Bishop Hill The hearings - cheerleaders
Mar 1, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament It's all over! First something to eat and a glass of wine. Then I'll post up some reaction.
18:04 Is all CRU data and code available? Witnesses will check the story out and write.
18:01 Willis says chief scientist should prevent suppression of data in future. Beddington says there are issues. Proprietory data argument again. Beddington does not know if NOAA has same problem.
18:00 Beddington says new temperature set was not in response to the UEA emails.
17:58 Slingo says uncertainties order of magnitude higher for satellites.
17:56 Discussion of UHI. Slingo says they've looked at urbanisation. Says station environment is important. This was a very carefully worded answer.
17:52 Willis asks about plans for new global temperature sets. Has Slingo lost confidence. She says no, and then explains it all.
17:50 Stewart asks about FoI requests again. Does Beddington sympathise with scientists deluged with requests. "Sort of".
17:47 Willis asks about proactive release of materials under EIR. Beddington says timing is an issue. Says they can look at it. Beddington says lots of time invested. Need sensible limits. (Not if the law says otherwise!)
17:46 Slingo says they have released the code, but climate models are big. Says code is tested twice a day because they use it for weather forecasts. Code is given to academic institutions and to international met services. Tested all the time by many people.
17:43 Stringer asks Beddington if code should be available. Beddington says yes but it's a question of timing.
17:42 Watson talking about attribution and modelling. Much talk of the hockey stick being resolved but no mention of for or against.
17:40 Stringer cites Wegman siding with McIntyre in the face of IPCC peer review. Is Slingo worried. No. Waffles about current warming.
17:39 Stringer asks about funding sources influencing results. Beddington says there is no problem in this area.
17:36 Slingo says they are not withholding anything they can release. Refers to ownership by NMSs.
17:36 Beddington says that Russell's terms of reference are adequate. Notes scientific review too. Says very comprehensive.
17:35 Watson says media has portrayed CRU emails as a crisis. Says no effect on IPCC findings.
17:33 Slingo doesn't answer the question of whether there is a crisis in British science. Says wait until the Russell inquiry has reported. Slingo says IPCC peer review is much more thorough than any other area of science.
17:32 Naysmith asks if IoP has been premature. Beddington says yes. Possibility of things being taken out of context. Have they all been briefed to say this?
17:30: Naysmith refers to scientists whose submissions say CRU affair has damaged reputation of science. Beddington says not, and will not comment on UEA situation until then.
17:30 Watson agrees!
17:29 Slingo - global warming is unequivocal. 90% certain human activity. Says uncertainties re emissions scenarios and what will happen in future.
17:27 Beddington says important that questions are framed in uncertainty terms.
17:23 Boswell asks Beddington about Royal Society/NERC statement about warming climate. Beddington agrees with statement. Boswell asks how much uncertainty and if the data is transparent. Beddington relies on the "confirmed by other studies" argument.
Reader Comments (97)
Do they have beards to hide the lack of chins?
Yup - AGW is correct, says Beddington. He's comfortable with that.
Now we unwashed peasants can all go home and shut up.
I have to watch my blood pressure at this evidence. Foot through screen if not careful.
these 3 are the consensus, right?
'Cheerleaders' is truly the correct description for those three representatives.
We know there's warming, they can get away with stating that truism, are the models reliable? 1.4 to 6 deg C over the next century is really meaningless, is this science?
Has Naysmith read my submission? Sounds like it.
I can see the strings; question is, who's pulling them? Al Gore?
Beddington says the IOP prejudged the issue in regard to damage done to science.
He'll happily wait until Muir's report is in ... i.e. until us peasants have been bludgeoned by a small disaster into believing them.
Looks like the IoP is getting pitched against them again - they say nothing to worry about, we are world leaders. At what though?
How can they get away with saying that both are *unequivocal*: gw is happening and gw is caused by man???
They are all reading from the same script. They will be hugging each other soon as they are three clones.
Well, dera Bishop, I damn well missed it - having eventually got the stream, had to rush out to the bank and, when I came back, it was over. I know the clunking apparatus at the BBC takes a while to upload and ready a livestream, but will an humble UK citizen be able to see it, again?
NASA and NOAA studies arre "independent"?
You should have called them the three weaselling cheerleaders.
Watson now agrees with Slingo that the IPCC is beyond reproach, and everything in the IPCC reports was peer reviewed ...
What twaddle! This in itself is an embarrassment for British science.
What Universities did these people go to?!
Umm.. no crisis in confidence in scientific method?? Who's the denier now??
