Bishop Hill The 97% in Parliament
Oct 21, 2014 From Hansard
Question Asked by David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) [N] Asked on: 10 September 2014
Department for Energy and Climate
Q. To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, what assessment he has made of (a) the implication for his Department's policies of the paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature and (b) allegations of fraud in that paper.
Answered by: Amber Rudd
A. The 2013, peer-reviewed paper Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature analysed the abstracts of around 12,000 scientific papers and found that, of the third which expressed a view on the cause of global warming, 97% considered it to be man-made. We are not aware of any evidence of fraud relating to this paper.
The main conclusion of the paper is consistent with findings from all other such studies, and as is evident from the recent Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that recent global warming is largely caused by human activity.
Reader Comments (71)
"We are not aware of any evidence of fraud relating to this paper."
Then you are not doing your job are you dear?
Perhaps someone should send DECC a copy of Duarte's fisking of the paper as a starting point. With a copy to the MP of course.
why are we not surprised...?
I've never heard of Amber Rudd before, but a quick search finds she is a history graduate, with her main claim to fame being that she recruited the extras for the film Four Weddings and a Funeral. She's obviously an ideal candidate to be a minister at DECC and a fine replacement for Greg (Barking Mad) Barker.
Why am I not surprised at the non-answer?
"The main conclusion of the paper is consistent with .. all other such studies"
Consistently fraudulent.
There is a point at which something that can be construed as a mistake becomes a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public.
I think the only way we are going to stop this appalling behaviour by politicians and civil servants and prevent it happening again is to prosecute those involved and show that they cannot just keep lying and hope to get away with it
I also think that universities, academics, civil servants and politicians who have conspired to keep this scam going long after the evidence was clearly against them, should have their assets seized and it should go into a fund to aid those in fuel poverty as a result of their crimes.
And if that means whole universities are shut down and political parties bankrupted - well it serves them right.
I agree with you Mike.
Phillp, whilst I'm no longer a supporter of UKIP because of their treatment of Scotland, I can see that they've got a real chance of getting into government. And if the civil servants responsible think that UKIP will not support criminal investigation and then will not take action against such concerted and premeditated lies, thinking they are somehow immune and can lie and cheat without legal remedy ... they are in for one hell of a shock.
Well, there were lots of people ticked off for discussion of this paper here.
97% of 1/3 of the 12,000 scientific papers reviewed is 3,880. So only 32.33% of the literature on the topic firmly advances the idea that human activity is largely responsible for global warming. When you look at it this way, it doesn't sound like the science is in, does it?
I agree with Mike Haseler, and will vote for UKIP in the hope that they get to repeal the Climate Change Act..one day?
If the money stops abruptly just watchout for the squealing VI's. Here's hoping !!
No wonder people in the UK have no confidence in their politicians. It is appalling that such pseudo-science to back up policies that are becoming more suicidal by the day. Ed Davey is the incredibly stupid.
Those climate "scientists" that have misled the country, those activists who participated in the attacks on sceptics and the politicians that have had financial interests in promoting CAGW, should all be prosecuted.
It's very hard to be shocked by the Green Blob anymore, but the bare-faced ignorance or criminality of this response takes the breath away.
Can Amber Rudd – and by association all the relelvant civil servants asked – truly be that ill-informed, as to have not come across ANY criticism of the Lew farce. It would be interesting to FOI the internal discussion that this question engendered. Did they really ignore ALL the criticism of Lew, or just ignore it?
Or are the Green Blob at DECC so in control now that they no longer care about petty things like the rule of law? After all, why should they? The BBC doesn't.
Looks to me like a poorly asked question and a reply that is carefully written to be strictly accurate.
I wrote the DECC to show how misguided their energy policy was much in the lines of the recent lecture by Owen Patterson. I received a reply from Ms Amber Rudd which was obviously written by one of the " Green Blob" trotting out the usual rubbish. So I sent a reply with the pertinent graphs and explained that there is no evidence to support the fact the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have any effect on climate and said that if she thought it did then to site that evidence. I also said that all climate change can be explained by natural variation. I also exposed the precautionary by the simple phrase " If the premium cost more than the value of the item insured then it makes no sense." I pointed out how damaging the current energy policy was and the fact that it was based on guess work and computer models that have NEVER been right. I am awaiting a reply. Don't hold your breath.
The science is 97% irrelevant because they are going to do whatever they want anyway. There is no shortage of liars.
