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.
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.