Another SciTech hearing

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is to hold another hearing about the public understanding of climate. There are one or two familiar names:

Wednesday 17 July 2013

Committee Room 15, Palace of Westminster

At 9.30 am

• David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC
• Ralph Lee, Head of Factual, Channel 4
• Fiona Ball, Head of Environment and Engagement, BSkyB Limited

At 10.30 am

• Ros Donald, Carbon Brief
• Andrew Montford, Bishop Hill Blog
• James Painter, Head of the Journalism Fellowship Programme, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism

At this point it's hard to work out what the committee will be looking at. I get the impression that it's mainly going to be about media coverage rather than anything more substantial. I suppose that we can travel in hope that the BBC will be asked about 28Gate or that Climategate gets discussed. But not in expectation.

Comments

[Ruth Dixon]

From the Committee's Terms of Reference

In July 2011, the Foresight programme’s report into the International Dimensions of Climate Change stated:

Recent polling suggests that scepticism about climate change has increased, alongside diminished concern for its effects. In 2006, 81% of surveyed UK citizens were fairly or very concerns [sic] about climate change compared with 76% in 2009 in an identical tracking survey.

Foresight cautions that “should scepticism continue to increase, democratic governments are likely to find it harder to convince voters to support costly environmental policies aimed at mitigation of, or adaptation to, climate change.”

And in 2013 DECC found that 68% of people support wind farms with only 11% opposed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10027700/Wind-farms-only-opposed-by-10-per-cent-of-people-Government-claims.html

So which policies does Parliament think are possible with 81% public support that are not possible with 76% support?

These are huge majorities in favour of the consensus - if the government wants to carry out climate policies they have a clear mandate to do so. Are they using a very minor swing of public opinion (hardly more than the error on the measurement) as an excuse not to do so? Blaming a rise in scepticism looks like scapegoating to me.

[MikeHaseler]

I did a philosophy module whilst doing my science degree.

A more pertinent question would be for the committee to ask about the scientists understanding of science.

Also ... I would ask the question of the committee whether they trust scientists? If so would they prefer their drugs were proscribed* by bio-medical scientists or by a doctor/pharmacist who has never done research on that drug?

Knowing science ... and knowing how to use science are two very different skill sets. Engineers and every politicians are skilled at using science. We ask politicians to make policy decisions based on science not scientists. We ask engineers to use scientific principles to build structures - not scientists. We ask GPs to prescribe drugs not bio-medical scientists.

So why on earth do climate "scientists" think they should be setting the policy on climate, telling us how to engineer a solution and prescribing the cure for the earth's "sickness"?

[*prescribed?? BH]

[richard verney]

Your Grace,

There are many suggestions set out above dealing with points to raise. But in my opinion, one of the fundamental points, is that set out by TonyB at WUWT He commented:

"A couple of years ago I wrote ‘The futility of Carbon reduction’ Very much on the same theme as this post by Willis

“It seems that the UK government is expecting to spend about £32 billion, (~2.2% of UK GDP), according to the Stern Review [1], every year for the foreseeable future in order to achieve by the year 2100 at the absolute maximum global temperature reduction of ~0.0019°C, (less than 2 thousandths of a degree Centigrade). This temperature reduction would have to involve the total elimination of all future UK CO2 emissions. Any lesser goal for reduction as proposed could only be even less effective temperature wise. The Stern review was released in 2006, so as ever with government budgets the sum will have escalated since. If the UK is proposing to spend £32 billion ($50 billion) per annum to partially influence ~1.7% of world CO2 emissions, it means that the equivalent global spend could be as much as ~$3,000 billion per annum for the foreseeable future. At present this would amount to about ~4.5% of the global GDP, ($69,000 billion) to achieve a reduction in temperature for the whole World of 0.11 °C about 1/10 degree Centigrade, on the basis that all future CO2 emissions were eliminated.”

http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/

I subsequently contacted 12 leading climate scientists to ask for their confirmation as to the effect our herculean efforts would make to this highly theoretical (and lets not forget that) effect on global temperatures.

4 didn’t bother to reply another 4 blustered but basically agreed the trivial reduction figures were correct but that it was a good thing anyway, and another four said they hadn’t even done the calculations anyway and didn’t intend to.

I don’t want to hijack this excellent thread by Willis but it seems to me that Willis or Anthony could –if they thought it worthwhile-usefully issue a challenge to climate scientists to either refute the figures, deny them or justify them by way of an article here.

