Bishop Hill Government response to S&TC report
Oct 3, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament Via a discussion thread at Wikipedia comes the government's official response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report. Some points of interest:
In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data (although there is the question of whether they could have gone back to national meteorological societies to get permission to release data).
The Muir Russell Review concluded that the scientific practices used to produce the WMO graph were not misleading, but that it was misleading of the team not to have communicated the methods used more clearly...We welcome the findings of these reviews...
The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the ICO to determine the extent to which offences have not been prosecuted as a result of the time limit currently in place. The case for any amendments to the legislation will be assessed in the light of these discussions.
The Government welcomes that UEA established two independent assessment bodies to investigate allegations arising from the data loss incident, and the key scientific publications of CRU.
...it is of great importance to us that the reviews have considered both whether CRU’s science was sound...The Committee’s findings are in agreement with the Government’s assessment that the disclosure of emails from CRU does not undermine the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
The Government also welcomes the Committee’s support for CRU and the scientific reputation of Professor Phil Jones
The response was produced under the auspices of the Departmen of Energy and Climate Change, so this is Chris Huhne's responsibility. It might be seen as rather embarrassing for Mr Huhne to speak of independent inquiries looking at CRU's science when it is already clear that the inquiries were not independent and didn't actually examine CRU's science either.
Reader Comments (74)
Say it often enough, and it becomes true.
The science hasn't changed, heh, but the climate has.
=============
It's funny how alarmists keep calling those skeptical that man is the sole cause of global warming when the alarmists are the ones who keep denying anything that gies against their religion :)
Don't think that anyone in government needs to blush about this, never mind CH.
Don't a million repetitions of a lie, trump truth?
It would be interesting to find out who at DECC wrote this official response. Can that be ascertained with a FOI request?
This only goes to reinforce a long-held suspicion that I have, try as I might to dispel it, that the climate scientists task is, and always was, to justify the conclusions that their Westminster/Brussels paymasters tasked them with justifying in the first place.
Philip
I would say it was likely to be disclosable. Try a request under EIR.
The answer though is almost certainly David Mackay, chief scientist at DECC, who is very green IIRC.
"Don't a million repetitions of a lie, trump truth?"
Jawohl.
The global warming establishment is collection of liars. The scientists lie, the promoters like Algore lie, the governments lie, the UN lies, the news media lies. There can't be any dispute on this. The evidence of the lying is overwhelming.
So the fact that a govt report involving climate science should say that other people looked at the science, when those people expressly said that they did not, is not even a surprise. Let's repeat that -- no one is surprised that the govt tells a bold faced lie in this report. In fact, it is what everyone expects. We know they will lie. We know the news media will repeat the lie. We know that the scientists involved will embrace the lie and say that it clears them. We know that other scientists will repeat the lie.
There simply is no integrity in the global warming crowd. None. And if you anticipate that they will always behave without integrity, you will be able to predict their future actions with remarkable accuracy.
stan
That, unfortunately, is the inescapable logic we sceptics are cursed with.
Stan,
I think you are under egging the cake when you state that (Quote) "The global warming establishment is collection of liars. The scientists lie, the promoters like Algore lie, the governments lie, the UN lies, the news media lies". unquote
You left out Richard' Nixons "Expletive Deleted" in front of the words liars, lie, lies etc.
Otherwise you were exactly and precisely,******g correct!
Peter Walsh
The official response is printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. That's appropriate for a response which is minimum 75% recycling the same lies.
The response doesn't seem to have taken much account of the good Bishop's review of the reviews. They can't allow any dissent from the standard set of lies.
Doesn't one use "whitewash" to cover up "faded whitewash"?
There is an alternative explanation to San's persuasive description above and one which I adhere to:
They havent got a ....ing clue what is happening, you can not lie about something if you dont understand it.
@stan
Your quote:
"There simply is no integrity in the global warming crowd. None. And if you anticipate that they will always behave without integrity, you will be able to predict their future actions with remarkable accuracy."
