

    jai mitchell says:

    “I …plotted the GISP2 data in excel to check your claim about how fast the temperature has warmed. In the GISP2 graph the largest warming happened during the younger dryas from 11,857 years before present (1950) and 11,258 before present. in this largest jump the temperature record went up by 12.84 degrees over the course of 599 years or an average rise of 2.14 degrees per century.”

    Well, that’s wrong. According to Richard Alley, not only has the temperature changed by tens of degrees, it changed that much in a decade or two, not in 599 years.

    Next, jai mitchell writes:

    “The reason that this is significant is because the Greenland temperature change that you show is about 3 times the global average. so, when the younger dryas went up by 12.84 degrees, the global average temperature went up by a little over 4 degrees.”

    Sorry, that is not significant. Why not? Because global warming occurs mostly at night, and in winter, and in the higher latitudes. So it is to be expected that global warming occurs more in Greenland than the global average.

    But that was not the point, which was: global warming happens in both hemispheres at the same time. There is excellent correlation. Ignoring that fact is simply changing the subject.

    =============================

    Martin asks:

    “Is the “NOW” on that graph 2013 or 1950 or 1860?”

    The chart covers too big a time scale to tell. But look at “Today”. That should answer your question.

    If it doesn’t, maybe this chart will. Notice that there are at least twenty “hockey stick” rises like Michael Mann’s hockey stick chart. They all occurred before CO2 had risen, therefore, CO2 does not have the claimed effect.

  125. A. Scott says:

    If you live in those areas time to buy a wood stove….

    Nope … EPA has banned those as well

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2014/01/29/epas-wood-burning-stove-ban-has-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/

  126. M Courtney says:

    Gail Combs says at January 31, 2014 at 4:37 pm… as it happens I agree with you about the benefits of a Mixed Economy. But I’m not totally convinced I am right. Economics is complicated.

    However, I am totally convinced that a 1-dimensional political spectrum is too simplistic to be helpful.
    Even the Political Compass is open to abuse.

  127. richardscourtney says:

    Mod:

    I am disappointed that you say to me at January 31, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    State on the topic or be quiet. Mod

    Say what!?
    Check the thread. Throughout the thread I have been fighting to keep the thread on its important topic against the onslaught of a succession of ultra-right wing cranks trying to displace the topic with untrue and irrelevant propaganda.

    uk(us) is merely the most recent of those trolls. And I get told to stay on topic!

    Richard

  128. richardscourtney says:

    RACookPE1978:

    In your irrelevant, off-topic and untrue post at January 31, 2014 at 3:58 pm you conclude

    Were we all saints, socialism might work. We are not, thus socialism fails. Kills. Hurts. Harms. Limits improvement to what the government allows, wants, and desires. More government.

    NO!
    Were we all saints, people would all be good. We are not, thus some people fail. Kill. Hurt. Harm. Limit improvement to what the government allows, wants, and desires. More government.

    And evil people pretend that people will be good if the good people who are socialists are opposed.

    Now can we return to the subject of the thread, please.

    Richard

  129. richardscourtney says:

    A. Scott:

    re your post at January 31, 2014 at 11:49 pm.

    I fail to understand the relevance of regulations concerning wood burning stoves in the US to the subject of the UK HoC DECC Select Committee Meeting on the IPCC AR5. Please explain.

    Richard

  130. RichardLH says:

    richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2014 at 1:40 am

    “I fail to understand the relevance of regulations concerning wood burning stoves in the US to the subject of the UK HoC DECC Select Committee Meeting on the IPCC AR5. Please explain.”

    Must be all the wood smoke drifting across the Atlantic or something :-)

  131. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    Another view of the Committee Hearing is provided by The Register here.

    Richard

  132. Mervyn says:

    I watched this questions and answers ‘sit-com’ – the committee for Energy and Climate Change – with Lindzen, Laframboise & Co making the big mistake by not appreciating they were addressing politicians who are ignorant of the finer details of the IPCC, its processes and the climate science of dangerous man-made global warming.

    The Committee’s questions needed to be answered with the utmost simplicity and clarity. Whilst I believe Lindzen, Laframboise & Co probably thought they did, most of their answers simply went way over the heads of the committee members because their responses to questions were not given in simple terms appropriate for these uniformed politicians.

    For example, when Donna Laframboise explained how certain authors are closely affiliated with environmental activist groups like Greenpeace and WWF, the committee simply could not understand the importance (in preparing a global scientific report) of important concepts of independence, objectivity, impartiality and transparency, and why persons who have shown their ‘green beliefs’ will necessarily be biased because they could hardly reflect anything in the report that would expose their own views as being wrong. An independent minded person, however, would have no difficulty referring to all sides of an issue.

  133. george e. smith says:

    Well, maybe the last 17 years includes the highest Anomalies on record; well in the last 130 years; but that is a far cry from saying the Temperatures have been the highest on record, or the last 130 years.

    What you say, The Temperatures, and the anomalies give the same information.

    Well great; then let’s stick with the Temperatures then; we do have an SI unit of Temperature; there is no unit of anomaly.

Comments are closed.