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.
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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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!?