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
“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?
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.
Its worth repeating Oscar Wilde’s original quote, about fox hunting :
“The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible”
Genius.
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.
Nick Stokes says:
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….
When your pension is safe.
Then the proper credentials matter very little.
Then sit in warm sun.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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/
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
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!?
I think the most of the model makers are math grads. Funny how it works.
If it stinks, its Biology.
If it explodes, its Chemistry.
If it doesn’t work, its Physics.
If the data is adjusted to fit models, its Climate Science.
When will they proclaim the vote outcome on expansion or contraction of the universe? We’re all waiting for the outcome to make our plans and set our budgets.
Greg says at July 31, 2014 at 7:05 am
Actually <a href= "http://www.study.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/courses/natsci/" Natural Sciences is what Cambridge calls the hard sciences.
They’ve been teaching the subjects since before most of the sciences were discovered.
Not sure about what Peter Lilley studied later though. Economics? That sounds woolly.
This reminds me of when the U.N. placed Syria and Libya on their Human Rights Commission, as well as such other notable defenders of Human Rights such as ZImbabwe and the Sudan.
This isn’t just a fatuous comparison, I have a real point – because of moves like that, the UN’s Human Rights Commission is now considered by the entire world to be a sick joke, and because of that it has no influence in any of the events happening today. It is a place where bribe-seeking grifters hang out and get free lunches and hotel rooms, and little more.
The Kiwanis Club of Punxatawnee Falls now has more worldwide influence than they do, because of moves like this. And the same future is in store for the UK’s Climate and Energy Committee.
The worrying thing missed here is that in UK politics there is no opposition. This is a perfect condition for a new party that opposes. They would be on the side of a much battered electorate. That it got this far is highly likely because of Agend_a co-opted (mis) education
Shades of “Idiocracy” – we need Joe Bauers ;¬)
It doesn’t make it law in the UK that humans cause global warming just because a Select Committee endorsed a report.
What it does do is provide political cover for any Government to bring in new laws on its back though.
I don’t respect 90% of what MPs do, because it is done for disreputable and self-serving reasons (don’t rock the boat, do it to get promoted etc etc).
Perhaps Graham Stringer and Peter Lilley might commit that cardinal offence in UK politics of a Conservative and a Labour man issuing a joint minority report which says something along the lines of: ‘A bunch of politically correct incompetents were born to be customers. This pair of market makers have put the snake oil salesmen in their place…..’
From rogero on July 31, 2014 at 12:30 am:
But that can be true! I just checked it with a spreadsheet so I know it is so.
You just need to show enough decimal places to see it’s really 2.25 + 2.26 = 4.51 for example, that’s all. Then it all makes perfect sense, and a less-stressful presentation.
A thought just occured to me, the ipcc original science report was changed
To say agw was real, as anyone been able to obtain copy of report
Before it as changed?
Rather than consider their education, I think their intelligence (1), honesty (2) and determination to discover the truth (3) are much more relevant. A good science degree is not evidence of any or all of these . . . I’m sure there are many specimens in the field of climate science who come up short on all three factors . . .
Santa Baby says:
July 31, 2014 at 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?
———————————-
Stupidity knows no bounds. Any problems created by bad policy is used as reason to expand said policy. Let no crisis go to waste.
@Post
Irrelevant drivel, the quality of an opinion is not based on credentials. Argument ad verecundiam.
Nick Stokes says:
July 31, 2014 at 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.
===================================================================
There is a very big difference between the two. Lilley is not going to gain any further benefit from his position other than through normal shifts in valuation of the company. Whereas, Yeo and others with heavy investments in renewable projects stand to gain a tremendous amount of money, if the right regulations can be passed. So there is no comparison.
Alba says: ” ‘…Confess you sinners!’ Ah, he once ‘read it’ somewhere – so it must be true!
Yes. It appears a great many people believe what they read. Sometimes it is true, sometimes not, and even less often relevant.
Doubters can visit your friendly neighborhood evangelical church just before a hurricane blows in and see if there’s any linkage between your sins (which assuredly exist) and a hurricane (which by then is also assured).
The idea is to leverage a “safe bet” since no one can successfully argue against it. With temperatures rising, you could link ANYTHING that was also rising to the temperature. That scheme broke in 1998 or thereabouts.
