Skeptics get a seat at the table.
IPCC 5th Assessment Review Meeting starts at 9.30am GMT
Witnesses
- Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office
- Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nicholas Lewis, Climate researcher, and Donna Laframboise, Author
Live feed link follows.
Purpose of the session
Topics being examined include:
- IPCC AR5 key findings on climate change;
- Consensus and uncertainty about climate change;
- Reliability of climate models used by the IPCC;
- Areas of scrutiny (climate sensitivity, the hiatus etc.); and
- The structure and practices of the IPCC.
Watch here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14741
The ECC home page: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WTF?
Well, I think he meant it should cancel out.
Seems reasonable to me, probably.
Phil Ford:
re your post at January 28, 2014 at 3:40 am.
It seems you may have missed the first session where the Select Committee was similarly aggressive to the ‘warmists’. This is reported by the above ‘running commentary’ provided by some of us for those in parts of the worls who cannot get the web cast.
Richard
Yeo’s seems to have made something of a fool of himself by asking if Lindzen believes CO2 has no effect at all – Lindzen put him down rather nicely
Good point about natural variability swinging both ways and the IPCC only reporting on one side of the swing.
Lindzen’s very loud ‘guffaw’ to the question of whether he believed the IPCC’s contention that the hiatus was caused by volcanic aerosols was just so articulate!
As the questions are all on the science (or bad science fiction movies, sigh) it seems a shame that Donna is taking up a seat.
Hope they do go onto the reliability of the IPCC later ps as she can shine.
And now Yeo’s being openly partisan – “is the decade 2000- 2010 the hottest on record”?
What a dickhead.
Yeo demanding a Yes / No answer on is this the hottest decade on record and then changes to Hottest of all time!
Now, Yeo can’t understand the difference between speed and acceleration!
Ha ha ha…
Tim Yeo:
Yeo is an idiot!
Correction: “So is that a resignation?” were my words.
I’m laughing too much.
Yeo! Dickhead! Arrogabt sod arguing with Lindzen like that! Just shows how stupid he is.
Everyone should watch at 12:05
Yeo just tried to make Lindzen look stupid. He failed. But Lindzen was not as cogent as he could (should?) have been.
Yeo claimed that the most recent decade was the warmest on record and, therefore, warming has not stopped.
Lindzen pointed out the logical disconnect but not effectively. He would have done better to provide an anology; e.g. the last decade was when I was the tallest on record but I stopped growing decades ago.
Arrogant! (I’ve got M Courtney’s fingers on the keyboard. 🙂
If anyone with a shred of common sense would put the following information before any committee or commission the issue would be far more urgent and decisive –
” It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year” NASA /Harvard
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/los-angeles/hourly
The question would be – How ,for goodness sake, did a society manage to lose the ability to read the most immediate experience of enormous temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour cycle due to one rotation of the Earth ?.
These people are dealing with fractions of degrees over long periods while being unable to handle huge differential within the daily period and the fact that a politician can force the issue in getting these guys to admit carbon dioxide serves the function of a global thermostat is all they wanted to hear.
You are all so much in a conceptual rut that,even with the strongest effort, you cannot see the enormous lapse of reasoning that occurred when they decided to model planetary dynamics using timekeeping averages and this problem has spread from astronomy into terrestrial sciences. The politicians have come out of that hearing better than the science commentators who merely traffic in modeling voodoo and fluff.
Sir Robert Smith West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Liberal Democrat) asks if consesnsus could lead to understimating the seriousness of the issue.
Lindzen can’t see much evidence for that.
Inconclusive bout.
Graham Stringer (Labour) asks about the impact of solar variation.
Lindzen is giving a measured response about cosmic ray influence ampliftying the impact of solar variation.
“That’s an unknown at the moment”.
Donna’s turn; Graham Stringer (Labour) asks if she still thinks the IPCC should be disbanded.
Her reply is hesitant and nervous to begin with.
Someone else report how she does, please.
Albert Owen (Labour) is on now… what did I miss?
Why can’ I find the stream. It doesn’t appear at the link above on my device. Only the Commons.
richardscourtney says:
January 28, 2014 at 3:50 am
You must be in desperate straits to be a supporter of millipied. 😉
Albert Owen (Labour) has led to the idea of focussed IPCC reports.
Interesting.
Now “is it skewed to the WWF?”
Donna points out that Chapter 2 is led by an activist. Another author writes for 20 years for WWF and Greenpeace.
Can their views be ignored just because they have an activist background (views change over time)?
Yes, says Donna.
Strongly challenged by Albert Owen.
Albert Owen (Labour) “Doing nothing is not an option”
Lindzen “I don’t believe that”