Bishop Hill Bishop in the commons
Jul 17, 2013 Climate: Parliament Climate: Sceptics Well that went OK, I thought. The questions were fair and touched on many of the issues that are of concern to those of us in the sceptic community.Those readers who have been suggesting sceptic talking points that I could work in to my answers may be pleased therefore, although I had decided that I would concentrate on trying to answer their questions as best I could.
It would have been helpful to have had Sarah Newton's question, which revealed something of the committee's objectives, at the start of the hearing rather than at the end. It seems that the government is looking to find a way to persuade everyone that the science of global warming is solid so that we accept the IPCC report without question. I can't see that happening. If you want to convince someone a report is solid, you really need it to actually be solid in the first place. There's a long way to go before that happens.
I think I'm right in saying that this is the first time a sceptic has been heard in the SciTech committee since GWPF were invited to the Climategate hearings. I hope they learned something from it. Judging from the look on some of their faces when I was talking about sea ice, what I said was certainly new to them.
[Updated - I'd misidentified Sarah Newton as Sarah Wollaston]
Bishop Hill
The transcript is here.
Reader Comments (120)
Geoff:
Bringing to mind another dimension to Andrew's performance: did he leave any obvious low-hanging fruit for alarmist nit-pickers to use against him? I can't think of anything at all. But it may be wise to wait and see what's the worst they can come up with.
Well done Andrew, you played it very well. You must have felt that you were talking to some sort of alien species. They are so wrapped up in their climate change bubble that they really seem to find it strange that there are “sceptics” out there who don’t accept the so-called consensus. Your final point left them so stunned that I’m not sure they even took it in: “until it is recognised that we are spending a lot of money to no useful end, we are not going to get anywhere [in getting the public on board].”
Well done Bish
Having played it through I think your comment:-
is a salient point.
The questions was (paraphrased) "what do we do in the run up to the report" was not with an aim for ensuring any balance in the media, but more of what can we do now to ensure acceptance.
Reminds me of the quote from the chairman of the first Science and Technology Committee - Climategate "Inquiry"
Proved innocent before any investigation, just as AR5 is now presumed, before publication, to be correct in all aspects leaving the politicos concentrating on the only outstanding issue they have - how to sell it to the masses.
Whereas due diligence dictates that you await publication, send in "The Red Team" (nice one Bish!) before even commenting upon the contents!
Yes, Andrew, it went well. Others have touched on the difficulties you faced - you overcame them nicely. And you did so especially by presenting a calm, courteous, listening, well informed persona (the opposite of how sceptics are caricatured). I doubt if that would have been possible had you tried to dispute the 97%, consensus, etc. issues. I was especially amused by your suggesting that you might like the opportunity to put "into context" some of the claims made by the commentators so admired by Ms Donald.
Richard Drake - OK ... I'll rise to the bait. I'm sure that the reason policy (especially international policy) scepticism was missing in Painter's otherwise clever taxonomy is that it's hardly ever discussed. Perhaps that's because it's independent of their beloved "science" so the Establishment doesn't know how to deal with it.
Andrew,
You were superb. Head and shoulders above the others. Thanks for doing this.
Richard Drake
You incurable romantic sucker for a pretty face you!
But indeed what a pretty face it was, made all the more attractive by the hesitant ums and ers and the fluttering eyelashes, go for it Richard ^.^
Robin:
I agree. I've also been thinking much about what you wrote on Sunday's event. We need to reset the agenda with this at the forefront. Thank you.
Dung: Liable as I am to being slapped round the head by my better half if your interpretation gains credence I can only agree that the nervousness and hesitancy of Ms Donald added to whatever charm there otherwise was. But I will stick by my guns and say that I felt there was an honesty and a lack of malevolence towards 'deniers' not often to be found in the oeuvre of Mr Bob Ward, say. In fact based on her answers today I don't think Donald would ever use the word denier. But I've been disappointed in the past :)
Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatt - I'm afraid I must agree with matt. It was bloody boring for most of the time and all it did for me was reinforce the impression that "The Science is Settled".