Using that basis for over 20 years now, I've tracked a lot of rabbits down their holes. The best we can say, I think, is that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will, by itself, increase temperature between 0.8 and 1.2 C. Feedbacks (either positive or negative) cannot be separated from this for individual measurement since the whole feedback mechanism has or is occurring as we attempt measurement. We cannot isolate each possible mechanism for individual measurement from all the other possibilities because climate is dynamic
The consequence of this is the deliberate lack of integrity that you have described. Hiding the feedback non-sequitur requires lying through your teeth
ianl8888
"The best we can say, I think, is that doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will, by itself, increase temperature between 0.8 and 1.2 C."
Where does that come from? The direct effect of CO2 on temperature is already played out. Any further effect has to come from further feedbacks due to water vapour and there is no agreement about whether these are positive or negative.
Examination of the last four interglacials (sorry folks) tells us that at this stage of our interglacial, CO2 will have no further warming effect.
I just wonder if anyone in government has actually read the E-mails. Every enquiry has given the scientists the benefit of the doubt, even though there is no doubt that they conspired together in order to defend their position. The evidence is in black and white and cannot be mis-interpreted.
It must be me that is missing something, please will somebody explain what it is that i am missing!
Pesadia
The Muir Russell inquiry admitted that they didnt read the emails, the Oxburgh enquiry did not have a remit to read the emails, Chris Huhne doesnt have time to read the emails. I therefore deduce that you are correct ^.^
Maybe they didn't rad them because Phil said they were awful.
Hadn't thought of that until just now, Silly me.
read
I'm not sure Dung about your claim that the role of CO2 and temperature has been played out is true.
Yup, I'm aware of the logarithmic reduction but it's the complexity of the contributions made by a myriad of other factors that make me wary of any claims of certainty, one way or other.
It's like claiming that increasing the rate of taxation to 100% will get us back on the road to fiscal Utopia.
It's the faux certainties of the politicos stock in trade that have poisoned the scientific establishment that rattle my cage.
Chris Huhne is Chris Huhne, after all. He's a man on his mission. I can forgive him. He started from a low base and has some of it left. I have nothing but bad thoughts when so called, respected scientists provide legitimacy to the Chris Huhnes of this world.
RoyFOMR
(I apologise to all those who are sick of me posting about this :( )
Whatever the myriad of other factors are that we dont yet understand, the Earth has shown us four times that CO2 will not warm our planet. At some point in the future we will no doubt figure out why.
papers by Idso et al (accepted by Realclimate of all people) show that CO2 lags temperature over the last 700,000 years.
In particular once the interglacial had started to cool CO2 continued to rise for over 2000 years.
Whatever the myriad of effects CO2 might have, they didnt warm the planet and they didnt stop it cooling.
RoyFOMR
sorry I was talking about the last four interglacials in the current ice age
Those who understand the Science will cheerfully admit that they don't.
Those who don't, control the consensus and give cheer to the controllers.
Dicks!
Am I to assume I am a dick?
:(
Sorry Dung. I missed your point there. You're right. The planet never Thermageddoned before with CO2 levels way beyond the 350.plane%20stupid.10:10.noninfo convenient disinformation much beloved of our political two-leggers!
So, I'd guess, that you probably mean that unless the laws of Physics are radically changed by EU diktat, we may not be doomed by Global Warming?
My only concern then should be. How do we convince our masters, who have invested their future prosperity with the Carbon lie, that the greatest danger of GW lies with the unquestioning belief that GW is actually real.
Their lack of doubt will be of little comfort to those whose lifes will be ruined or ended because of a false faith.
Double dicks!
Not you Dung:)
Respect mate
Roy
RoyFOMR
I dont know how we get them to sit up and take notice but I keep trying ^.^.
The other thing is that CO2 is actually dangerously low, not high. Apparently in the early years of earth 4 billion years or so ago, CO2 was over 80% of the atmosphere and it has been going down ever since, stored in rocks, fossils and in other ways I have no clue about. However prior to this interglacial CO2 level;s went below the level needed to support plant life on the surface of the Earth. Even now we are only about 150 ppm above that level. You can not imagine a more stupid time to start trying to take CO2 out of our atmosphere ^.^
I agree Dung. CO2 is the stuff of life. To demonise it, to tax it, to tar it as a force for evil is as baffling as the heretic burnings of times past.
