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
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“only one of them in what could be considered a scientific field, Human Biology”
I disagree: maths count.
Mathematics is an arts degree.
What? You don’t believe Political Science is science? Heretic.
Bertram Felden says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:12 am
It certainly is today in so many fields where 2+2 =5.
Politicians endorsing a mostly policy made and based report?
Let’s see who gets to stay in office after future black out?
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?
Pathetic.
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?
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).
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?
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/
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.
Its actually rather sad that so many of our “leaders” are so poorly educated.
“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:
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
gamesmodels) 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.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
“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?
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.”
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.
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.
Maybe compulsory I.Q. tests for polititians is needed here.
I don’t have a science degree, but I don’t endorse the report…(there is still hope).
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.
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.
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!
Nick Stokes says at July 31, 2014 at 2:26 am
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?