The comments on the forthcoming IPCC report suggest it's all about getting your ducks in a row, because nothing's going to change. The reports I've read about the leaked preliminary report suggest there's a lot for warmists to worry about. Will the final report be doctored to smooth over these issues? Of course it will.
The immediate problem the government faces is not the science but rather the policy. It may take many years before the science becomes more clarified. No one can predict the future but there are many factors that are coming together which suggests that temperatures may not rise (or at last not in a significant way) for a decade or more. If that occurs, then as time passes, the divergence between model projections and reality will widen and gradually bit by bit, the science will be questions and there will be a re-eaxmination of the role of CO2 and in particular a re-assessment of climate sensitivity. However, that is in the future, such that the government can kick into the long grass the science issue.
But as stated at the outset, the problem is one of policy. Irrespective of the science, the policy is misconceived and the effect of the policy is just beginning to kick in with greatly escalating fuel prices and about to experience energy rationing. Even if the lighst do not go off for the consumer, this will be because of cuts back imposed upon industrial heavy users of energy and/or the ad hoc expensive and polluting generation using standby diesel generators. Into economic environment high energy costs is a killer 9quite literally). Add to this mix, the shale gas revolution that has and is taking place in the US. The upshot of this is that the government can expect ever increasing number of press stories looking art the high costs of energy and the effect of this on the consumer. Power brown outs will make good copy especially as this will have an impact on trade balance and struggling growth in the economy. Parallels will be drawn with the US who has cut back CO2 emissionsin real terms by the switch to shale gas. In contrast windturbines and biomass are mere window dressing and do not result in lower CO2 emissions (ideed biomass produces more CO2 and it is only via creative accountant that the impression that CO2 is being saved is given).
The UK energy policy is mad. Billions are being spent with no real term benefits. At best, if we were to roll out windfarms as the government projects, it will result in keeping temperatures down by a mere thousands (or so0 of a degree.
People are already dying as a consequence of the UK energy policy. Over the last few winters tens of thousands of premature deaths were recorded. Whatever might be happening globally, as far as the UK is concerned, it appears that the UK is cooling. This century CET has fallen by about 0.5degC and winter temperartures by some 1.5degC. The prospects are that the UK will continue for some years to come to experience cooler winters (cooler than the 1980 to 2010 norm). There is a story in the pipeline just like the recent stories regarding avidable deaths and hospital failings in the NHS. The NHS is a government sacred cow. So is green/global warming. Just like these stories relating to the NHS are beginning to gain traction and the public is becoming aware of a scandal, a similar story will emerge in relation to UK energy policy and the thosands of vulnerable people who are dying prematurely because of the low standard of living (UK pensions are very much below the EC norm) and the high cost of energy. There are some wealthy pensioners, but there are many more who are not and as energy prices double as they will within the next 5 years, one can expect to see this death toll rise and for MSM to pick up on the scandal.
This is a problem for government, far more than the problem with the NHS. The problems facing the NHS are negligence and poor management. However, as far as energy is concerned, it has been the deliberate policy of government to drive up the cost of energy so as to reduce energy consumption. The outcome of this policy directly envisages that people will not be able to afford to use energy and therefore not able to heat their homes as they would like. It is clearly foreseeable that this will result in deaths of the vulnerable and poor. The government will not be able to argue that this was an unexpected and unforeseeable consequence of their policy. There will be no where for the government to hide.
As these stories come out, the science will also be looked at. Most people may be unable to evaluate the science, and probaly can easily be hood winked by experts. However, most people will be able to see that UK energy policy is mad, irrespectie of the science. Within the next few years, the jig is up for UK energy policy and whoever is in government at that time will be in for a very rough time, the only saving grace is that they can argue that it was not a party political decision, all parties were behind the policy.