When this unwarranted spite is wrapped in layers of political correctness supported by scientific impropriety and sold as a planet saver, one has to despair about the x factor generation.
The only hope is for the x to turn into why!
@Dung
The 0.8-1.2C range comes from various of the Lindzen papers. I relied on his work because he is amongst the most sceptical of atmospheric scientists and so is unlikely to promote exaggeration. He regards this range as trivial in it's impact
The remainder of my post was directly aimed at the uncertainty, indeed unknowability, of feedbacks
That you ignored this is not helpful
Dung
You are touching on the prime climate catastophy humanity will be faced with, the one which nearly killed us off completely last time. That's too politically inconvenient.
"Even now we are only about 150 ppm above that level. You can not imagine a more stupid time to start trying to take CO2 out of our atmosphere ^.^"
Yeah. I mean- it's odd that climate scientists seem unable to take atleast a more philosophical view about just what the 'proper' level of CO2 might be. The very long term view, it's been heading down, down, down. Suddenly, humans arrive on the scene, and along with our technologies we become an instrument for releasing locked up carbon back into the atmosphere. Now from the point of view of a planet which sustains life through its vegetation- it seems fair to maybe suggest that we actually turned up at just the right time. This ties into a kind of Lovelockian idea of planetary self regulation, intelligence, etc. Completely untestable of course, like testing for God, but it's strange to me that many 'Gaian' type people probably haven't even considered this. That even in holistic environmentalism, it's figured that people still stand outside the main show, defecating on the pavement while the band plays inside. And if we ever make it past the bouncers for a sneek peek, we're just gatecrashers and party poopers. We don't belong. Back on the pavement to poop and roll around in our own filth. Out'chu go!
Dung
You protest your ignorance to much. You are far more knowledgeable than any of the Dicks claiming divine inspiration on their quest to save us all.
Your point about CO2 levels was missed by all of us. And is correct.
DrCrinum
Doesn't one use "whitewash" to cover up "faded whitewash"?
I think they are following the old American saying of "Throw shit on the wall and see what sticks." Whether or not they know it, it is clearly what they are doing.
It is an act of desperation, in my eyes.
Completely off topic, but worth the trip.
I accidentally typed www.Bishophill.com and found this THIS
If the one in Scotland is anything like this place, it is no wonder Andrew lives there.
Following this debate about CO2, the one-pager by Hans Schreuder is worth reading. He suggests we aim for 1010ppm.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Whyweneedthose10-10goals.pdf
Sorry this is off topic, but my brother just pointed me to this:
http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/documents/ClimateBook.pdf
I can't see any previous reference to it here at Bishop Hill.
1010 ppm beats 10:10 then?
The lesser plank:
That looks like a good book. I wonder when or where he will get it published?
The lesser plank, perfect timing as I am alone in my office due to the tube strike in Lon and the book looks interesting, so thanks. Speaking of entertainment: http://www.spannerfilms.net/films/ageofstupid (10:10 Franny’s website for her movie “Age of stupid”) the name-dropping alone makes it worth a visit and it also brings some clarity to the recent 10:10 campaign failure. App Franny got the idea to “Age of Stupid” while drunk. I think it is fairly safe to assume that the same was the case when she and the rest of the team thought up the recent 10:10 campaign. Speaking from personal, recent and painful experience I know that it is very easy to come up with some seriously dreadful ideas while inebriated at a certain member’s club located on Portobello Road (seems a likely location considering the people involved). However, most of us wake up the next day realising that those ideas should probably not be executed :o)
Thanks, LP, for the climate book, which I have already started to read. It looks very promising so far.
If I may reciprocate, this looks like required reading for the AGW faithful. The author was on the radio this morning and made the interesting observation that once you opened up to the possibility of being wrong more often, it would actually happen less often...