Of course, I suggest that in the American southwest, bad weather is really good weather. There’s too much good weather and that’s why it’s bad.
Follow the money
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338255/Tim-Yeo-MP-paid-400-000-green-firms-slams-climate-change-peer.html
Nice quote from Nassim Taleb in the book AntiFragile: “Much of all of this is a religious belief in the unconditional power of organized science, one that has replaced unconditional religious belief in organized religion”.
I love a good confirmation bias. Yes, that’s an inside joke…
Math needs physics like humans need water.
Charlie UK
“t 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”
I don’t think that would make much difference. In the past, most MPs had second jobs, and generally did a very good job at representing their constituents in parliament. Principle to them was more important than the risk of not getting promotion or even losing their seats. Now, the vast majority of MPs are career politicians with no job outside parliament, and no experience whatsoever at running a business or working in business. Unlike past MPs therefore they do not wish to put their heads above the parapet and oppose the official view of the leadership. By doing so they put at risk the prospects of promotion, and the risk of de-selection if their opposition to the leadership is sufficiently strong, And, if they lost their seat they would have no job to go to.
This is UK politics and politicians you are talking about. Stupid is as stupid does. Sadly, out of 650 MPs, there are only an handful of exceptions,Graham Stringer being one of them.
He is unlikely to find himself in Cabinet should his boss, Labour leader and arch climate alarmist “Red” Ed Milliband, pull a rabbit out of the political hat and form the next government.
Sigh…
M Courtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 7:36 am
“Not sure about what Peter Lilley studied later though. Economics? That sounds woolly.”
Which brings to mind the idiocy of falsified climate models for predicting future climate being used by economists to tell us how much it will cost also using models. The error bars must be long enough incarcerate all of them.
I live in the UK and have written to my Member of Parliament and (now voted out) Member of the European Parliament. Both would not discuss the figures and graphs I’d sent showing the amazing lack of dangerous man-made global warming vs. the 43% or so increase in CO2 from 280ppm in the ‘pre-industrial’ era and now 400ppm. One even had the gall to tell me that my descendants would be ashamed of my views! Regrettably, both seemed capable only of regurgitating the same old stories, and neither one was able to deal with any real-world figures or think for themselves. And why should they? After all, the European Union has earmarked 186,000,000,000 Euros for future ‘climate change action’ – as I remarked, nice work if you can get it!
It may be amusing, but I’m not in favour of homing in on people’s qualifications. It smacks of argument by authority. There are many people – even politicians – with excellent understanding outside their field of education.
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?“. It was the other degrees that could not be considered scientific, not biology.
Well, it just goes to demonstrate that the standard of education and level of common sense amongst those tasked with making authoritative decisions in the UK has declined over the years. For example, in relation to the Climate Change Act that was implemented, just look how many politicians voted against the Bill… just a handful!!! But then, so much else in the UK has also declined, much to the chagrin of the British people whose politicians have allowed this situation to happen.
Surely a degree in Computer Science and the ability to write models is the only science that counts.
/sarc
“David G says:
July 31, 2014 at 10:53 am
Math needs physics like humans need water.”
Game theory doesn’t involve physics
I think that should have read, “Physics needs math like humans need water.”
Having a degree does not necessarily bring wisdom to the table.
A leading mathematician, the late Professor Morris Kline, wrote;
“Man’s mathematics may be no more that a workable scheme. Nature itself may be far more complex or have no inherent design. Nevertheless, mathematics remains the method par excellence for the investigation, representation, and mastery of nature. In those domains where it is effective, it is all we have; it is not reality itself, it is the closest we can get to reality.”
But it needs an understanding of mathematics to use it to get close to reality and, sadly until now those who have created long term climate models do not appear to possess that understanding.
Bertram, in Australia, any maths are combined into a Science degree. It is a necessary component with Chemistry the rest can be picked, like Archaeology or botany. That’s why I couldn’t attempt a science degree, no maths or Chemistry. I could have taken subjects usually attached to science degree, like Astronomy. But I couldn’t work out the science calculator. They altered the degree changes as Science required 23 units, most 300 level, so they also made Arts or Humanity students to gain 23 too, instead of 18. No maths required. Well there is some, but I would not call them math, mainly quantitive analysis and geology.