Bishop Hill Greens try to get scientists removed from select committee
Jul 31, 2014 Climate: Parliament Greens Caroline Lucas has been using her holidays to go after Graham Stringer for having the temerity to dissent from the alarmist line on climate change and in particular the Energy and Climate Change Committee's report on AR5.
The good lady has written to Ed Miliband, asking him what he is going to do about this appalling situation, in effect demanding that one of only two scientists on the Energy and Climate Change Committee be removed.
Dear Ed,
I’m writing with regard to yesterday’s report from the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee on climate science and the 5th assessment report from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I’m sure that we will both welcome the Committee’s unambiguous endorsement of the integrity of the science and the compelling case for urgent action to cut carbon emissions and secure a global climate deal.
However, in light of your criticism of the Prime Minister for having climate deniers in his Cabinet, and your comments about the harm caused to our country by delay and dither on climate change, it was especially disappointing to see Graham Stringer, a senior Labour MP, join forces with Conservative MP Peter Lilley in an attempt to undermine the findings.
As you will have seen, they set out their views in a statement rejecting the Committee’s report. They claim that it is “hard to justify” the IPPC’s conclusion that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
They also regurgitate the so-called global warming ‘pause’ argument to back up their stance, despite repeated clarification from the Met Office and others that this is a basic misunderstanding of the science, the difference between a prediction and a projection, and the effect of heat uptake by oceans on changes in surface temperature.
Whilst their words may be chosen meticulously, their intention is crystal clear: to undermine the scientific case for rapid, drastic action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, which is now stronger than ever.
This seems at odds with your challenge to the Prime Minister on his lack of climate leadership at the height of the winter floods. In PMQs, you argued that it was unacceptable for David Cameron to appoint Ministers who don’t ‘believe’ in man-made climate change. You rightly called for climate change to be treated as a national security priority – at home and abroad – to protect the homes, businesses and livelihoods of our constituents.
Yet now we have a senior Labour MP casting doubt and confusion on the issue of climate change. This is exactly what you condemned as undermining of action to properly protect the British people from the threats of climate change.
You were applauded when you told the Conservatives to ‘get real’ on climate change. But what message does it send when one of just a handful of Labour MPs chosen to sit on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is an outspoken advocate of dither and delay, engaging in persistent attempts to thwart action on climate change?
As you know, I am a strong supporter of efforts to rebuild cross party consensus on the need for an ambitious response to climate change based on science and equity – domestically and internationally. Like other backbench MPs, I work frequently with politicians from across the political spectrum on these issues and will continue to do so.
That’s why it’s particularly disappointing to see a Labour MP, in a position of influence, actively trying to prevent the UK from taking the action required to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – and indeed to secure the benefits of our country leading a rapid transition to a zero carbon economy.
Of course, there are many aspects of climate change science and policy that would benefit from a great deal more debate, for example the compatibility of the UK developing a whole new shale gas industry, however well regulated, with our international commitment to keep climate change below 2 degrees. But attempting to mislead the public on the scientific evidence that climate change is caused by human activity, and will have devastating impacts if urgent action is not taken to reduce our carbon emissions, is deeply irresponsible.
I would be grateful if you could clarify Labour’s position on these aspects of climate science, your views on Graham Stringer’s comments and his role on the Committee, and any actions you will be taking as a result.
Thank you in anticipation of your reply.
Caroline Lucas MP
I think I'm right in saying that the Labour party now chooses select committee members by secret ballot, so one assumes that this will go precisely nowhere.
Reader Comments (72)
Who is this person?
There is a planning application on one of the Haverhill estates to build on the little patch of grass (with a few young trees) at the entrance to the estate. The Green councillor voted enthusiastically for the grass to be built on. As one of the residents remarked "Green? They should be called the Concrete and Asphalt Party."
JF
Now I'm confused. The 'pause' is real as evidenced by all major indices but she then heads off into the wonderful world of a "basic misunderstanding of the science". Straight into "the difference between a prediction and a projection".
"Prediction and Projection" are both the outcomes of modelling not measurement. I'm wondering who exactly doesn't understand 'science' here. Stringer, probably the only committee member with a 'hard' science background or Lucas who can't see the difference between 'hard' data and and modelled speculation.
Little wonder that we are in the mess we are in. Stringer is removed and some 'authorised' idiot takes his place. The Committee members get back to the business of making millions out of imaginary 'climate chaos' and Lucas gets re-elected. CO2 continues to rise at exactly the same rate that it has for ever and everyone stuffs their pockets with credits for a gas that is the base of the planetary food chain. Let's just hope they can't figure out a way to 'tax' sunlight and H2O.
Photosynthesis - Nein Danke!
