Bishop Hill Stringer grills Willetts
Jul 27, 2010 Climate: CRU Climate: Parliament In the video in the last post, there was reference to the evidence given by Science Minister, David Willetts some days ago, which apparently again touched on the Climategate affair, and once again at the prompting of questions from Graham Stringer.
The video is here, with Stringer's questions beginning at 41:55. He starts by asking about the reputation of British science, with discussion covering subjects like the BSE scare, MMR vaccines and the like. At around 46:00 conversation turns to Climategate, with Stringer asking about the impact on the reputation of British science.
Willetts' responses suggest:
- that scientists have been cleared of many of the allegations
- that there are lessons to be learned - data should be available to the wider public
- the conduct of the scientists passes muster on the basis of three independent inquiries and that the science therefore stands.
Good to see no caveats about the availability of the data and also interesting to note that he says that the scientists have been cleared of "many" of the allegations. Perhaps I'm reading too much into that, given his later responses though.
However, it's very hard to credit that a minister of the crown would be persuaded that the panels were independent and that the science stands - how would we know when it hasn't been examined? My impression is that the civil service are playing Willetts like a fiddle.
Reader Comments (9)
So much for 'two brains' then! Still, it might be worth drawing Willetts' attention to the problem (that no science was checked, despite the Oxburgh brief) - I suspect he would be genuinely surprised.
I fear that Willetts is a true believer in AGW. I have asked him to consider a review of the science before continuing with the current policy. He did not even give me a reply.
Well it's a bull fiddle, at that.
It's my understanding that Peter Lilley (Physics, Cambridge) is the only senior Conservative MP to have expressed any doubts about CAGW.
http://www.peterlilley.co.uk/article.aspx?id=10&ref=1421
Woodentop
That's right. And Lilley was the only one in the house who had the temerity to ask how much the Climate Change Act 2008 would cost. (He didn't get an answer) Don't forget that this piece of legislation, the most pointless and the most expensive in the history of the UK, as Lord Lawson characterised it in the Lords, was passed with only three MPs against.
I keep meaning to check in Hansard who the other two nasty deniers were.
I nightly dream of these incompetent clowns being held to account.
As Roy Spencer puts it in his excellent book "The Great Global Warming Blunder":-
"While relatively wealthy and environmentally conscious Westerners can deal with the higher food prices that result from diverting some of our food supply into liquid fuels, green energy policies will push many of the world's poor who are already malnourished into starvation. Many Westerners are able to absorb the extra costs of CO2 regulation that must inevitably be passed on to the consumer, but the war on global warming will increasingly become a war on the poor."
I think this quote is absolutely correct and deserves to be given prominence.
Martin Brumby
"I keep meaning to check in Hansard who the other two nasty deniers were."
Go to http://tinyurl.com/39nqabw and scroll to the bottom of the page.
A link on the right hand side explains how tellers are accounted for.
According to
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2008-10-28&number=298&display=allvotes
The No votes on the third reading were cast by Christhopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and Ann Widdecombe - all Conservative.
Graham Stringer and John Redwood, to name but two, did not vote.
Andrew Tyrie is now chair of the HoC Treasury Committee, replacing John McFall; this is a powerful committee.
I listened to the Science and Technology Committee session with Lord Rees when Stringer posed his questions. I noted that Stringer said, in his opening comment, that Willetts was wrong to say that the science is vindicated. Rees contested the point arguing that the science was not severely under question. This conflates the argument about the science, which Oxburgh says he did not look at, with the Oxburgh finding that the scientists were not guilty of unprofessional conduct.
I conclude that the conflation of these two separate issues is the media strategy adopted by the RS and government ministers to persuade the public that all is well.
I can remember Stringer as the leader of Manchester City Council, where he was a real member of the 'Loony Left'. He seems to have come to his senses since then though. BTW he's a Chemistry BSc., so that might explain his scepticism!
"the conduct of the scientists passes muster on the basis of three independent inquiries and that the science therefore stands."
I take exception to this. The implication is that the quality of the science is determined by the charachter and conduct of the scientist rather than the ability to withstand the scrutiny and challenges of other learned and impartial experimenters.
The reputation of a scientist is no guarantees of the veracity of the science.