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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
simple-touriste

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

bertief

Mathematics is an arts degree.

lee

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

rogero

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?

M Courtney

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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?

John Of Cloverdale WA, Australia

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

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

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.

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

Marose

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

richard verney

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.

Alan the Brit

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!

M Courtney

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?

jhborn

True, a science degree has value. But it is not an unalloyed benefit. Science is hard, even for scientists, so once they’ve obtained their credentials, many decide questions by merely relying on what they think they remember from school rather than rolling their sleeves up and figuring it out. So it is often more important to be willing to work things out than to have a degree.
In those cases the credentials are worse than useless, because they tend to lend undeserved credence to ill-considered theories. That happens in the IPCC. It happens on this site (as I’ve recently been reminded). It happens everywhere. When you’re dealing with scientists, make them show you their work. If they can’t explain their positions in terms you can understand, don’t accept them. They’re probably wrong.

ImranCan

Its worth repeating Oscar Wilde’s original quote, about fox hunting :
“The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible”
Genius.

Old'un

CharlieUK @ 2.42
The Times yesterday had an article entitled ‘Forget emissions, households face funding dirty fuel to keep lights on’. It dealt with the plan to grant ‘Capacity Subsidies’ to coal fired stations to make up for the deficit in capacity caused by the slow motion train crash that is our ‘green’ energy policy.
I commented: ‘this is the latest twist in an energy policy driven by green lunacy based on flawed science’ and reblogged Christopher Monckton’s excellent analysis of current surface temps and the ever decreasing credibility of the IPPC in the eyes of those that want to see.

Harry Passfield

Nick Stokes says:

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?

Maybe because she had written a very learned book (treatise) on the subject of Peer-Review v Pal-Review in the IPCC. But I guess, in your lights, she was not qualified to do so – which, taken to a logical conclusion, no aspiring PhD student would have their treatise accepted as they are not qualified to write such a thing in the first place.
As it happened, Donna gave a very good account of herself even though she had to suffer the pig-ignorant rudeness of Robertson, the Glaswegian thicko who wouldn’t know F about C. Perhaps you took the trouble to watch it at the time….

Twobob

When your pension is safe.
Then the proper credentials matter very little.
Then sit in warm sun.

James Bull

What would be interesting is to look at there “interests” and who and what backs them Mr Yeo’s include wind farm and others of similar ilk.
They are the ones who’s policies have lead to large diesel farms to back up the system when the grid can’t cope.
James Bull

Ronaldo

Note the comments of the two House of Commons MPs on the committee with science degrees who disagreed with the majority findings .H/T Bishop Hill
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/7/29/climates-parliamentary-cheerleaders.html

Old'un

CharlieUK @ 2.42
There was a lenghty Item in The Times yesterday entitled ‘Forget the emissions, households face funding dirty fuel to keep the lights on’. It dealt with the Government’s proposal to pay a ‘capacity subsidy’ to coal fired stations to get them to make up for the potential capacity shortfall this Winter caused by the slow motion train crash that is our ‘Green’ energy policy.
I commented: ‘This is the latest twist in an energy policy driven by Green lunacy based on flawed science’ and reblogged Christopher Moncktons excellent analysis of current surface temperature anomilies and the ever decreasing credibility of the IPPC in the eys of thase that whish to see.

Ex-expat Colin

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

Dr. Paul Mackey

Agree that the Mathematics degree should know better – especially if he bothered to look at the numbers measured.
Personally I feel that since “Trougher” Yeo has financial connections to a number of green energy companies, there is a glaring conflict of interest and he should not be serving on this comittee at all.
But in another pararallel universe of perverse reality, Mr Yeo’s incomec from green energy companies is not deemed to be a conflict of interest.

Ex-expat Colin

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:
www
parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/

M Courtney

Ronaldo says at July 31, 2014 at 3:37 am.. Thank you. The comments from the dissenting MPs provide far more confidence in our leaders than Tim Yeo.
Also, it is worth noting that Graham Stringer and Peter Lilley are a Socialist and a member of Thatcher’s cabinet respectively. So this isn’t solely a political issue.
It is a matter of scientific education.
Understanding the science, and the uncertainty, matters more than political affiliation.