Irt amazes me that politicians can still not see what is about to unfold before them as the pack of cards collapses.
So Ros ummed and erred a lot and what's that got to do with what anything?
Perhaps she was nervous maybe that's just the way she speaks.
What she said made perfect sense if one actually listened to her rather than marking her down or even mocking her for her delivery. Whether I agreed with her position,or not , affected my regard for her undoubted honesty and intellect not one teensy, weensy little bit.
It was the cocky, ad-hom, echo-chamber of RC that guided me to look at sceptical blogs
I hope that denizens of this blog are not getting too cocky!
@ Dung 10.41. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say. I think I would prefer a fur bikinied Streatham lass me sel'......
RoyFOMR: Couldn't agree more.
Well I would have been quite happy to look at Ros Donald while listening to the Bish :)
Ros was free of the tired old Bobwardian belligerence and was instead quite charming. Although obviously her opinion differs from mine, I didn't find its delivery insufferable.
I think Ward's had his day. Nobody wants to listen to him any more. His invective has grown tiresome and he's worn out his welcome.
I thought Bish did an excellent job. Some of the questions were a little tangential and I think that probably made it difficult to answer concisely or in short. I am absolutely sure that I would have needed a great deal more time to form as good responses as the Bish provided. I thought he did extremely well and made many a salient point. Well done.
Sarah Wollaston? There is a Sarah on the committee, but she's Sarah Newton.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/membership/
Agree with some of the other posters, you came across very well. Unfortunately I find it frustrating that the two fellow invitees on either side of you were typical of the main stream consensus types, unwilling to really answer any questions directly and clearly. Both were wafflers. In fact the whole meeting came across as so very polite and "english". Don't ask any direct questions for fear of hearing something you don't want to know. Unfortunately , as the woman at the end (Sarah Wollaston I assume) quite clearly articulated, this ain't an issue on which you can fanny around about. It's costing us a bunch of $$$s and alot of us aren't too happy about how both the media and the politicians are handling it right now.
Well done, Bish.
But I think it is Richard Verney at 11:25 pm above who has the best argument.
This is what needs to be pointed out again and again and again, especially as winter tempearures fall.
Government is directly culpable and they will have nowhere to hide.
Bish, you did extremely well. I'm not just saying that to proffer moral support: I really mean it. In very difficult circumstances where you had to answer the questions asked, you managed to make some important and telling points. Your greatest asset is a natural believability and unquestionable sincerity. Just carry on being like that, and you will make your points optimally. Once again, very well done, sir!
The other comment I'd make is that, only a short time ago, we wouldn't have heard warmists talk openly about uncertainties or acknowledge the fact that there is a wide range of sceptical viewpoints. Things are markedly different now. There's much more hope that sanity will prevail earlier rather than later.
The question no one asked is "why should scientists be trusted more than e.g. engineers?"
The simple answer is that there is nothing about science which means it should be trusted more than a similar profession like engineering.
So what is it about British culture and particularly groups like the BBC and politicians which means that they want to hold in depth discussion about the trustworthiness of Science and couldn't care less about engineering?
Scientists are just human. Some are good some are not. They are no better nor worse than any other group from engineers to journalists to pharmacists. So why do we in the UK feel we need to put this group on some kind of pedestal?
That is the real problem. Someone like me who knows probably far more than most commentators on climate can be totally dismissed because I do not have a job in academia.
I once heard it said that the British Medical Association was the last major Union with a closed shop which was so powerful that even Thatcher never took them on.
They forgot that the whole of Academia acts like a trade union which runs a closed shop denying any other group a right to have any say on any area of activity that academia considers to part of its member's area of work.
I have also found that many people who believe the dogma are simply not current and are completely unaware of the full scope of the evidence. At best they know certain snippets and fragments from IPCC and thus they are surprised when they are seriously outgunned by someone who knows what is really going on.
