January 30th, 2014

SKETCH: Unsettling the “Settled Science” of Climate Change

The committee for Energy and Climate Change must be in line for an award. Its performance this week was exceptional.

The mental level of Yeo’s committee is – well, the climate debate is so rancorous let’s try for decorum.

Suffice it to say that John Robertson’s questioning would have been a credit to a clever dugong. Albert Owen nearly grasped the idea that that a Greenpeace activist in charge of an IPCC Chapter might lack objectivity. And Tim Yeo’s chairing was as good as a golf club captain in a Saturday night lock-in.

The committee had just received three mainstream climate workers and now, to say they had looked at all sides, they had three sceptics.

No doubt their sceptical remarks are contentious, their facts arguable and their conclusions unusual – but the three of them certainly gave the lie to the claim that “the science is settled”.

Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, in his low-key, diffident manner, looked placidly into the committee’s apocalyptic future. How that annoyed them.

The Chairman asked a number of leading. loaded or frankly loopy questions .

Such as:

“So, you think the report should be compiled on a more slipshod basis?”

And:

“Are you saying the Government is deliberately appointing scientists who aren’t as good as others?”

And, here’s an exchange worth quoting at length.

Yeo pressed Lindzen to get a Yes to the question, “Was 2000 to 2010 the hottest decade on record?”

Lindzen: (Eventually) Of course it was.

Yeo: It’s interesting you’re using that as evidence that somehow global warming has stopped. That we’ve just gone through the hottest decade of all time (sic) and that this is actually evidence that global warming is not taking place.

Lindzen: You’re saying something that doesn’t make sense.

Yeo: Oh, so it is continuing!

Lindzen: How shall I put it? On a certain smoothing level you can say it’s continuing. It hasn’t done anything for 15 years.

Yeo: Except we’ve just had the hottest-ever (sic) decade . . . If I was clocked driving my car at 90 mph, faster than I’d ever driven it before, I don’t find that convincing evidence I haven’t broken the 70mph speed limit.

It dawns on Lindzen the chairman has special needs. He explains how a 16-year smoothing average means one thing, how a pause and plateau means another.

Yeo responds: Just because we’ve had the hottest decade on record doesn’t seem conclusive proof that global warming has come to an end.

After a chorus of contradiction:

Yeo: I thought Professor Lindzen was saying the upward trend has come to an end.

Lindzen: (quite sharply, for him) No! I never said it’s come to an end! I said for 16 years it hasn’t increased!

Yeo: I don’t think we’ll get much further on this. I’m happy to be judged by what’s on the record.

I bet he won’t be.

Complacency has its place

In his final exchange the professor defied the political imperative that “doing nothing is not an option”. His view is that “it’s clear that there is no policy that is better than doing nothing.”

That was the last straw. The first straws were pretty good, too.

First: Scientists in general do have a declarable interest. “In the US, the reward for solving a problem is to have your funding withdrawn . . . There is an intrinsic pressure to make sure your problem never disappears.”

Second: He explained the small number of properly qualified experts in the climate science field: “Were the brightest people in college studying meteorology and oceanography?”

Yeo: (incredulously): Are you suggesting that people who had gone into this field of work were academically or intellectually inferior to those who’d chosen other fields of work?

Lindzen: (enthusiastically) Oh yes! I don’t think there’s any question that when we were in college that the brightest minds went into physics and math, then chemistry, then other areas . . .

Third: “Whatever the UK is doing about climate change will have no effect on your climate. It will have a profound effect on your economy.”

Fourth: The warming between 1979 and 1998 (when the hiatus began) was no greater than the warming between 1919 and 1940.

There are surely grounds for consensus round these points, at least?

The models are defective

A co-witnesses, Nicholas Lewis, claimed that that the climate models were out by very significant amounts, and that the conclusions of the latest report were centred 60 per cent higher than if they had been based on observation.

The aerosol cooling effect, he said, was much larger than previously thought, so the warming – whatever caused it – must have been proportionately smaller.

In addition, observation of the rapid warming from the late 1980s shows 0.1 per cent. Lewis said, “The models show 0.1 to 0.5 with clusters around 0.3 to 0.4.” So, the models’ predictions are three times as high as the instruments show.

The suggestion that half the excess or lost or hidden heat has been absorbed by the oceans “doesn’t appear to have observational support.”

