Skeptics get a seat at the table.
IPCC 5th Assessment Review Meeting starts at 9.30am GMT
Witnesses
- Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office
- Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nicholas Lewis, Climate researcher, and Donna Laframboise, Author
Live feed link follows.
Purpose of the session
Topics being examined include:
- IPCC AR5 key findings on climate change;
- Consensus and uncertainty about climate change;
- Reliability of climate models used by the IPCC;
- Areas of scrutiny (climate sensitivity, the hiatus etc.); and
- The structure and practices of the IPCC.
Watch here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741
The ECC home page: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/
“The Netherlands Proposal” gets a run, this sounds like the beginning of the end for the IPCC!
Harry Passfield says:January 28, 2014 at 2:39 am…
I’m not sure that Prof Myles Allen understood his point so I couldn’t speculate on what he actually thinks.
Hoskins asserts that we should “just accept the IPCC’s range (for CS) and move on and do something about it”.
Yeeah, he thinks politicians won’t understand what that says about his ability to justify the range? Bloody fool.
“Skeptics get a seat at the table.”
I am a skeptic of the flat Earth theory but despite the invitation to sit at the table with flat Earthers, I much prefer to bury them conceptually and intellectually by every means possible.
This is finely tuned politics and it appears you just don’t get it, as long as the proponents of human control over global temperatures own the education system and drive the curriculum you can present any common sense arguments you like,they will disappear like writing on the sand is washed away by the incoming tide.
The issue is modeling vs interpretation and the limiting factors which drive most people into showdowns like this current issue. Those with a higher reasoning standard don’t do these things and that is the direction people with integrity,intelligence and courage must take. Von Humboldt nailed the problem down in such a way that it is ever more relevant –
“This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another— this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions.” Von Humboldt ,Cosmos
It’s the first time I’ve had an opportunity of seeing Allen in the flesh, so to speak. He really loves himself, doesn’t he? At the very beginning he even made an obsequious plea to the other two at the table on the grounds that he was jealous that they were FRSs – the underlying hint being: please make me one too…..
Just like to say, as a Brit, that I’m quite proud of the Mother of Parliaments.
They aren’t that useless, really.
@Harry. Allen getting is Appeal to Authority in early.
I’m not someone given to violent tendencies but Myles Allen has a face you’d never tire of slapping, just to remove that self satisfied condescending expression.
Graham Stringer MP (Labour) is questioning the political nature of the IPCC. Stott is waffling and stated a blatant falsehood; viz “Scientists have the final say on what goes into the Report”, but that is NOT true of the SPM which is the only part read and cited by politicians.
If anyone gets the chance, please take a look at the video around the beginning at 9:48, when John Robertson (fat MP on left) asks first question and discusses aerosols. Am I right in thinking he assets that as the ‘public’ have aerosols they would understand this point in the science quite easily?
Does anybody believe this man?
>Do you see it as a problem that their a reso many political activists with Greenpeace and WWF involved in the process?
Hoskins, “No, I don’t see it as a problem at all…”
Well, he’s entitled to his opinion but does anyone find him credible on this point?
Answer:
(°x°)
M Courtney:
At January 28, 2014 at 2:48 am you say
She tests evidence and argument about policy ‘On The Corridor’ as is being done here, and she tests the person applying policy during Ministerial Questions (including Prime Ministerial Questions, PMQs). Few other systems do both in so open a manner.
Richard
Well I think the fact that half the participants are skeptics and the debate is held before parliamentarians is a far cry from where we were in 2009. I will wait to see Hansard but it does sound as if the believers are having to work for a change.
When you have high confidence of something and miss your target you should then have less confidence not more…
A fair point from the Rt Hon Graham Stringer MP.
But this is declared to just be natural variability.
So are we more confident that natural variability is important but… that doesn’t help witht the anthropogenic does it?
Oh, but we expect the warming to pick up later. No explanation as to why we would do, though.
Stott has just said there is “evidence of energy increasing in the climate system”!
Say what! Does his “evidence” include assertions of undiscovered heat hiding in the oceans?
This is pretty good stuff. The warm-mongers are squirming. Stringer is stringing them up.
Hoskins and Stott in particular sound remarkably defensive…
Is anyone else watching this and swearing at these bozos?
Myles totally on the mat over Jones and his fellow travelers!
Love the question
“how have we managed to survive?”
“Scientists have final word in policy maker document”
This is an outright lie as far as I can work out. According to the IPCC procedures documented here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf
The SPM (Summary for Policymakers) undergoes the following Approval process:
Step 5: The longer report and the SPM of the Synthesis Report are both tabled for discussion in the Session of the Panel:
– The Session of the Panel will first provisionally approve the SPM line by line.
NB “Session of the Panel” refers to a series of meetings at the plenary level of the governmental
representatives to the IPCC.”
According to the IPCC, the final approval (line by line) for the SPM comes from the Panel of Governmental Representatives.
Is it a crime to lie to Parliament in this way?
In fairness to the Royal Society being an FRS does mean something.
Prof Myles Allen made the point at the start that he hadn’t made the grade and I think his performance demostrated the significance of that.
I can’t edit my comment, but the key paragrpah in the IPCC proocedures is this one:
“The final text of the longer report of the Synthesis Report will be adopted and the SPM approved
by the Session of the Panel.”
Again, the “Session of the Panel” refers to Governmental Representatives – not “scientists”
Lindzen: “In the US, the reward for solving a problem is to have your funding withdrawn”
Brilliant!