Being Wrong
(And for warmists who feel that I should consider the beam in my own eye, I should add that I was once one of them.)
Interesting reaction by CiF moderators on the Guardian article concerning the now infamous 10:10 film.
This piece attracted nearly 900 comments. What is clear is that a large number of the commentators who supported the aims of the 10:10 campaign were very critical of the 10:10 campaign film. There was no need for sceptics to push hard on this one, this was an OG by the 10:10 and the Guardian. So what was the level and nature of the CiF moderation on this one article on which a majority of commentators, from both sides of the climate debate, were critical?
Of the 890 or so comments, 59 received the dreaded "This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted" by CiF moderators.
The breakdown:
Pro CAGW, 13 commentators had 14 comments removed.
CAGW sceptics, 29 commentators had 40 comments removed.
Unknown position on GAGW, 5 commentators had 5 comments removed.
When the Guardian editorial introduction for this article stated, "Here's a highly explosive short film, written by Richard Curtis, from our friends at the 10:10 climate change campaign", can we then be surprised at the level and nature of CiF moderation in this instance?
For it is abundantly clear the CiF moderators were shooting the sceptical messenger and not the critical message!
Phillip Bratby
The lesser plank:
That looks like a good book. I wonder when or where he will get it published?
[http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/documents/ClimateBook.pdf]
I agree its worth reading, from what I saw, but now that he has a free PDF of it floating around, it has lost even its limited appeal for publishers. Who will buy it? What's its market if they can copy down a PDF?
There is an answer however. I just bought a five volume set of books on Celtic mythology, The Celtic Encyclopedia from Amazon. Now there is a really limited book as far as interest goes, but the author self published it through Universal Publishers as PODs. They limit themselves to non-fiction. That would get the book into bookstores as a minimum cost. Their URL is http://www.universal-publishers.com/ in case any of you are interested. I do this sort of stuff myself, but only with long dead authors or personal friends, and most people could do it themselves if they read a book on self publishing. LULU is another route.
All these official responses are great future research material, when temperatures will show if the science is "settled". The they can adjust the name of the Department of Energy "and Climate Change" again.
Stumbled acroos this wee gem today,
It's O/T, but wanted to share in latest post as to get more exposure.
Unfortunately I don't know who the author is so I can't hat-tip them.
.............
Moderator; Welcome to the 25th annual global warming debate. The score now stands at 17 wins for the warmists, and 8 for the sceptics, though I must note that the sceptics have won the last 5 in succession. As as a gesture of goodwill, give...n they lost the the last round, first comment goes to the warmist side.
Warmist; CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm up. The physics of this process are well known, and the result is that the planet’s temperature will continue to accelerate upwards, causing a catastrophe unless we act immediately to curb emissions.
Skeptic; The well known physics of CO2 includes the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, and so subject to the law of diminishing returns. The amount of CO2 required to cause catastrophic warming is many times what we are capable of producing.
Warmist; But the effects of CO2 are tripled or worse by positive feedback from water vapour.
Skeptic; If that were true, the earth would have experienced catastrophic warming multiple times already, and it hasn’t. You are ignoring the negative feedbacks while extrapolating positive feedbacks for which there is no evidence.
Warmist; The evidence of catastrophic change is already upon us, polar bears for example are going extinct.
Skeptic; The polar bear population has tripled in the last decade…
Warmist; Just because their population is increasing doesn’t mean they’re not going extinct. And warming has already caused increases in sea level that are swamping island atolls.
Skeptic; Island atolls float. The only reason they are being swamped is the amount of buildings being constructed on top of them.
Warmist; Sea level rise will only get worse as the warming accelerates, which it is. Consider the historical temperature record in this graph…
Skeptic; That graph? The one based on 7 trees from Siberia with 50% of the weighting from just one of them? I have 51 reconstructions from around the world, each based on dozens of samples or more, that show a completely different picture.
Warmist; Those 51 reconstructions were debunked by this reconstruction which appeared on the front cover of the prestigious IPCC AR4 report.