Lindzen was asked whether models had improved. He cited something called the quasi-biennial oscillation – where the wind in the upper atmosphere blows from one direction for 26 months and then from the other for 26 months. “It’s very well-observed . . . but no model got this. And yet we knew the physics of it.”

He said that a technique called “parameterisation” was being used to fudge the physics. “The things they can’t resolve, they force the model to behave the way nature is observed to do. Is that an advance? I don’t know . . . You can add complexity to a model but it hasn’t helped them to do major things with ocean processes.”

Ian Mearns: (seeming to understand): You don’t think the models are reliable?

Lindzen: No! Of course not! If you can’t get TODAY’s distribution of regional climate right why would that be reliable for the future?

Maybe the IPCC should be disbanded?

Donna Laframboise started to write a book about the IPCC, and finished writing another book about it.

She told the committee that she thought the Panel should be wound up. That it was not an objective judge or jury. It was not trustworthy. It was barely academically respectable – her audit found that 21 of the Fourth report’s 44 chapters used less than 60 per cent peer-reviewed sources.

She compared it to a criminal trial: “If we find out there was bias among the jurors we have to throw the verdict out and start again.”

She cautioned Tim Yeo against relying on the summary of the report (he declared he wouldn’t read the whole thing, it being 2,000 pages) as there would inevitably be selections and judgements made to get it all into 31 pages. And that the summary process was opaque and done behind closed doors and fought over line-by-line by politicians.

She also suggested that the review editors should be chosen by and report to people outside the IPCC. That the summary-writing process should be televised. And that the scientists involved shouldn’t all be appointed by governments.

All interesting ideas.

John Robertson had been asking plain-man questions and up to now was holding his own in that plain-man way. You need people like him who don’t understand “non-Bayesian statistical methods” however important the concept might be understanding the answer to his questions.

He turned away from Ms Laframboise’s remarks with a dismissive, “With the best will in the world, you’re just one person and a lot of people would disagree with you. And you’ve had your chance to sell your book, so . . . “

I wasn’t going to mention it until he said that, but he should know, as he’s serving on a science-based committee, that the word “methodology” is pronounced as it’s spelt. We don’t say “methology”.

Laframboise also annoyed Albert Owen. She is blonde, glamorous, highly-educated. That doesn’t always go over very well with Paleo-Labour.

He took exception to her suggestion that a Greenpeace and WWF activist should not be put in charge of a Chapter. She had said: “That is going to affect his view. He’s not objective. He has a very particular activist world-view”.

Albert Owen: (incomprehendingly) “Do you think people should be sidelined if they have strong views?”

Laframboise suggested that putting an activist in charge of official information was not very healthy.

Albert Owen said that the committee hadn’t dug into the backgrounds of the three current witnesses. (Though they must have, to select them as skeptics). He said: “It’s nice to get an array of people with colourful backgrounds.”

If this is the recruiting policy for the IPCC it should definitely be disbanded.

Owen again: “I’ve tried to be calm and collected but it’s difficult when I hear remarks saying that just because you don’t agree with certain activists that somehow they don’t contribute in an important way to the debate.”

These particular MPs are simply not up to it. Climate enthusiasts will be embarrassed by them, and sceptics contemptuous. They are treasured, however, by sketch writers.

Last word on settled science.

Tim Yeo: Are there any areas of climate science you would consider settled?

Lindzen: I think we agree that man should have some effect. And I think we agree that climate changes. And these are the areas that people point to when they say there is consensus. But none of this tells us there is a problem.

Yeo: Do you go further and say we shouldn’t do anything about it?

Lindzen: I’m saying that not only we don’t know what to do about it but that almost everything proposed would have very certain consequences for people – and very uncertain consequences for the environment . . . It is clear that there is no policy that is better than doing nothing.”


150 Comments

  1. 1
    Michael Gove says:

    Because it’s the right thing to do,and I support the protestors 100%

    14 arrested after Birmingham University protests turn sour: A total of 14 people were arrested aft… http://bit.ly/LcZ1ZF

    Like

    • 13
      Prime Minister David Cameron says:

      Secretary, isn’t it time you wised up and found out what’s actually going on in Birmingham University.

      Like

      • 36
        David Cameron's gut says:

        Climate change…

        Like

        • 125
          IPCC says:

          Climate change

          Climate disruption

          Like

          • Lord Landowner of the Levels says:

            You may all scoff about the veracity of man made global warming but I’ve turned my land into a solar panel farm and am raking it in. Yo suckers you are all paying for my profits with your taxes!