I’m not holding my breath though that there would be any response. Those that know the answer don’t care and those that haven’t done the calculations don’t care either.
However, perhaps an even more useful thread might try to determine how we get these figures out into the MSM."

The upshot of this comment is that even if CO2 has the effects that 'leading' climate scientists' claim then the efffect of the UK's climate policy will be to reduce global temperatures merely by ~0.0019°C, (less than 2 thousandths of a degree Centigrade).

To achieve this reduction in global temperature it is going to cost the tax payer an estimated £32billion each year. The effect of higher energy costs on industrial competitiveness will be immense, likely resulting in job losses and hence additional welfare payments. The costs of higher energy is pushing more and more into fuel poverty, and even leading to thousands of premature deaths each year. This scenario can only detiorate as energy prices escalate due to government's current policy. Recently the head of Scottish & Southern Energy acknowledged that electricity prices are already double the cost of supply, because of UK energy policy. He was quite clear that the cost of supply of electricity makes up no more than one half the bill total. The other half is made up by subsidies and extra costs associated with renewable, subsidies with home insulation (and the like) and helping those in fuel poverty. This is the position before the indroduction of the carbon floor price. It will not be long before electricity prices will be three times the cost of supply and this is all because of government policy.

Further, it is unlikely that anything the UK does will result in global temperatures being reduced since whatever the UK does is being more than off-set by China, India and the other developing nations. China is building between 1 to 2 new coal fired power stations every week!

Now is the £32billion being spent annually, money well spent given so little real achievement (i.e a temperature reduction of no more than 2 thousands of a degreeC)?

This polcy becomes even more ridiculous if climate sensitivity is less than the IPCC suggested in AR4. Recent studies suggest that the IPCC figure in AR4 is too high and it appears that in AR5 a somewhat lower figure will be used. The recent 16 to 22 year temperature stasis suggest that climate sensitivity is lower than was porposed in AR4. If climate sensitivity is lower, then the temperature reduction will be even less, perhaps more like one thousand of a degreeC.

Note that Tony contacted 12 'leading' climate scientists and not one refuted his figures and all those who were prepared to look at the figures and do the calculation agreed that the reduction in temperature was piffling.

As energy bills begin to further escalate, the financial impacts of the policy will be looked at by the press/MSM. The press/MSM have a role to play in bringing to the attention of the public the full financial implications of the government policy (icluding the adverse effect on industrial competitiveness and the early premature deaths) and at this stage the public will scrutinise whether a bill of £32billion annually represents money well spent when at best it will achieve no more than a global temperature reduction of two thousands of a degree.

I also consider the committee should be told about the premature death toll. I seem to recall a figure of 20,000 to 40,000 for the past few winters (you need to check the data). So far this has slipped under the radar. This is a public disgrace. The news regularly carries stories when there is a multple car collission, or coach accident claiming the lifes of a handful of people, and yet 20,000 or more premature deaths goes by almost completely unremarked, slipping under the radar. It is inevitable that sooner or later, the MSM will pick up on this and when it does, the government will be in for a very uncomfortable ride. The government needs to consider how it will respond to such stories once they begin to gain traction as is inevitably the case given ever increasingly unaffordable energy and more and more being pushed into fuel poverty.

[osseo]

Presumably this hearing will be open to the public. Anyone free and local might like to turn up (I can't, I shall be overseas). Or it may be watchable via the Internet. Unnecessary to say - but anyone who does turn up must behave respectfully and not barrack.

[omnologos]

I would talk only about CAGW.

There are many issues to consider in the world and one might as well be climate change/AGW. The only problem with the current situation is if AGW=CAGW then every other issue becomes irrelevant.

Anything the esteemed MPs can think of is nothing compared to CAGW: feeding and schooling children, dealing with unemployment, repaying the national debt, providing a good health care service, cleaning up the environment, even protecting species. All of those become side issues _automatically and necessarily_ once people start believing in the C part of CAGW.

This is what makes the rise of skepticism a necessity. It's a way of protecting our dear planet, society, animals, plants, fellow human beings from the onslaught of those who, in order to avoid catastrophe, are well prepared to do anything.

And by that, I mean exactly "anything". See how many environmental and social catastrophes are already being cause by the push to move away from fossil fuels. The Bish should have a long portfolios of those to present.