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”:
For our American friends here is more on Tim Yeo (Conservative) from the Daily Telegraph blogger (conservative) Delingpole.
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.
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.
wws says:@ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.
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….
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.”
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.
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
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. . .
Laframboise also annoyed Albert Owen.
priceless
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Ahhh, my old friend Tim “It will be a dark day in Parliament when outside financial interests are not allowed” Yeo.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
If I’ve gotta scroll thru all these comments, could someone at least explain whom, this Yeo guy is ?
I feel left out.
Sarc/
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).