            Like

      • 95
        Displaced Brummie says:

        I’ll tell you. Posh rich kid SCUM from the Home Counties are coming up to Birmingham and attacking working class Brummie staff.

        That clear enough for you?

        Like

        • 113
          Grrr says:

          If you ever hear an environmental wanker, they’ve usually got Public School accents.

          Its largely a rich White endeavour – I don’t think its of much interest to the average person.

          After all, what are they going to do after Public school. Get a real job and work long hours for low pay, or become an environmental activist, get paid loads and fly around the world 1st class lecturing the lower orders.

          Like

    • 52
      Ah! brilliant! says:

      “That doesn’t always go over very well with Paleo-Labour.”

      Like

    • 58
      The Gulag says:

      Any group of demonstrators demanding compulsory education of the masses is a group to be kept an eye on.

      Like

    • 79
      BZ says:

      SIR.

      Your Sketch must be read around the world and broadcast from the roof tops.

      I can’t praise it highly enough.

      Like

    • 85
      • 106
        Norwegian Jokesmith says:

        nee not aerosol
        its fur ma armpit

        Like

      • 130
        Michael Larkin says:

        I think Guido got the bit about the aerosols wrong. The aerosol effect has been found to be LOWER than once thought, meaning that the warming must also be lower to account for the observed amount of warming. It implies that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is significantly lower than the IPCC has been touting. I suspect this is why the warmist panel seem to have suddenly changed their position on ECS and are now claiming it isn’t important. Actually, it’s just the latest signal of their retreat.

        Lindzen wiped the floor with them and showed Yeo to be a buffoon.

        Like

        • 131
          Nic Lewis says:

          Yes, I said that the aerosol cooling effect was found in the new IPCC report to be much weaker than previously thought, not stronger. And that, as you say, therefore ECS must be lower than previously thought. The same goes for the more policy relevant 70-year transient climate response (TCR), which the IPCC scientists still admit to be important

          Like

          • Michael Larkin says:

            I am grateful for your confirmation, Nic. I didn’t mention your performance, for which, apologies. I found it to be quietly authoritative and convincing, and I don’t think you can have failed to impress the unbiased observer. If the committee expected (perhaps hoped for) a bunch of lunatics in the pay of Big Oil, I think they were rudely disabused of the notion. You, Richard Lindzen and Donna Laframboise did exceptionally well, I thought, and I offer you all sincerest thanks for your efforts.

            Like

          • (I've been renamed) DA-Notice says:

            I’d like to second Mr Larkin below. Everyone was exceptional and for me Ms Laframboise particularly hit the nail on the head with a lump hammer in a most accurate and concise way.

            Like

          • (I've been renamed) DA-Notice says:

            Or rather, above.

            Like

    • 92
      Do you want some.... says:

      And were the protesters that caused trouble actually Birmingham Uni Students? Nope! So, who were they?

      Like

    • 126
      Officer Dibble says:

      How we’ll laugh in 20 years when we find we paid all that extra tax, and it all made no difference whatsoever…

      Like

  2. 2
    More Phoney says:

    Wasn’t Climate Change(?) given legs when Blair pounced upon it give him some moral baggage after Iraq deceit.

    Like

    • 37
      Ah! hope says:

      ……this goes viral.

      Have copied it to my Light Green friends, and the less stupid ones.

      Like

      • 41
        Ah! say says:

        This Simon ain’t simple.

        Like

        • 55
          Casual Observer 6 says:

          Mr Carr is better briefed than the government.

          If he wasn’t writing sketches for Guido then he should be heading up the department for energy, after having got rid of the ‘and climate change’ b/s.

          Like

      • 98
        Dodgy Geezer says:

        …my Light Green friends, and the less stupid ones….

        Must be a very short mailing list…

        Like

    • 48
      Casual Observer 6 says:

      That may have been where it picked up steam again in the UK. Over in the US, Gore pushed it for commercial reasons, and there is an argument that after Bush realized that oil flowing from !raq to the US just wasn’t going to happen, lots of Federal funds were irrationally dumped into alternative energy.

      The climate science has always been on very shaky ground, but after the Univ of East Angl!a was exposed as being fraudulent – essentially the ‘academic’ ground zero for climate science – climate science has been dead and really a shoddy front to some very nasty policies which undermine the industrial economies of the West.

