UK News: Parliamentary Committee Announces Inquiry Into Winter Transport Fiasco

If I were that committee, I would be requesting records as close to the mother board as they can get. I would even ask for the ^$#@ur momisugly mother board. That 3/3/4 thing is laughable and screaming at the same time.

From ‘Yes, Minister’ (‘The Greasy Pole’): this refers to a government commissioned report but pretty much the same thing will apply to Select Committee Reports too.
“How to discredit an unwelcome report:
Stage One: Refuse to publish in the public interest saying
1. There are security considerations.
2. The findings could be misinterpreted.
3. You are waiting for the results of a wider and more detailed report which is still in preparation. (If there isn’t one, commission it; this gives you even more time).
Stage Two: Discredit the evidence you are not publishing, saying
1. It leaves important questions unanswered.
2. Much of the evidence is inconclusive.
3. The figures are open to other interpretations.
4. Certain findings are contradictory.
5. Some of the main conclusions have been questioned. (If they haven’t, question them yourself; then they have).
Stage Three: Undermine the recommendations. Suggested phrases:
1. ‘Not really a basis for long term decisions’.
2. ‘Not sufficient information on which to base a valid assessment’.
3. ‘No reason for any fundamental rethink of existing policy’.
4. ‘Broadly speaking, it endorses current practice’.
Stage Four: Discredit the person who produced the report. Explain (off the record) that
1. He is harbouring a grudge against the Department.
2. He is a publicity seeker.
3. He is trying to get a Knighthood/Chair/Vice Chancellorship.
4. He used to be a consultant to a multinational.
5. He wants to be a consultant to a multinational.”
We already have plenty of evidence of this type of thing from the various Climategate efforts. No real reason to assume this will be different in anything but detail.
“It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them.” (ibid.)

Of course I would love for them all to be reasonable and do it the WUWT way. What could be wiser?
But I wouldn’t expect this effort to be a dead loss, even if it doesn’t hang anybody the first week. It still changes the calculations of the politicians and the politically-minded workers to realize that they may have to face such inquiries themselves if they do something stupid. They could be in the headlines, too, for all the wrong reasons.
Patience, brothers and sisters. Endure hardship and the occasional bit of paperwork. It’s all going in the right direction.

Brian Johnson uk says:
January 24, 2011 at 7:05 am
‘ Our MP – one Jeremy Hunt, is a total waste of space.’
Huh, you think yours is rubbish, try mine:
http://www.carolinelucas.com/cl/media/the-new-home-front-uk-needs-a-war-footing-on-energy-and-climate-crisis.html

… and before any comedian asks the question – no, I did not vote for her.

RichieP says:
January 24, 2011 at 6:56 am
Absolutely brilliant! Ticks all the boxes for me. Let’s see just how close we get to it?

Stop the funding, sue the MET for the lost lives and production, only takes 1 lawsuit to get the ball rolling. Switch to Bastardi/Corbyn, save a lot of $$

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
– Joseph Goebbels
[snip – flame bait words]
But the quote is otherwise useful in the context of AGW and the mechanics of propaganda, and it is the second part that best describes its use. Everyone knows the first line and forgets the other.
“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”
Is this not when the AGW lie starts to become unglued in the UK? The public may take scant notice of billions spent or research studies, but it is different when roads are clogged and airports shut.
(For “State” read: “The IPCC, the climate team and the many official government enablers and participants such as the Weather Office.”)
“It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Indeed. And what did Climategate and all the whitewashes tell us but this?

Unfortunately the House of Commons Transport Select Committee is formed of Government placemen, not one of whom would ever dare to question the established Government mantra that Global Warming (or whatever fatuous nomenclature is in current fashion) is most certainly happening.
The conclusions of the Committee can be foretold with far more accuracy than the Met Office’s weather predictions. I can guarantee that nothing of substance will emerge from this farrago of smoke-screens and mirrors. The selection of submissions to the Committee will be an object lesson in the art of Cherry Picking. Obfuscation, prevarication and circumlocution will permeate all discussion, debate will not be permitted but the Committee’s findings will be based on robust science, the prevailing conditions were unprecedented and lessons will be learned.
Bets, anyone?

Jimbo says:
January 24, 2011 at 7:32 am
I don’t think we will see a whitewash here because unlike the Climategate Inquiries people have actually died this winter due to lack of preparedness. The economy has lost billions of pounds. People have bee highly inconvenienced.
Now, either the inquiry finds that they were given adequate warning and the government did nothing with the information. Or that they were given inadequate information and so weren’t to blame. There are too many conflicting accounts of what the government was told.
Average to cold does not equal extremely cold winter.
————————————–
Oh, they’ll find a way to spin it – don’t worry!
When an object is spun, it can be difficult to see which way is up and which way is down, which is left and which is right.
These clowns (running the country) make me sick. All as bad as each other. Couldn’t put a cigarette paper between any of their policies. Steal our money and feed us lies.
We’ve had a number of Iraq war inquiries and not once was the subject of Dr. David Kelly’s death raised.
We’ve had a number of climategate inquiries and no mention of the science and whether it is sound or not.
Inquiries mean nothing!
Mr. Exasperated.

Stephen Brown says:
January 24, 2011 at 12:38 pm
‘I can guarantee that nothing of substance will emerge from this farrago of smoke-screens and mirrors. The selection of submissions to the Committee will be an object lesson in the art of Cherry Picking. Obfuscation, prevarication and circumlocution will permeate all discussion, debate will not be permitted but the Committee’s findings will be based on robust science, the prevailing conditions were unprecedented and lessons will be learned.
Bets, anyone?’
No way, the dice are loaded.

The enquiry better get at the real facts and fast. Recommendations for changes are badly needed. The type of weather that existed this December and also last winter may be the norm for UK for some time to come . It has been coming for 4 years now in a row so this no isolated event. An analysis of winter temperatures for Central England’s last cold period of 1962 -1987 shows that about two thirds of the years or about 20 of the 26 years were below the winter normal of about 4.8°C. During that time about 25 % of the winter months were below 3 C degrees which is close to the cold 2010 winter . January and February had twice as many real cold months compared to December and there were at least 5 winters where both January and February were extra cold . So back to back very cold months can and did happen and too often to be ignored as a possible future risk. There is no guarantee that the next 30 years will be like the last cold period , but in the absence of other better credible information from the climate modelers, I tend to lean on past history. If no changes are made I am afraid we will be blogging about this for years until people say enough is enough and the country finds it self in deep problems that may be bigger than last December’s.