Old'un

Mod. I have attempted to post on this thread twice in the last half hour, but neither post has appeared. I’m sure that they didn’t contain ‘snipping ‘ material??
[Reply: Sometimes WordPress is inscrutable. Comments now rescued and posted. ~mod.]

Cheshirered

Alongside many well-engaged commentators and observers of this controversial subject I am not educated to such a standard. So what? I’m intelligent enough to recognise two things that leap out from the climate debate time and again:
1. The overwhelming influence of political, financial and professional vested interests, and
2. The IPCC’s own scientific case for catastrophic man made warming has more holes in it than my kitchen colander.
By any normal standards the minimum it should be facing is severe, independent scrutiny for repeated failures, but from our political leaders – nothing. One sentence stood out as a beacon of sense in Stringer and Lilley’s statement:
“By definition, a period with record emissions but no warming cannot provide evidence that emissions are the dominant cause of warming!”
Yet in the face of multiple points of uncertainty, contradictions and outright failures the IPCC increased its confidence in man made warming, and the Committee blindly acquiesced. So much for degree-standard intelligence! The whole charade has become quite, quite absurd.

View from the Solent

Bertram Felden says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:12 am
Mathematics is an arts degree.
===============================================================
Not necessarily. I have a BA (Hons) Maths & a BSc (Hons) Maths. The first was Pure, the second Applied and some fizziks theory.

Alba

markstoval said:
“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!”
Ah, he once ‘read it’ somewhere – so it must be true!

Ian W

Santa Baby says:
July 31, 2014 at 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?

Not at all.
The politicians will blame the wicked energy companies putting profits above generating capacity. The public is already being ‘softened up’ to these arguments by leaks to the press and multiple political complaints about the energy sector.
The sheeple seeing their energy bills rise will blame the big greedy companies, not the politicians who have heaped regulatory impediments on them and insisted on the use of antediluvian energy generation that destabilizes the grids.

RobWansbeck

It’s sickening to see Ian Lavery supporting this nonsense after energy policies closed England’s only aluminium smelter and threw thousands of his own constituents out of work.

Alan Robertson

View from the Solent says:
July 31, 2014 at 4:41 am
Bertram Felden says:
July 31, 2014 at 12:12 am
Mathematics is an arts degree.
===============================================================
Not necessarily. I have a BA (Hons) Maths & a BSc (Hons) Maths. The first was Pure, the second Applied and some fizziks theory.
___________________
It all boils down to physics.

Also look at the nonsense coming simultaneously out of the influential Royal Society for the Arts http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2014/socialbrain/climate-change-experts-beginners/
Gearing up for war indeed. The Great Global Grab and Attempt to Suppress Reality it should be called.

Adam Gallon

The UK’s only Green Party MP, is bleating about the inclusion of this Climate Heretic in the Labour (Lefty) Party’s quorum of MPs on this committee.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/7/31/greens-try-to-get-scientists-removed-from-select-committee.html

Greg

Sir Robert Smith Liberal Democrat
Degree: Mathematics http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/sir-robert-hill-smith ; ENDORSED REPORT
I would have said a maths degree was more relevant that Liley’s “Natural Sciences ” which sounds very woolly, more like a humanities degree
The fact that Sir Robert ignores the science and goes with “consensus”, well don’t expect a peer of the realm to be rocking the establishment boat.

C.M. Carmichael

“D.I. says:
July 31, 2014 at 2:43 am
Maybe compulsory I.Q. tests for polititians is needed here.”
I think compulsory I.Q. tests for voters would be more effective. A lot of people that don’t have a clue about the world around them, on a local or global scale go to the ballot box and prove it.

Greg

Checking the science credentials of those of the “science and technology committee” is a very good idea. So no need to try and spin the result.
The majority have no science training whatsoever, One wonders what make them fit for the posts on a committee whose field of interest they know nothing.

In a 9 to 2 vote…..
i never knew you voted on science.. wtf!?