I've never been clear what it is that junior ministers actually do but certainly they are there loyally to carry out government policy so let's not be too harsh on Ms Rudd especially since the idea that you can't be a minister unless you have the academic qualifications appropriate to the department would result in all government business grinding to a halt.
(And no, you wouldn't really like for that to happen!)
So, Ross Lea et al, if you want to educate young Amber the way to go about it (or one way, at least) is to find a couple of sympathetic ears in her constituency party, explain the facts of life to them, and get them to sit down with her over a couple of pints or whatever is the tipple of choice in East Sussex these days and explain things to her.
Or if anyone happens to be personally acquainted with her husband (A A Gill) try that route.
I must say, from her photograph she's not a bad looker for 51. But I digress.
Seriously, on matters relating to her department you will get the government line. Why the hell would anyone expect anything else?
A A Gill is no longer her husband (separated 1995).
I think she's been divorced from that petulant poltroon A.A. Gill for about 20 years. A man who can't cook, can't paint, can't present TV, and yet has a platform to pontificate on all of these matters in our so-called paper of record seems a wonderful exemplar of the odd times we are living in.
Writing to these people is a waste of time; they don't have a numerate bone in their heads. The only way is to kick them in the ballots. I just hope enough people do so next time round. A few power cuts might concentrate minds, but I fear the STOR scheme might just save them, albeit at our ruinous expense.
I thought our parliamentary system here in Australia was based on yours.
Our standards are low, but here a pollie wouldn't dare lie by saying (s)he is unaware of something which is very much in the public sphere.
I think we now have to accept that government policy, regardless of the colour of government: is firmly with the warmists. Far too many reputations depend on this: far too many of the great and good have healthier bank balances because of the wind and solar farm epidemic. We know we are in trouble, when trained scientists can happily ignore existence of the, completely unpredicted, temperature hiatus.
"... there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that recent global warming is largely caused by human activity."
By 'recent' we presumably mean eighteen years ago, because any more recently there hasn't actually been any warming at all. I wonder how long the "pause" will have to last before it enters the conciousness of these people? I'm beginning to wonder if they would change their tune even if it started to get a whole lot colder.
Mike Haseler is correct the only way is prosecution through a court of law. When they have something to lose they will not be so blinkered. Any lawyers out there who can point the way forward? I am willing to contribute.
Like Ross Lea (above) I have also written to Ms Rudd and similarly received a reply clearly written by an archdeacon of the Warmist faith (though I don't doubt for a second that she herself is a fully committed, wide-eyed acolyte and devoted flower arranger for their services).
It is a complete waste of time even attempting to communicate with such people. Sadly, this includes all the ruling 'elites' of the three main parties. Rudd was put in place by Cameron because she is a gormless camp follower, who could be relied upon to further the 'progressive' agenda and never to indulge in the sin of independent thought.
The only hope for this country is to vote the bums out. If that leaves us in the possibly wobbly hands of UKIP, can it really be any worse than it is now? I do not believe it can. And even if it did, it would be easier to put right than it has been to hose the current bunch out of their well-feathered nests.
"I've never been clear what it is that junior ministers actually do "
They do what they are told. They don't have opinions. They are not open to persuasion and no we can't vote them out.
I find this stuff frightening. The terrible thing is that these people have no idea of the economic chaos they are unleashing.
"I have used the last three months since leaving the Cabinet to learn more about the consequences of this policy. And what I have unearthed is alarming." - Owen Paterson GWPF speech.
I admire what Paterson is doing but am surprised that it is only when he leaves cabinet that he discovers what the rest of us know! (All right, I'm not that surprised.)
How can the government function in this way?
The civil servants take care to feed ministers only what they want them to know. Journalists and the BBC (and Sky) take care not to rock the boat with inconvenient facts.
I think MJ is probably right a personal chat in the pub might be the only way to sow the seed of truth. But who gets the chance to do that?
Amber Rudd. Red light.
It is much worse than that. Only 0.3% of the papers indicated that man might be mainly (i.e. over 50%) responsible.