McIntyre takes Betts to task ... and rightfully so for his obtuse engagement.
More Met Office Hypocrisy
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/17/more-met-office-hypocrisy/
Well done!
From my amateurish perspective it was a bit of a shame that Ms. Er-Um was not challenged a bit more.
Several times she criticized folks who claimed that global warming had stabilized. Why? Well in her view it's hiding someplace where we can't quite find it and that stable land temperatures don't reflect total reality.
Someone could have pointed out that it was precisely the predictions of escalating land temperatures by the best "world class" scientists and models that have not come to pass.
Nice job by Mr. Montford. Good use of ethos as well as logos.
The only point I would have liked to see stressed is that a) all the media people (and the guy who studies media) kept stressing how important it was for the media to show the impact of AGW on people's lives, b) they also claimed to want better explanation of uncertainties, but c) local/regional impacts, especially near-term, are universally conceded to be the area where the climate simulators are pretty hopeless.
Not too bad, Bish.
Being wise after the event (aren't we all?), I was thinking that it might have been a good idea for you to prepare in advance some specific examples - complete with soundbites - to support some of your comments.
- Bad peer reviewed papers which have been discredited but not retracted.
- Known instances of climate scientists behaving badly (pressure on journal editors, pressure in academia, unsupportable sensationalist press releases, public ad hominem attacks.)
- Specific papers (and quotes) demonstrating the poor predictive skill of AOGCMs, ( the main source of fears of a high climate sensitivity), and ...
...the dozen recent papers based on observational evidence which suggest a much lower value of climate sensitivity.
- Examples of existing policies which aren't working as expected or which are futile vanity projects.
You managed to touch on most of the above issues, but I couldn't help thinking that a few examples would have put an edge to some of your statements.
More importantly, I felt that many of the members were looking ONLY for re-assurance that the boat was not going to be rocked in the short-term. From a political perspective, they have sufficient armour in the history of the future if (a) they can say that the scientific consensus was solid, when they had to make these decisions, and (b) the mainstream media today supports them in the view that the scientific consensus is solid. (It was only after watching the video, I realised with a flash of insight that the conversation between scientists about the consensus is very different from the conversation between politicians about the consensus. To the scientists the question is one of whether it actually matters or not. To the politicians, it is a sine qua non for their policy decisions today.) Sadly, despite your excellent performance, I do not think they would have heard anything to shake them out of a complacent view that the science was OK and the Climate Change Act was fine. They will not be concerned by some minority scientific disagreement, already disparagingly devalued in advance as largely pre-determined by ideological disposition.
Your fellow panelists did an excellent job of providing soothing reassurance to the committee that everything was still fine - apart from the minor, almost academic, problem of communicating uncertainties and risk, and a few newspapers showing a too even-handed approach to sceptical views.
So perhaps the best question for you to have pondered in advance would have been:- what would the committee members have been most frightened to hear?
Too late for this one, but perhaps something you might like to think about for any future opportunity with politicos.
Well done, Bish.
But it would have been helpful to mention that you only come on halfway through. I wasted an awful lot of time listening to the TV people boring us rigid by telling us how wonderful they are.
As someoene who has spent many, many of the best hours of my life sitting in Parliamentary Committee hearings (albeit in Australia - but the format is practically identical), hearty congratulations Andrew.
A Committee hearing is not a debate, and getting into arguments with Committee members or other panelists is a serious breach of etiquette which just gets everyone's backs up. You were absolutely right to play a straight bat and stick to the questions that you were asked.
James Painter came across as an egregious blowhard peddling out of date research, and it must have been very tempting to take him on. In particular, his statement that people's views on climate change are just an extension of their personal values was utter tosh. If that was the case, one can only conclude that people's "values" are remarkably plastic, given the shifts in opinion polls over the last 5 or 6 years. It is just Lewandowsky-lite.
