The Unqualified Judging the Self-Interested

Scientists largely removed from the consideration of science

Story submitted by Tom Barr

The U.K.’s Energy and Climate Change Committee [yesterday] endorsed the IPCC’s 2014 opinion that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.

In a 9 to 2 vote in a parallel universe the “Science was Settled”, yet again. But not by scientists, of course. Let’s look at the MPs who voted: Of the 9 in favour at least one had fiddled his expenses, just six held degrees and only one of them in what could be considered a scientific field, Human Biology.

More here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28531091 .

The two MPs that voted against held scientific degrees in, respectively, Chemistry and Natural Sciences.

Rigorously applying the proven “97% consensus” methodology, that implies 66% of scientifically qualified MPs tasked with considering the IPCC report don’t believe that global warming is predominantly caused by man.

Energy and Climate Change Committee – membership

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/membership/

Mr Tim Yeo (Chair) Conservative

Degree: History, [“Got a poor degree”, by his own admission] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Yeo; ENDORSED REPORT

Dan Byles Conservative

Degree: None http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Byles; ENDORSED REPORT

Ian Lavery Labour

Degree: None http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Lavery  ; ENDORSED REPORT

Dr Phillip Lee Conservative

Degree: Human Biology and Biological Anthropology  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Lee_(politician) ENDORSED REPORT

Mr Peter Lilley Conservative

Degree: Natural Sciences and Economics  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lilley REJECTED REPORT

Albert Owen Labour

Degree: Politics  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Owen  ENDORSED REPORT

Christopher Pincher Conservative

Degree: History  http://www.christopherpincher.com/about-chris/bio ENDORSED REPORT

John Robertson Labour

Degree: None http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robertson_(Glasgow_politician) ENDORSED REPORT

Sir Robert Smith Liberal Democrat

Degree: Mathematics http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/sir-robert-hill-smith  ; ENDORSED REPORT

Graham Stringer Labour

Degree: Chemistry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Stringer    REJECTED REPORT

Dr Alan Whitehead Labour

Degree: Political Science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Whitehead  ENDORSED REPORT

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
simple-touriste
July 31, 2014 12:09 am

“only one of them in what could be considered a scientific field, Human Biology”
I disagree: maths count.

Bertram Felden
July 31, 2014 12:12 am

Mathematics is an arts degree.

lee
July 31, 2014 12:24 am

What? You don’t believe Political Science is science? Heretic.

rogero
July 31, 2014 12:30 am

Bertram Felden says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:12 am
It certainly is today in so many fields where 2+2 =5.

July 31, 2014 12:34 am

Politicians endorsing a mostly policy made and based report?
Let’s see who gets to stay in office after future black out?

July 31, 2014 12:37 am

Future black outs will get people and media attention to the report and it’s political basis. And making those that “ENDORSED REPORT” look like idiots?

July 31, 2014 12:44 am

Pathetic.

July 31, 2014 12:55 am

To paraphrase the warmists
Would you consult politicians on how to cure a dangerous disease or someone with medical credential?
Or
Would you consult politicians on a scientific question or someone with scientific credential?

July 31, 2014 12:56 am

Tim Yeo’s qualifications are irrelevant.
His lack of integrity makes him unfit to judge anything
So how does such a corrupt individual get to be an MP? Well, connections get you in but can’t keep you there.
His own party have deselected him for the next election. (see the pro-Tory Daily Mail article from last year).

Bevan
July 31, 2014 1:00 am

Considering Peter Lilley “received, between 2007 and 2012, $400,000 worth of share options” in Tethys Petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lilley), is it not surprising he rejected the report?

Ex-expat Colin
July 31, 2014 1:11 am

Followed up by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee :Resilience of electricity infrastructure (commences Oct 2014)
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/resilience-of-electricity-infrastructure/
Most of us can answer that in less than 2 sentences I think!
£300/day expenses per member (14). Nice work if you can get it.
Members:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/

Carbon500
July 31, 2014 1:16 am

Anthony: You comment that only one MP holds a degree in ‘what could be considered a scientific field, human biology.’
How can human biology not be a scientific field?
My degree studies in this field encompassed biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, biomechanics and immunology as well as relevant mathematics, physics and statistics. This gave me a well-rounded education in various disciplines which led to a Ph.D. and a working lifetime in medical laboratory technology and research.

Goldie
July 31, 2014 1:34 am

Its actually rather sad that so many of our “leaders” are so poorly educated.