Skeptic; Isn’t that the one where the researchers replaced part of the reconstruction with thermometer readings instead of tree ring data because the tree rings diverged from the theory? How is it that you can dismiss the last 60 years of tree ring data as being faulty while claiming that the other 1000 years are accurate?
Warmist; You clearly don’t understand science. The temperature record from GISS clearly shows the earth has never been warmer.
Skeptic; Can we see the raw data that went into that temperature record along with how the values were adjusted and the final results arrived at?
Warmist; No.
Skeptic; Why not? What have you to hide?
Warmist; As I said before, you clearly don’t understand science so there is no point showing it to you.
Skeptic; Well we departed from actual scientific discussion when you brought up polar bears extinction…
Warmist; Exactly my point. Studies indicate that people with skeptic viewpoints are lacking in education, are intellectually deficient, or are psychopaths who care little about humanity, so you keep dismissing the graphs and charts on flimsy excuses.
Skeptic; Flimsy excuses? You are proposing that we constrain the world economy, endanger the food supply, and sink the global standard of living to levels that will most certainly result in the death of millions based on data you won’t show me, anecdotal stories about polar bears that upon investigation are completely false, and reports that I dismiss because they are based on ridiculous notions like the worldwide temperature being represented by a single tree in Siberia, and you accuse me of flimsy excuses?
Warmist; Precisely. You are psychologically incapable of evaluating the science objectively due to your defective upbringing and education. There may even be a genetic component to your psychosis, though evidence that skeptic views are increasing amongst the population suggests that these traits are more wide spread than previously thought. In order to safe guard humanity, it may be necessary to take steps to control sceptics in order to prevent them from destroying the rest of us.
Skeptic; Uhm… that sounds like a threat.
Warmist; Being defective in terms of upbringing and intelligence, it is not a surprise that you perceive a threat where none was made.
Skeptic; Fine. Then explain to me what you meant.
Warmist; Well, we’ve invented this little grey box with a red button on top (shows box), and when we press the button (presses button)
Skeptic; (explodes, spattering blood and gore across the stage)
Moderator; Oh my!
Warmist; Having presented a robust scientific explanation of the effects of CO2, backed up by robust studies demonstrating the correlation with accelerating temperatures which will have catastrophic effects on humanity according to a myriad of robust scientific models, which sceptics are psychologically incapable of understanding, and have failed to rebut in this debate, the science is settled, and culling of the human population by those of us who do understand is required in order to save us from ourselves.
Moderator; But…
Warmist; (brandishes little box with button)
Moderator; (hastily) I declare the debate resolved in favour of the warmists. This is a victory for science.
Warmist; (brandishes little box)
Moderator; (gulps) I meant a ROBUST victory for science. There is no further need for debate.
PaulH from Scotland
Unfortunately, chilling. The red button has changed the debate, and brutally so.
My childs headteacher, spoke to 10 10 this morning and has stopped all involvement with 10 10
the head was completely unaware of this video, and the 10 10 mindset..
May I suggest, anyone with children, sent the link to the guardian article, to thier schools headtecher/governors.
And ask them, please watch this video, read the co-founders words....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/se...
Should you ever be involved with this...
Look up your school.
http://www.1010global.org/uk/education/schools
Or your business, or corporation (sony, o2), or council, or NGO
I am personally going to email ALL my local schools with this link, and advice them what my schools headteacher has done..
I hope that anyone else might do the same..
in there area..
your choice, no pressure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Just because their population is increasing doesn’t mean they’re not going extinct.."
:-)
PaulH
I really enjoyed your humour! Thank you very much ^.^
Barry Woods, I admire your dedication and energy :o) How do you ever get time to work?
JamesP,
We call it Population Disruption these days. It's a term which better grasps the holistic nature of polar bear population change - and nicely muddies the waters concerning past ignorant and ludicrous claims, which have been shown to be bogus, but which a lot of people, in the press for instance, have been conditioned to regurgitate as stock photos, without giving the matter any thought.
"Disruption" is a handy word.