Ros is a formidable opponent, because she projects sweet reason through fluttering eyelashes until you analyse what she actually says. For example, at the end she was clearly worried that any changes between IPCC 4 and 5 would reflect unfavourably on the party line, but her use of the word "context" as a cover for ensuring that any dissent is immediately jumped on or equivocated away got pretty tedious. Well done for picking up on that, a line that Painter also pushed in a different way.
That silly Scottish Committee member really showed her colours in the previous segment, where she demanded of media representatives what they thought they were doing by giving any exposure at all to dissenting views - it is "irresponsible" etc. I get the feeling that she was a bit more inhibited in trying to browbeat your panel - I'm guessing that she's not the brightest crayon in the box and prefers to stick to simple stuff like bashing the media.
Oh, and 100 points for your answer about who we can trust. It certainly left the other two looking silly. That's what I call a direct hit!
Here is something for the SciTech committee and Mr Davey to ponder since they are so enthralled by the output of our beloved MET Office. A separate blog article might be considered by Bishop Hill
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/17/the-met-office-hide-the-decline-starring-doctor-no/#more-90010
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/15/nature-hides-the-decline/
http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/17/more-met-office-hypocrisy/
Richard Betts caught our it appears?
Donna Laframboise has a comment "Posted Jul 17, 2013 at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Reply
I, too, have been publicly and falsely accused of being wrong by Richard Betts. That was in late 2011, but evidently some lessons are not easily learned.
When the IPCC makes an error, is it the journalist’s fault?
In that case, I believe Bett’s eventually brought the error to the attention of the IPCC, and the record was quietly corrected. Because the IPCC gives no indication that the page in question contained an error for four long years, ironically it now appears that I was hallucinating and that Betts was correct".
I wonder if Richard Betts would like to clarify.
The only useless guest was the woman from Sky. She added nothing. The guy from the Beeb was a typical smug git from the BBC and everything he said told volumes about their biases. The Channel 4 bloke was interesting and generally fair.
Ros Donald and James Painter were reasonably inoffensive and each said a few things I wanted to hear. The Bish was in fine form, especially as the questioning was largely pointless. Scepticism is a journey of discovery and it’s very hard to explain it using random questions as jumping off points.
I think the committee are asking the impossible and can’t even boil the question down to “what titivation can we give to the IPCC report messages to get the public to write us a blank cheque on cutting CO2”. To which the answer is “ha, ha, ha, very funny. Oh sorry, you’re serious?” Have they not noticed the public don’t give a sod about the IPCC or it’s works of fiction? Not even a tap dancing bear could make the public give it a second thought. The Channel 4 man more or less said that climate change was dead as an issue and the best they could hope for was that Grand Design style eco improvements would rub off on the viewing public.
They’re obsessed with the idea that the public will be swayed one way or the other by the credibility of the speaker/scientists. OK, it helps but it’s not the sole reason why people make a choice. Graham Stringer made the point that a science relying on consensus for authority has a weak argument. There are too many caveats to climate science, too many confidence levels plucked out of thin air rather than actual calculation, too many ifs, possiblys, maybes, coulds and other phrases that demonstrate that much of CAGW theory is a guess.
“Ah”, the panellists would say “that’s why we need to explain to the public how risk works.” No! The public are already doing risk assessments properly. Just because something is high risk it doesn’t mean you do something about it. The public are choosing to ignore the potential major problem of global warming in favour of very real, tangible problems that need fixing now. Things like shortage of cash, fear of power cuts or unemployment, or just plain getting on with life rather than blighting their lives of what ‘might’ happen.
Everyone agreed that scientists should be talking to the public more but were reluctant to put themselves forward. It didn’t seem to occur to those on the warmer side of the debate, that the reason scientists are so elusive is because they know that there’s no more to their message. We’ve got it all. The new stuff just adds more uncertainty onto the old stuff. They prefer to leave the talking to the activist members, people who find exaggeration or fabrication easy because they feel the end justifies the means.
