Wednesday
Feb052014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill AR5 inquiry evidence
Feb 5, 2014 Climate: Parliament The draft transcript of the AR5 inquiry hearings is now available.
Feb 5, 2014 Climate: Parliament 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 26 - HenryOliver
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 24 - harryjkevin91
on
Seeking Help With Dissertation
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (16)
That is very painful to read. Allen may not be very important to the UK parliament but Stott is their main climate advisor being from the Met off climate change unit.
Stott is their main climate advisor being from the Met off climate change unit.
Feb 5, 2014 at 1:32 PM Stephen Richards
Yes. If the Met Office had objectively assessed what is and what is not known all along and given corresponding advice, the Climate Change Act would never have hatched. They have a lot to answer for.
Anyone else having trouble reading the charts in Nic Lewis's written submission? Using IE8 on Windows 7. Why is that posted as HTML, rather than in PDF format as the others are?
I have downloaded a PDF and am reading the whole thing.
The MPs are very impressive. Too bad Canada hasn't got more like these.
This bit I like the best so far:
Professor Lindzen:
All I am saying is there would be no disagreement here that whatever the UK is deciding to do, vis-à-vis climate, will have no impact on your climate. I think you will all agree it will have a profound impact on your economy. You are making the decision to take a problem that might not be a problem, take actions that you know will create problems and feel in the net you have done the right thing. That is for you to decide.
I think "feel in the net you have done the right thing." means "feel that, on balance, you have done the right thing."
This is identical to my view about Canada's approach to climate policy. Ottawa has no choices that will effect the climate either of Canada or of the world even if the most alarmist scenarios are correct.
The recent changes in the climate policies of Australia is based on the same point of view.
I conclude that if you continue to make great sacrifices that cause a lot of pain and can benefit nobody, your reason is akin to a religion.
In their opening statements Hoskins and Stott make claims about Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting which contribute to sea level of 1mm per year.
Even if true, this is hardly frightening and nothing like the apocalyptic levels that Hansen has predicted.
G. Watkins -
Yes, 1 mm/year is much as I remember it, which can be restated as 4 inches per century.
A couple of years ago, some described it as 9000 tonnes of ice per second, which sounds very apocalyptic indeed. Same number though, when put into context.
Albert Owen is a complete Tosser, any decent Chairperson would have cracked down on him for continually asking Questions and then not allowing the respondent the chance to complete their answer because it obviously wasn't the one he wanted.
Fred Colbourne.
A quote near the end of the transcript.
"It is clear that there is virtually no policy that beats doing nothing for 50 years." Professor Lindzen. Brilliant!
That may be true A C Osborn, but there's no mistaking Yeo with a decent chairman.
I noticed in the broadcast, now confirmed.
Question 35: Concerning the IAC report and recommendations on IPCC procedures - Hoskins in respect of IPCC "head office",
"not everything has been followed but I would expect by the next one, IF THERE IS, they would be".
Slipped out just like that, basically he thinks IPCC is toast! This explains his frequent equivocation.
By the way - Robertson's Aerosol comment is much misunderstood outside of his constituency. He is a Glaswegian and is taking the piss.
Note that all the written evidence is available at
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-ipcc/?type=Written#pnlPublicationFilter
I just could not believe the arrogance of the academics when they were challenged about changing their estimate for warming and not telling the politicians. They clearly believe that they can do whatever they like and so long as there is no physical evidence that would take them to court, they seem to think they have a god given right to do whatever they please.
I recall MPs had exactly the same attitude toward their expenses.
The MPs don't seem to be able to understand that these are just public servants who are bound by the same rules, regulations and laws as any other public servant.
Well worth reading Donna's written evidence. I wonder what Yeo thought of it, if he bothered reading it that is.
Chairman Yeo's wit and charm display on video: http://youtu.be/HUT7hLtFXIk
(If you haven't seen it already - it is worth a look).
At least the Lindzen and Framboise cotributions are available for all to see. For the rest the whole thing is highly cringe worthy. Almost deliberate obscurantism. There seems to be no hope for those who refuse to entertain even the possiblty that extra CO2 caused dangerous warming is a hopelessly flawed hypothesis.
Unfotunatly the ongoing cost of refusing to accept the truth is nothing short of staggering. I find myself wondering what on earth went on the minds of those who decided to invite sceptics to participate if they had no intention of listening to what they wrote and had to say.
I was expecting more from Richard Lindzen after his brilliant presentation to the UK Parliament.
Donna Framboise was the only one who presented a case that would have stood up in court.