So 99.7% of abstracts imply that man is not mainly responsible.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
graphicconception
You tell that to Goldman Sachs. Corner the chairman down the pub. A couple of pints and he'll be eating out of your hands.
http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/environmental-stewardship-and-sustainability/environmental-policy-framework/gs-environmental-policy-framework-pdf.pdf
As such, Goldman Sachs will aggressively seek market making and
investment opportunities in the environmental markets described below.
x We will continue to act as a market maker in emissions trading (CO2, SO2),
weather derivatives, renewable energy credits, and other climate related
commodities, and look for ways to play a constructive role in promoting the
development of these markets.
x Goldman Sachs intends to be a leading U.S. wind energy developer and
generator through our recently acquired subsidiary, Horizon Wind Energy
(f.k.a. Zilkha Renewable Energy).
x We will make available up to $1 billion to invest in renewable energy and
energy efficiency projects.
x We will evaluate opportunities and, where appropriate, encourage the
development of and participate in markets for water, biodiversity, forest
management, forest-based ecosystems, and other ecosystem features and
services.
x We will continue to devise investment structures for renewable energy and
invest alongside our energy clients, such as our wind energy partnership with
Shell Wind Energy and our solar energy fund with BP Solar.
x We will explore investment opportunities in renewable and/or cleaner burning
alternative fuels such as renewable diesel (such as our investment in Changing
World Technologies), ethanol and biomass.
x We will seek to make investments in, and create financing structures to assist
in the development and commercialization of, other environmentally friendly
technologies.
Red Amber Green
AR has the following tweet on her Twitter Account for the 16/10.
ESOS, for those who dont know, is the EU's Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme for big organisations. As I understand the scheme, the 'lower energy bills' will be arrived at because the energy user has given up the use of some energy (and been compensated by Gov?). So, you're not actually getting cheaper energy, you're paying more for less, except that the nett effect is that you see a slightly smaller bill.Well, I suppose it keeps civil servants employed at the EA, which is responsible for managing the scheme, and just adds more and more cost to something that, left alone, would give better value for money.
David Jones,
It struck me, too, as truly astonishing that Owen Paterson says he did not learn about these things until he left [I want to Italic 'left', but don't know how] the cabinet. What is happening in the ministries? The minister is supposed to be the person that is best informed, not the person that is kept in the dark.
I have wondered, both in relation to U.K. government, and in relation to machinations within the BBC, whether there is anybody or any bit of organisation still in there, with a memory, such that we will one day be able to hear the no-doubt extraordinary story of wilful ignorance, ideological blindness, ideological persecution, careerism, ambition, greed and foolishness, that lies behind the dealing of these sometimes great institutions with the Climate Policy fiasco of our times. I would like to think so, but I fear not. I think all we may be left with is 'dust on a bowl of rose leaves' [that is a clever intellectual reference, just so you know].
And of course, bravo to Owen Paterson for stepping out, and allowing all of us who have been thinking and talking abou this, on blogs, and to our colleagues and students, for years, to hope that reasoned and informed debate may now be becoming possible at the highest levels of media and government. Fingers crossed.
And thank you Bishop.
The Law would in any normal Country be the way to go, unfortunately I heard on the radio the other day that Legal Aid was to be denied to any seeking a Judicial Ruling on government policy Whilst it may be possible to try this, it will be very expensive, the government lawyers will see to that. I do not know whether we can have "Class Actions" as happens in the USA. But, it is true that all the green activists involved in the CECC should be brought to book, people, our people are going to die if this winter is cold. The "ministerial advice" offered is worse than just being wrong, it is stupid bordering on insulting, these "ministers" will not suffer as we will>
An allegation of fraud should be made to the police. David T. C. Davies is a special constable, he should know this.
Arhur Dent
Amber Rudd MP for Hastings and Rye can be emailed from here https://www.writetothem.com/. The site allows emailing of Euro MPs too, one Nigel Farrage amongst others for the South East Region.
David Jones/Malcolm Chapman
'Yes, Minister' is in fact a pretty good primer for those interested in how government departments work.
I remember an exchange between (I think) F E Smith and a High Court judge after Smith had gone on at some length on a point of law:
Judge: I'm sorry, Mr Smith; I am no wiser than when you started.
Smith: Perhaps not m'lud but you are much better informed.
Whether for good or ill, ministers are rarely wise in the ways of their departments. Our system of government is not like that which is an argument in favour of specialist political advisers. So the minister is as well informed as his civil servants need him to be to argue the case.
Traditionally they have been apolitical and try, as far as they are able, to satisfy the wishes of the government of the day. But when every MP bar three voted in favour of the Climate Change Act and the last government set up a department which specifically linked energy and climate change and all the secretaries of state since have gone native even before they set foot in the door (and since the last two were Lib-Dems are you surprised??) it's hardly a great shock to discover that answers to parliamentary questions reflect the current paradigm.