To the Sci Tech Committee I would say – there are countless things you could do right now to slash you CO2 footprint to the bone. It would cost you money, credibility, freedom and even happiness. What would have to be in the next IPCC report that would make you stop wondering how to cut everyone else’s CO2 footprint and do what is possible to your own? Or, since cutting CO2 could be measured in pain (higher energy bills, less travel) – do you think your level of pain matches or exceeds that of those you seek to persuade and if not, why not?
Whatever way you look at it, us being included in this is a serious step forward. They may only have listened politely and disregarded what the Bish said, but at least they are now listening politely,
TInyCO2: "Everyone agreed that scientists should be talking to the public more but were reluctant to put themselves forward. It didn’t seem to occur to those on the warmer side of the debate, that the reason scientists are so elusive is because they know that there’s no more to their message."
As a science student I got taught how taught how science works in theory.
I went to work in an engineering company and found out how it (often didn't) work(ed) in practice.
Academia in general and that in includes almost everything we call "science" have this absurd notion because their job is to work on the theory of things, that they somehow have a role to play in how that theory is used by people like policy makers.
The truth is much more worrying. In the UK policy makers, journalists and the media are almost scientifically and engineeringly illiterate.
So the illiterate politicians and media people are clueless about issue like climate and so are reliant for the creation of "News" on the few "scientists" who have enough of a personal axe to grind to want to turn boring academic research into news.
So, we actually have a group who are unqualified to talk on policy on engineering solutions on the social impacts ... whose only qualification is that they are "scientists" who don't want to behave like real scientists (sticking to the boring facts ... and not straying into areas where they have no knowledge) ...
and this small group who don't behave like scientists and who have no qualification at all to talk on policy or engineering solutions ... are constantly being quoted by the scientifically illiterate media.
Almost literally the blind ... being led by the blind.
There is a role for science ... that is to research the science. And there their role must end.
If the media cannot understand this science...
If politicians cannot understand this science...
If we as a country do not employ people who understand how to take that science and use it ...
that is the problem, not the communication or trust in climate science.
Johanna "That silly Scottish Committee member really showed her colours in the previous segment, where she demanded of media representatives what they thought they were doing by giving any exposure at all to dissenting views"
Yes, she seemed to think that freedom of speech was something that could be supended for nasty old sceptics. It also didn't occur to her that journalists and editors who encourage scepticism aren't just attempting to offer false balance but actually believe the sceptic side. Unthinkable!
Mike Haseler, I know what you’re getting at, but by claiming catastrophe, scientists are already part of policy making. Most scientists would agree with you that they should have nothing to do with policy but that has the effect of removing all responsibility for the consequences from their utterances. If and only if they were presenting calculable facts and then keeping quiet would they have no place in policy. However huge amounts of the science is based on judgement and consensus. One could rename that as spin.
Me, I want scientists front and centre answering questions and quantifying their confidence by being responsible for what is done in their name. We don’t let scientists and engineers in business off the hook for the damage their creations might cause, why should we do it for academics?
I agree TinyCO2. For too long we've had people telling us we must do things "because the scientists say" in a "don't blame the messenger" get out.
Get the bloomin scientist on saying it.
Most people in that room were unaware of the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2 warming, and how little of the CO2 in the atmosphere from humans burning fossil fuels.
The overall ignorance is staggering. Montford was too right when he said that there were a lot of angry scientists out there. I am a little old granny with O level Chemisty and I am made absolutely furious by the sheer waste of taxpayers' money.
I was particularly cross with the BBC who have been refusing to listen to reason for 20 years and then have the gall to say that sceptic views are of a deranged minority.
Well done Andrew Montford. You are my brave hero. And much younger than I expected which pleases me because you still have energy for the fight.