Ah that would be the same Green Drama Queen that we refer to as Caroline (I Can't Do The Maths) Lucas, this title being bestowed on her after her vacuous performance on the Andrew Neill show in 2012. Her scientific credentials and abilities don't stand up to scrutiny either
It's wonderful that the oceans absorbing “missing heat” is becoming a regular public claim since it exposes to normal cynical laypeople that there is a pause at all. Who knew the climate cult would break down into missing heat hiding where no data exists? This really exposes the movement to far greater backlash after their temporary power grab is exposed to yet another cooling cycle. Skeptics have failed however to expose fraud despite perfectly good evidence of it in the bladeless input data of the latest hockey stick. This hasn't even made it into Fox News or the right wing talk radio news cycle or barely even the right wing blogosphere. It appeared for a week on skeptical blogs and died out for lack of media savvy by skeptics who fail to push sharp wedges into the debate. You can see why in a video of all the low testosterone gray hair at the latest Vegas conference. All it took was a single fluoride water skeptical congressman to turn the whole thing into yet another PR disaster. Nobody got the fake blade hockey stick into the media. It's quite slapstick ridiculous really to watch skeptics ignore their biggest argument for fear if being called crazy even though the data plots simply expose the alarmist side as being the crazy one. Not even Marc Morano or James Delingpole have emphasized this most glaring and most recent example of brazen in-your-face pure power play fraud. That means it will take two more decades rather than two more years to stop this Enron level madness. Skepticism has become a gentleman’s hobby, a diversion for retired STEM majors, wallowing in minutea, preaching to the choir, ignoring crackpots like Sky Dragon Tim Ball or raw data maverick Goddard, even inviting the later to the Vegas event. It's just as amusing to observe the skeptics throw away their advantage as whistleblowers as it is to see the cult dissolve into the ocean.
For mainstream climate science to be riddled with corruption, bias, ideology and vested interest is bad enough.
But for somone to then say it has integrity, is a whole order of magnitude more dishonest.
(In the same way that the official coverups of Climategate were an order of magnitude worse than Climategate itself).
Agouts
"self-important bird-brains"
My chickens take exception to that, although I admit that the cockerel, Captain Bob, can be a bit self-important. Perhaps he should stand for parliament?
[snip] would not recognize a scientific fact if it bit her on the bum.
She thinking a next hung Parliament a Labour Green Coalition.
Dream on girl.
Also the chief scientific advisor to the EU has earned the wroth of Greenfaece and others as well. They are campaigning to have the post removed and insert the likes of themselves as "independent" advisor's.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25957-dont-scrap-europes-chief-scientific-adviser.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/07/30/green-groups-go-to-war-on-scientific-reform-in-europe/
Mick.
"In climate science, a prediction is a projection that came true."
Indeed.
But as none of their predictions has ever come true, I think we can state that the predictions and the projections are of equal value, that is to say, zero.
It's pointless me posting my real thoughts on this disgrace - they would get the "Snip" treatment...
"Since Caroline Lucas did a BA and a PhD in English literature she could, presumably, have written her letter in English rather than Green gobbledygook if she had wished to do so."
Jul 31, 2014 at 1:50 PM | Roy
She certainly doesn't believe in using six words where 20 will do.
I have deleted so many of my comments about that woman that I will minimise further mention of her.
Scientific opinion becomes a political football from time to time, but it says something about climate science when it is a political football all of the time. The pause demonstrates that temperatures are not rising, the climate models are wrong, the warming from carbon dioxide is somehow negated by natural feedbacks and the climate scientists should get back to the drawing board.
Now, which part of that does she not understand? Oh dear, all of it.
Doug UK
"Writing for Women: a study of woman as reader in Elizabethan romance."
What Private Eye would once have put under the heading of 'Wimmin'.
The letter is too long. She may have a PhD in English but she has not yet learnt to write an effective letter to a politician; that is someone with the attention span of a seagull - oooh! nice piece of fish over there.
,blockquote>... despite repeated clarification from the Met Office and others that this is a basic misunderstanding of the science, the difference between a prediction and a projection ...
Here is Vicky Pope in a Met Office video using the terms 'projection' and 'prediction' interchangeably:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-mOzTj8haE
jamesp 10:54 AM
If your chickens are up for it ... I'll contribute £100 to their deposit to run against Ms. Lucas at the next General Election. Although a duck might be more appropriate.
She's simply toe curlingly ignorant and presumptive at the best of times - I don't recall her saying "I don't know" at all. Her squawking will doubtless be relayed to/by the faithful GMG & BBC.
Big hearted and "caring" she might be - but in terms of direction of her politics it's very clear she's not actually thought too much about autocracy, fascism and democracy - or maybe she has.... and prefers not to again..... Somebody who gets an English Lit PhD and goes around titling themselves Dr. outside academia has to be a bit whacko.
Why is there any surprise at all that climate kooks do not want scientists on science committees?
To paraphrase, Climate obsession is too important to leave to climate scientists.
When Lucas gets all preachy about "the science", her opponents need merely ask why she isn't interested in consensus scientific opinion when it comes to GMO. Or about the safety of fracking. Or of the safety of modern nuclear reactors.
She is no lover of consensus science, and is hypocritical to even pretend to be.
I don't wish to appear intolerant, but why is the taxpayer funding the likes of English Lit PHDs? If this lass is anything to go by whole swathes of academe are long past their use by date, which is if anything an understatement. Wholly counterproductive more like if not positively dangerous.
Caroline Lucas seems to have trouble in understanding what "unambiguous" means.
"Caroline Lucas Party obtained less than 1% of the popular vote at the last election and she sees fit to undermine democratic processes?"
It is called subversion : Can't get what you want through the normal democratic process, then rely on hookey science and addling the minds of our so called elite with ideas like sustainability, de-carbonization.