Parliamentary dates

A few interesting bits and pieces on the climate-in-Parliament front.

While I was away on my break, the Energy and Climate Change Committee announced that it is to have an inquiry into the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report.

The most recent – the fifth assessment report (AR5) – has begun to be published. The first instalment of the report, Climate change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, was published on Friday 27 September. A total of 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed to the preparation of Working Group I AR5. The report concluded that, ‘it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.’ But it reduced the lower bound for likely climate sensitivity and for the first time did not publish a best estimate of it because of lack of agreement

The IPCC has been influential in providing the justification for national and international action to prevent dangerous climate change. It has however, come under criticism that it is overly influenced by national political agendas and that it has not satisfactorily addressed the recent pause in global warming nor the InterAcademy criticisms of AR4 and other issues.

This inquiry will explore the latest conclusions of the IPCC, the extent to which the conclusions are robust, and their impact on national and international policy making.

I fancy that this will be a waste of time because evidence will be taken only from "the usual suspects".

Talking of which, the committee has also announced that it is to take evidence on the Economics of Climate Change from Lord Stern on Tuesday at 9:30am. This is slightly odd since the committee doesn't actually have an inquiry into the economics of climate change at the moment. One wonders if this is a reaction to the spread of the good news that climate change is likely to be beneficial for small amounts of climate change. We can't have that! Call in the usual suspects!

And at 10:15am on Wednesday 6th, Mark Walport is up in front of the Science and Technology Committee as part of the public understanding of climate change inquiry.

Comments

[Roy]

I wonder if the Energy and Climate Change Committee will invite Piers Corbyn to be questioned at the inquiry? He has issued a statement on the IPCC AR5 at his website.

A Cowardly cover-up and a disgrace to Science
http://weatheraction.com/docs/WANews13No39.pdf

[PM Walsh]

Piers had better watch out.

The Pope might decide to excommunicate him!

PM

[Disko Troop]

Call in the high priests to bless the sinking ship.

[Cheshirered]

@ Roy

Piers Corbyn will be vindicated as a remarkable man compared to todays climate shysters. He's got them totally nailed with his predictions, often weeks in advance, that, blow me down, are usually accurate.

Accurate forecasting then - no wonder the climate lobby / Met Office ignore him.

[Disko Troop]

Just as an aside.... I have noticed out in the real world beyond the hallowed halls of parliament, the MSM and the blogosphere, that in the on going fight against the wind weasels there has been a shift of tactics. We now get the " fossil fuels are running out...we must change to renewables now." rather than the "Fossil fuels are destroying the planet with CO2 emissions"...global warming and all that.

It is noticeable that they no longer feel able to defend global warming as an excuse in local radio, papers, and social media.

The weekly reaffirmation service in parliament is pretty irrelevant to people on the front line trying to push back against the unholy alliance of high powered venture capitalists and tree hugging eco-loons.

Ivor Ward

[Justice4Rinka]

That thing of Piers Corbyn's is appalling. Block capitals, shouty bolding, exclamation marks, colour scheme apparentrly inspired by pre-schoolers' TV, grammatical solecisms....Jesus.

What is required is a much more measured tone.

[michael hart]

Is there a unified list of those 600+ contributing authors and the 32 countries they hail from?

[stewgreen]

Ex- Aussie PM lecture TUESDAY, London ..H/T Andrew Bolt
Mr Howard will deliver the 2013 Annual GWPF Lecture on 5 November at 7pm at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, One Birdcage Walk, Westminster, London SW1H 9JJ.

Title: “One Religion Is Enough: How Alarmists Have Hijacked The Climate Debate.”

[geoffchambers]

Since the committee mentions the criticisms of AR5, they must surely invite some critics to give evidence. Can’t His Grace offer his services? And what about Paul Matthews, who has a whole blog devoted to the IPCC?
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/

[Sherlock1]

Justice 4Rinka..

Re Piers Corbyn...

'What is required is a much more measured tone.'

I disagree. For too long we on this side of the argument have gone for careful argument; facts based on real measurements; and logical discussion.

Now is the time to address the CAGW argument thus: 'ITS ALL B*LL*CKS...!'

Just sayin'...

[bill]

Yes I've noticed the 'fossil fuels are running out therefore....' argument has been popping up more often lately. However I think that one will be a hard sell. Despite gloomy 'peak oil' predictions, we seem to be finding and drilling more and more of the stuff, in more and more places; lots of gas and coal about too - doesn't even the UK have something like 300 years of coal reserves? But its a definite shift. Decarbonisation formerly was all about the grandkiddies amd saving the planet, now its just a practical response to (alleged) impending shortages of carbon fuel. Quite a switch.

[Woodsy42]

I am rather fond of Piers Corbyn's 'tell it like it is' honest approach. there are plenty of corporate yes men and very few honest people around the debate. However his presentation skills and web page layout and design are definitely not his strong point and probably detract from his message.

[Dolphinlegs]

Bish

you will no doubt have seen that a Commons Select Cttee has an enquiry on AR5 and on the face of it is asking all the right questions

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/news/ipcc---tor/

looks like a good opportunity for a crowd sourced response

[Willis Eschenbach]

Bishop, you say:

I fancy that this will be a waste of time because evidence will be taken only from "the usual suspects".

I don't know if they will read them, but at least they are <u>asking</u> for written submissions on a range of questions, viz:

How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report? Have the IPCC adequately addresses criticisms of previous reports? How much scope is there to question of the report’s conclusions?
To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?
Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?
How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms ? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?
Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models?
Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?
Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?
What implications do the IPCC’s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?
Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focussed on providing a justification for political commitment?
To what extent did political intervention influence the final conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis summary?
Is the rate at which the UK Government intends to cut CO2 emissions appropriate in light of the findings of the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report?
What relevance do the IPCC’s conclusions have in respect of the review of the fourth Carbon Budget?

You also say:

This is slightly odd since the committee doesn't actually have an inquiry into the economics of climate change at the moment.

They must be reading Bishop Hill, they now have one <u>here</u> … dated 1 November.

All the best,
w.