SRP "The only point I would have liked to see stressed is that a) all the media people (and the guy who studies media) kept stressing how important it was for the media to show the impact of AGW on people's lives"
I think one even used the words 'story telling' when trying to illustrate how CAGW could be made relevant to people. To which I'd say - what makes you think it will work next time when it didn't have the desired effect last time? Anything they can do, Hollywood has been there, done that and added CGI. Documentaries can add some credibility to the stories but since the BBC lost it's way, most documentaries are half fiction now and most people who watch them know it.
That should read "what makes THEM think it will work next time"
The meejah types are stuck in a Spinal Tap mindset. But their problem is that when the propaganda is already at 11 there is nowhere to go...
http://youtu.be/EbVKWCpNFhY
Well done Bish. As you said, some of your readers are sometimes a little angry about some of the issues, that's why I couldn't watch it all, but glad to see the Chair actually asked you the question I suggested preparing for.
Of the three in your tranche, you were the only one who came across as someone who could actually identify a competent scientist, rather than have to be told by a third party.
Like the BBC, Painter just seemed convinced about how great the media are at their job, and himself in particular. An arrogant, conceited speaker.
Donald? Well, Bambi is entitled to an opinion too, just like everybody else. I tried listening to her without watching, and found it difficult to pick out much real content.
If I was trying to be fair, I think both of them know they don't trust themselves to understand the issues, so just concentrate their efforts on convincing the public that they are correct. As you said, the people the MSM get to cover global warming are frequently arts graduates who are simply not able to question the scientists in any meaningful way.
Jul 17, 2013 at 11:25 PM | Unregistered Commenter richard verney
The NHS is a government sacred cow. So is green/global warming.
I heard a tale where you put a rookie on a chair in an empty room, and then send in two sargeants major, one telling him to stand up, the other telling him to sit down. The effect was to drive him insane.
Perhaps this explains our political class.
For showing the patience of a saint with his fellow witnesses, the bishop deserves to be canonised.
Great to see a foot in the door, well done Bish! I think I preferred that Ros from Carbon Brief when she was in Benidorm ;)
Bish is right, the last question was the most telling. The unspoken part of the question was that since the supra-national body that has competence on all this is due to dump its next load on us later this year, how the hell are we going to sell it to the British public?
Sarah Newton (not Woolaston)
John Page has pointed out that the best question, asked at the end of the oral evidence session yesterday, was put by Sarah Newton (a member of the Sci & Tech Committee) and not Sarah Woolaston - Link Sarah Newton’s particularly interested in care of, and concern for, the elderly, so the endless increase in energy costs, must be a real concern for her (and her constituents).
Tajik and banker tribes, and the climate ruling elite
By a spooky piece of synchronicity the Radio 4 “Pop-up Ideas” slot was presented by Gillian Tett yesterday. She was one of the few people in financial journalism that spotted the coming crash, and was warning that something very bad was going to happen from 2006 onwards. A woman to be listened to Gillian Tett.
She started life as an anthropologist studying marriage rituals amongst Tajik tribes in Central Asia, before and during the time that the Soviet Union collapsed. At the time she was influenced by Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist who argued that the elite maintained their power by controlling the means of production and, of particular relevance here, the way people think, via our “cognitive maps”.
Apparently you can spot what’s critical to this ‘thought control’ by comparing the elite (tribes) rhetoric with reality. This presupposes you can work out what reality is. Gillian did this in the case of finance in the mid 2000s, to the banker tribe and found that they were talking about bonds, derivatives and debt, while the financial press hardly mentioned them. And this despite the huge part of the market, bonds etc represented. Nobody seemed to notice, and the bankers regarded themselves as the only ones who understood. They were trapped in their own elite tunnel vision. And the shed-loads of money must have helped convince them they were right.
Gillian (Bourdieu?) argued that what shapes our “cognitive maps” are the “social silences”, the areas outside of public discourse. Often these vital areas are ignored because they are regarded as boring, geeky or even taboo. I guess, in the case of the bankers, it was mainly boring and geeky, which lead to the social silence.
