Tuesday
Nov052013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill What's all this then?
Nov 5, 2013 Climate: Parliament Climate: Sceptics 
Posted under "Debates" on the TheyWorkForYou website comes this notice about the Energy and Climate Change Committee:
That Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Energy and Climate Change Committee and Graham Stringer be added.
The motion seems to have been discussed last night.
Reader Comments (15)
At least he is a bit more skeptical about the CRU than Gardiner seems to be. From Wikipedia:-
"As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, Stringer participated in the investigation into the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (“Climategate”) in March 2010, questioning Professor Jones closely on transparency[11] and other issues;in the five-member group producing the report he voted against the other three voting members on every vote, representing a formulation more critical of the CRU and climate scientists.[12] Stringer was the only MP on the committee with a scientific background.[13]
In a 2011 op-ed, Stringer criticized the British inquiries into the CRU email controversy, writing that the controversy "demanded independent and objective scrutiny of the science by independent panels. This did not happen." [14]"
Climate Change: What We Know and What We Don‘t
with Dr Murry Salby
Former Professor at Atmospheric & Oceanic studies
Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, Australia, 2008-2013
Piers Corbyn on the IPCC AR5 report
Weather Action Long Range Weather & Climate Forecasting
Come to the House of Commons
Committee Room 14
1.30pm-3.30pm Wed 6 November 2013
All welcome book a free ticket now https://repealclimatelaw.eventbrite.co.uk/
Seminar arranged by Graham Stringer Labour MP
Hmmm... an MP that had a day job doing something technical - a rare beast.
Bit of balance for David Tredinnik then :-)
Very good news.
He's been added
His photo also appears on the Energy and Climate Change page.
surprised Bish, hasn't mentioned last nights Lords vote against delaying closure of coal power stations..We need to keep to our carbon targets ..(like as if the rest of world like Germany is bothering)
Gardiner seems to have gone from 2 committees
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/barry-gardiner/146
Gardiner has been promoted to Shadow Minister (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
This is good news.The membership page still says Gardiner (presumably it will soon change) but as Terry says the photos page has Stringer. This means there are now two sceptics on the committee, making it perhaps more worthwhile to submit careful well-argued documents to the committee's inquiry into AR5.
Back in June we were told that Tim Yeo was going to stand down as chair, following the Sunday Times sting and various revelations of green troughing. What happened there? Did I miss the thorough investigation that completely exonerated him of any wrongdoing or conflict of interest?
And with Tim Yeo remaining un-reselected by his local party...
And relating to a previous post, wiki informs us that Stringer is a chemist!
Stern is a charlatan. He knows he has misrepresented key data.
I wrote to him last year (see below) sent by recorded delivery.
Not even an acknowledgement.
Lord Stern of Brentford
House of Lords
London SW1A 0PW.
25th April, 2012.
Dear Lord Stern.
Your Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006) concluded that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change far outweigh the costs of not acting. In particular your Review points to the potential negative impacts of climate change on water resources, food production, health, and the environment. Not surprisingly it has had a profound effect on Government Policy since.
As a plant physiologist I am particularly interested in your conclusion that high temperatures impact adversely on agricultural production. As an example you show how high temperatures result in marked reductions in yield on cool-season crops. This is illustrated in Figure 3.4 of your Review.
This figure is quoted as been taken from Wheeler et al. (1996). However on reading this paper it is apparent that Figure 3.4 is not a full description of the findings which are presented in Fig. 11 of Wheeler’s paper.
This figure shows the relationship between the number of grains per ear, and the maximum half-hourly temperature in the 5-day period ending at anthesis for crops grown at current, 380-390 umol.mol-1 CO2, (open triangles) and elevated, 684-713 umol.mol-1 CO2 (filled triangles)
It is clear from the original figure that any adverse effect of elevated temperature is entirely compensated for when accompanied by elevated CO2. Exactly the conditions which are projected in the future. Data that is missing from the figure in your Review.
Do you not agree that removal of this data paints a misleading and overly pessimistic picture of future agricultural productivity?
I await your comments with interest.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller (MA, PhD, Cantab).
Appears to be part of a large batch of replacements in a series of committees. The Hansard record simply introduces the list with
' Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing):
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 17 together. Ordered'
There is no record of any discussions about them, as far as I can see.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131104/debtext/131104-0003.htm#131104-0003.htm_spnew0
Words that must be spoken ... again.
Graham Stringer:
"There are proposals to increase worldwide taxation by up to a trillion dollars on the basis of climate science predictions. This is an area where strong and opposing views are held. The release of the e-mails from CRU at the University of East Anglia and the accusations that followed demanded independent and objective scrutiny by independent panels. This has not happened. The composition of the two panels hasbeen criticised for having members who were over identified with the views of CRU. Lord Oxburgh as President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and Chairman of Falck Renewable appeared to have a conflict of interest. Lord Oxburgh himself was aware that this might lead to criticism. Similarly Professor Boulton as an ex colleague of CRU seemed wholly inappropriate to be a member of the Russell panel. No reputable scientist who was critical of CRU’s work was on the panel, and prominent and distinguished critics were not interviewed. The Oxburgh panel did not do as our predecessor committee had been promised, investigate the science, but only looked at the integrity of the researchers. With the exception of Professor Kelly’s notes other notes taken by members of the panel have not been published. This leaves a question mark against whether CRU science is reliable. The Oxburgh panel also did not look at CRU’s controversial work on the IPPC which is what has attracted most [serious] allegations. Russell did not investigate the deletion of e-mails. We are now left after three investigations without a clear understanding of whether or not the CRU science is compromised."
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/1/25/words-that-must-remain-unspoken.html