July 31, 2014 1:35 am

“The U.K.’s Energy and Climate Change Committee [yesterday] endorsed the IPCC’s 2014 opinion that humans are the dominant cause of global warming.
There is little new here. No one should be surprised that a political committee whose name contains “Climate Change” has endorsed the political idea that mankind controls the climate, and that politicians can control the climate by controlling the population. The entire “CO2 is magic” and bad juju has been political from the get-go.
After all, as H. L. Mencken told us over a century ago:

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

I once read in a history of the early colonization of the U.S. that preachers told their flocks that all the bad weather was because they sinned so much. It was mankind’s sin that prompted God to send so much bad weather. Confess you sinners!
All of this CO2 controls the weather and man is the prime cause of warming is just the ancient hubris that mankind is the most important thing in the universe and that all of Nature is merely our servant.
All empirical evidence (not theory or computer games models) is that the net effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is nil. Even with all the temperature data sets “adjusted” to match theory we still see that CO2 is not the driver of climate that the IPCC claims it is. Yet, in this modern world empirical evidence has been depreciated much like Windows 3.1.

Alan Radlett
July 31, 2014 1:52 am

It would be interesting to find out how many of the committee have business interests in the “Global Warming” industry. Not that this would be a conflict of interests, of course

Nick Stokes
July 31, 2014 2:26 am

“implies 66% of scientifically qualified MPs”
If scientific qualification is so important, why did they call on Donna Laframboise to witness for their case against Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Professor Myles Allen, Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office?

July 31, 2014 2:34 am

Over at Piers Corbyn’s Website
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=686&c=5
“We congratulate the two scientist MPs Graham Stringer (Lab) and Peter Lilley (Conservative) and Sammy Wilson (DUP) who have stood firmly for evidence-based honest science against Co2 Con propaganda on BBC, AlJazeera and other media and newspapers and relentless dishonest attacks from charlatans and Science-deniers.”

Solomon Green
July 31, 2014 2:41 am

M Courtney says:
“Tim Yeo’s qualifications are irrelevant.
His lack of integrity makes him unfit to judge anything.”
Tim Yeo has financial interests in several companies that stand to gain from “green” energy. His lack of integrity in standing for the chairmanship of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has been widely commented on in the UK.

CharlieUK
July 31, 2014 2:42 am

Greatly saddened by the decision our MPs made.
However much we think of their efforts after all most are not scientists and probably took on trust the IPCC summary.
Unfortunately, most of our scientists must unthinkingly also take the word of the IPCC – otherwise the politicians would have been bombarded with objections.
With the BBC continually debasing its charter, suppressing debate (whilst at the same time cunningly saying it is allowing far too much), and pumping out the alarmist propaganda – along with most of our media outlets, it is perhaps a miracle that the population still has a healthy skepticism towards the IPCC.
It really is up to us to impress on our MPs that there is another side to the debate and give them the information that can equip them to win the argument.
So come on UK readers – put pen to paper or fingers to key board – if we don’t put our thoughts across we will continue to get the political decisions we deserve.

D.I.
July 31, 2014 2:43 am

Maybe compulsory I.Q. tests for polititians is needed here.

Marose
July 31, 2014 2:45 am

I don’t have a science degree, but I don’t endorse the report…(there is still hope).

richard verney
July 31, 2014 2:47 am

The problem is that this committe only considered the summary for policy makers. That summary is written not by scientists, but by politicians, and the aim behind it is that it is written in a style that will appeal to policy makers, ie., to politicians.
If they considered the science report, they would appreciate that the science is far less certain than the impression given by the summary for policy makers.They would also appreciate that there is no consensus in climate sensitivity, which after all is the most important factor in determining whether any response to rising CO2 levels is required.
If one looks at the science report, the take home is that the scientists are now more certain that humans have caused some warming, but are now less certain as to the extent of warming that has been caused by human activity.
But I think that it is material that 2 out 9 rejected the report. It does show that cracks are beginning to develop.

Nick Stokes
July 31, 2014 2:48 am

Solomon Green says: July 31, 2014 at 2:41 am
‘Tim Yeo has financial interests in several companies that stand to gain from “green” energy.’

And Peter Lilley is vice-Chairman of Tethys Petroleum.

Alan the Brit
July 31, 2014 2:59 am

The record of parliamentarians is very poor indeed & I don’t know why we are expected to look up to them, because I don’t, on the contrary I look down upon them with utter contempt where AGW is concerned to say the least!!!! It wasn’t long ago that an article was published regarding the crop of incumbents & most of the 650 had criminal records/tax dodgers/corruption scandals against their names, very few were squeaky clean! I recall from the film “The Hunt for red October” the politician character saying to the hero, that he was a politican, which meant that he lies & cheats!!! Nothing new under the Sun!

July 31, 2014 3:01 am

Nick Stokes says at July 31, 2014 at 2:26 am

If scientific qualification is so important, why did they call on Donna Laframboise to witness for their case against Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Professor Myles Allen, Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office?

Subject matter expertise. she was called talk about the working operations of the IPCC as a journalist.
She literally wrote the book on the subject. Why not have a read?

1 2 3 4