This is a rather rambly lead-in to say that global warming, climate change, anthropogenic climate change; call it what you will, has been within the media, and the political, corporate and green classes a social silence, until recently. By portraying it as very complicated, boring, scientific, settled they managed to make it a no-go area for everyone else.
I know that many sceptics must feel that they have been pissing in the wind for years now. But the significance of Andrew’s work, and the BH website, and others too, has been to fill the social silence. To prevent the elites from shaping and controlling the way we think, and perceive the way the world works.
The green, misanthropic juggernaut is going to be very difficult to stop. But the significance of Andrew’s appearance is that his voice has been heard. Maybe not in the ‘corridors of power’ but at least in an anti-chamber! And we should all thank him for that (and donate to BH).
PS I think that ‘the politics of climate change’ can’t be understood simply by direct application of Tett’s insights into finance, but some of her ideas work quite well.
A couple of highlights for me were Andrew subtly rebuking the chairman for his early prattish remark about Brillo asking a question of Davey that was wrong (shock horror). As Andrew said who is to say what is right and wrong? Raising doubts about peer review. And the suggestion that undue pressure is put on scientists to conform. Which raises the question whether that Met Office scientist who claimed to have been misrepresented had come under pressure. There is no sin in admitting uncertainty so why should he seek to downplay that? Some have suggested that the Bishop should have come armed with prepared points. We saw how well that worked for Ros Donald, didn't we, with her press cutting. You come across as obsessed and having an agenda if you do that.
mike: Helpful commentary. I fully agree on not turning up with a fixed idea of what to present lest one appears either obsessed or distracted. Andrew came across as relaxed and attentive and was far more effective as a result. This goes back to what Geoff wrote about not trying to score points on every question. Nearly maximum rating in that area from this armchair.
I also thought the red team comment, bringing in as it did a McIntyresque comparison of business and the IPCC, extremely effective. Some of us have heard this kind of thing before but it's far from certain that all members of the committee will have done.
Undue pressure of scientists to conform: that's a really interesting one. I thought Andrew was dead right to mention it. But it was also very striking how he conceded at once to Painter that the evidence he had was only anecdotal. Not sure I would have put the second phase quite the same way. But that and much else was a stonkingly good effort in the heat of the moment.
Well done, Bishop. I had a problem with the Professor Painter who was so deeply invested in the idea of always consulting a consensus. How can any intelligent person be so deeply sold on an idea with so many vulnerabilities?
I identified the rat in the woodpile as David Jordan (?) of BBC.
Thanks for the video link. I appreciate your efforts.
From today's senate hearing (as reported at http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/more-junksciencecom-tweets-from-today.html)
"’Spencer: ‘All skeptics are part of 97% consensus… what the consensus believes is innocuous… sensitivity is where opinions differs."
This sounds like collusion to me!
Have Dr Roy and His Grace been comparing notes?
Competent with concise answers. Too many of the committee look blank.
Global. Warming/Cooling and climate change are happening now.
Because they always do and there is no empircal evidence to the contrary.
Contrary to what some commenters have said, I think that your response to the 97% arguament was boardering on the genious.
My expertise, such as it (debatable) is (was) in the field of sales. Raising the 97% of scientists etc, is in sales parlance, an objection.
There are only four ways of dealing with objections.
1)Anticipate them. (Always the best way)
2) Ignore them (Often works very well)
3)Postphone them ( I will come back to that) You may or may not.
4) Welcome and then deal with them
By just accepting the figure and the putting it in context by pointing out that there is range of views WITHIN THAT 97% and that the range includes business as usual (low sensitivity, possibly less than 1 degree of warming) to the other extreme, just decimates the significance of the statistic.
I will happily confess that I am within that consensus and am positioned at the business as usual end.
Others may think I am overstating the case but, in my opinion, this observation by Andrew will be invaluable because the opposition will not be able to use it against us.
Think about it.
BRILLIANT.