@Malcolm Chapman
Well the dust was disturbed. But to what purpose I do not know.
Human kind cannot bear very much reality.
My very favourite poem!
Arhur Dent
Amber Rudd MP for Hastings and Rye can be emailed from here https://www.writetothem.com/. The site allows emailing of Euro MPs too, one Nigel Farrage amongst others for the South East Region.
Oct 21, 2014 at 11:36 AM | SandyS
========================================
Most MPs will ignore correspondence, email or written, from anybody other than constituents. I have experience of this. Meanwhile, I am still awaiting a reply from Baroness Worthington as to why she feels it appropriate to describe those who disagree with her as "fanatics"; I also asked her to point me to where I could find proof of CAGW.
It's peer reviewed. And peer review catches error and fraud. So no more checks are needed.
Meanwhile the Aldabra Snail is still extinct as far as 'science' is concerned.
Someone needs to publish a paper with one picture showing one live snail with today's newspaper. Is that refutation enough?
What is it about the South Coast, that its MPs are such berks. Ms Rudd at Hastings, Barker at Bexhill ( next door) and La Lucas in Brighton.
I should point out that my own particular vendetta against Barker is not that he left his wife for another man, but that his ex-wife is heiress to a brewery.
Somewhere in Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister, Sir Humphrey (or possibly Bernard) explains to Jim Hacker that the phrase there is no evidence that....or some variation can be used to deny almost anything. Even something that everybody knows. Can't pin down where it comes from offhand.
Wednesday 1 May 2013
An MP has described her constituency as a magnet for the jobless and drug users.
Amber Rudd, the Conservative MP for Hastings, told the Financial Times that people who are on benefits and want to be by the seaside move to Hastings to have easier access to friends, drugs and drink.
She said that she decided that she wanted to stand as MP for the marginal constituency because it was within two hours of London and she could see her party was going to win it.
mike fowle
LOL !
Yes Minister unlocks every key in politics. Margaret Thatcher said so herself.
It is a badly phrased question. What is utterly misleading is to use the findings to justify policy. In the Q&A at Bristol University last month, John Cook admitted that:-
1) The abstracts were surveyed for the declared belief in the broadest, most banal, form of the global warming hypothesis.
2) Not all the the peer-reviewed papers were by scientists, let alone climate scientists who understand the global warming hypothesis.
It is just about expressed beliefs. Use of the 97% consensus demonstrates the lack of proper evidence to support a significant potential problem.
What recent global warming would we be talking about? The stuff that stopped 18 years ago?
Stupid woman. I really am sick of the political class and their stooges constantly lying.
So Amber has contradicted herself on record. Very good.
According to election law the party with a two thirds majority or more wins the election. First past the post and all that. This can also be defined as a winning majority or an overwhelming majority.
So the overwhelming majority of papers in climate science have no scientific opinion of whether man is the cause and as such that should be the government position as well. Having no opinion especially in a peer reviewed situation means the basis for any subsequent action is personal opinion.
And as such makes you fully liable for the outcome. There is no safety net.
Our government is driving policy purely based on what it thinks rather than what science tells it. Which ironically is indifference.
Ministers rarely have expertise, or even much practical knowledge, of their briefs. What can never be excused, however, is failure to thoroughly research whatever area they are presiding over, and failure to challenge advice received. This failure is neither a manifestation of ignorance nor incompetence (although there's always plenty of evidence of both amongst politicians); it is negligence, pure and simple.
There are so many 'Ministers' that you have to wonder if there are any ordinary back-bench MPs left - but - hey - it gets you a salary of £100000 a year, so it becomes a back-door method of getting MPs a pay rise...
Anyway - presumably Amber Rudd et al in government and at the DECC won't have read Dr Tim Ball's feature on Wattsupwiththat entitled 'A Simple Truth: Computer Climate Models Cannot Work', because, as he succinctly points out, they create the results they are designed to produce...
"97% of 1/3 of the 12,000 scientific papers reviewed"
This is an '8 out of 10 cats' moment. The ASA made Pedigree Petfoods change it to "eight out of ten owners who expressed a preference said their cat prefers it", which doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Can we put them onto Cook?
Just to be clear to outsiders "Lewandowsky's 97% Paper" was withdrawn and has never been formally published
so it is definitely NOT OK to cite it as evidence.. especally in parliament