Sorry, browser I use (opera mini on a microemulator) prevents re-editing mistakes - I meant 'dear', of course
Anybody keeping count of the number of "robust"?
Sounds like the IPCC is gold-plated science. Message to self. Calm down.
despite the errors falling out of AR4, it's still the most robust science on the planet. Unusual viewpoint.
Consensus BS.
They agree its important to get data out now - no more secrecy - who has been saying this for years? er not these world leaders, they've only just realised the need in the last 3 months for some reason ;)
I don't quite understand - your commentating on this - your last comment 10 minutes ago - and yet BBC parliament live is not showing it? Is it my ISP or is it over?
So Beddington thinks that state funding of course has no influence on the research outcome! Especially when there is such an overwhelming evidence already ...
@Lewis
I think some people are getting feeds at different times now because there was a 10 minute drop out fro some people about 40 miins ago
Sorry - got it!
Aww - the hockey stick doesn't matter, says Watson, its us humans who are guilty of AGW - there ye have it.
And its resolved anyway, he says.
These three are again dazzling with B.S. of the AGW kind.
Not answering the question about the hockey stick, diverting to other issues.
Amusing to see them squirm on the hockey stick and its "resolution" - sad to see careers end in this train wreck.
Notice Slingo and the beardy talking about the Hockey Stick and saying it is now "fully resolved" in the peer reviewed literature.
Three stage painters come on in the final act to whitewash the backdrop, the IPCC prop and anything else they can find.
Bob Watson: Apparently the Hockey Stick is fully resolved. That's that sorted then.
Watson just spilled the beans (yes, I found the links a few posts back). He admitted that GHG + Aerosals + urbanization are the factors combined by IPCC and others to claim a majority of the 'warming' is human driven. But how much is GHG alone?
More hide the decline, but at least he exposed the game here
Watson - First a Bit dismissive saying Hockey stick is an "interesting idea" - but then says "i think it is a fully resolved issue" he's not sure?
Wow, you seem to type the summary commentary before I even hear it on my viewer.
Remarkable....
RR
They test the code twice a day! Is she even vaguely aware of the Harry_Read_Me file?
Slinger (sp?) is throwing BS around about 100's thousands of lines of code with errors. She should see what we do in NASA with 100's of millions of lines of code without errors.
She admitted they are in over their professional capabilities.
hah, Slingo said the climate model code is same as weather forecasts. Explains that bbq summer and mild winter I guess.
ruhroh,
Speed of light time delay between UK and US (I assume you are in the US)
Graham Stringer is asking good questions...
GCM models tested in weather forecasts twice a day indeed - Prof. Julia's software testing is not going to convince anyone - and she even ended with the word 'robust'...
Slingo didn't put the software out until after Climategate, note. Nor did the Met Office request permission to release the underlying data until AFTER Climategate. They didn't when they were requested. They didn't when the FOIA requests came in. They waited until Climategate.
She's sitting there, selling it like it was a PROACTIVE move on their part! Argh!!
Slingo not answering the question re code errors. Use of codes does not find errors. Detailed verifiication and validation together with good software development procedures are necessary.
They are conflating the Met Office code with CRU code, deliberately methinks,
Slingo: Climate models - Hundreds of thousands of lines long Code used - same used for daily forecast? Shamelessly comparing apples and oranges, surely.
Noticed another "Robust" there too :)
Slingo says the code is tested twice daily - and is given out to academic institutions and commercially to other Met offices, like Australia, India, South Korea etc.
So this is clearly indicating why AGW is happening everywhere: same warming programme is being run by other Met offices.
According to Prog Slingo they use the same code to forecast the weather as to make climate predictions so that "they're tested twice a day". (a) I thought that we are regularly told that "climate isn't weather" and (b) they're weather forecastat are bloody hopeless more than a couple of days out...
They "test the code twice a day as they use it for weather forecasting".
Well the Met Office gets the forecast wrong every time.
QED.
Code and Data must come out with the conclusions and claims. These people work on TINY data sets and are struggling
Prof. Beddington, regarding one climate - why not show that the GCMs can actually predict 2000-2010?
Beddington says replication is not possible because there is only 1 climate - but the whole thrust of SteveM and others is replication of the methodologies. This requires open data and published code.
Beddington?
Any relation to the man in charge of a team of 300 "scientists" who advocate moving people from London to Dumfries & Galloway?
Surely not the sane-and-balanced Beddington whose committee proposes turning Heathrow into a reservoir?
Glad to see that the Institute of Physics has made a submission asking searching and pertinent questions. Sounds like a schism between real science and... er... (witty label required)? Physicists: "What? My brother??? Nah, never saw 'im before."