      The only common sense aspects here are:

      i) Certain industrial processes which release certain toxic compounds should be curbed, and even if uneconomic, alternatives should be found. But not for reasons of patent expiry.

      ii) Reducing the amount of energy consumed by industry is a smart thing to do but only for reasons of energy conservation. This should not be at the expense of impacting living standards or overall industrial output.

      iii) Science should not be brought into disrepute for fraudulent business reasons – eg. Windmills and the rest, or used in order to push regressive policies such as carbon taxes through. The trade tariffs introduced in Europe to block cheaper better quality Ch!nese solar, and US biofuel products are very good examples, and perhaps are a reason why the scam is now being exposed.

      What Lindzen says is true, and objective.

      Industry has been working to reduce energy consumption – certain international agreements have helped this process.

      What the IPCC do not want to discuss is that in order to properly protect the environment, the older industrial processes which are more polluting, out of license, and now relocated to developing nations should be shut down.

      There we see the real fallacy of the IPCC, and the political position of the UN itself laid bare.

      Like

    • 54
      Pschye the Dog says:

      I have asked this before, how high has the Thames go to rise above the Embankment at a guess about 5meters, lot of rain fall in Oxford and the surrounding area and a very high spring tide it is possible, barely a day goes by without it raining. Still it would clear the Stables out.

      Like

      • 59
        The City says:

        Not very fair on people contaminated downstream.

        Like

      • 63
        Casual Observer 6 says:

        Last happened back in the 30s for London.

        With the extra deep channel that has been put in for the new container port at Coryton for the deep draft vessels, with the scenario you quote, the chances of it happening are high. That is not meant to increase risk of larger tidal surge up to Tower Bridge, however that notion may be tested properly soon.

        You just need to add the right kind of pressure system and a bit of wind.

        And then wait for some idiot to try and blame global warming.

        Like

        • 105
          Ocean person says:

          It is a storm surge not a tidal surge. The latter would only be caused by a gravitational surge unless you want to call a bore a tidal surge: a bore is down to the shape of an estuary.

          The media often ‘muddy the waters’ due to their ignorance about scientific matters. For example, calling a Tsunami a tidal wave which it definitely is not!

          Unfortunately, the whole global warming debate is confused by imprecise science. I would much prefer that Climate Change was called Climate Variability.

          Like

      • 68
        Webbedfeet says:

        But when we had no rain in January this was blamed on Global Warming. We were told we would have to get used to a much drier UK and conserve water.

        When the concept of Global Warming was proved to be a lie because it wasn’t happening the concept title was changed to Climate Change.

        Now we have rain again, just like the old days, is this Climate Change or just good old fashioned weather?

        Or perhaps it is all these wind turbines mixing up all the air and water vapour that are to blame? Never rained like this before we had them!

        Like

        • 141
          Nora Drenalyn says:

          Look, it’s very simple:

          Heavy rain for months – climate change
          No rain for months – climate change
          More than 4 hot days in a row – climate change
          Bloody ice and snow for months – weather

          Clear now?

          Like

    • 64
      Peter Martin says:

      Speaking of pouncing…
      —-

      BBC Breaking News!
      January rainfall breaks records

      The South East and parts of southern England had wettest January since records began in 1910, figures indicate

      Since records began! Unprecedented then (that gets the EA off the hook on blaming the weather and not their flood management). Noah, you’re up (so long as a Tory-bailing (see what I did there?) UKipper (see what I did there too?))

      Like

    • 71
      Maximus says:

      United Nations has been pushing it ever since 1992 as plain and simple rent-seeking: a billion dollars a year for a developing countries compensation fund here, another billion a year for a climate disasters fund there – they want 10%.

      No-one has yet managed to answer the simple question “What temperature should the planet be?”.

      Like

      • 96
        Displaced Brummie says:

        And that funding, it wouldn’t be funnelled to UN special officials, would it? Oh. I see it all, now.

        Like

  3. 3
    Anonymous says:

    As with all disasters blamed on Climate change they are all attributable to humanity, but not via any atmosphere alteration.

    It is far more direct. Look at the latest flooding. Go on Google Earth and find the village of Oath. West of Langport in Somerset.

    Now look at the size of the dam in the river just to the north.

    Then note the river after the dam has no water in it.

    Then look just up river at the Village of Combe. Next to it is a man made canal. It is named the Sowy River flood relief channel.

    The idea I suppose was to divert the water around Bridgewater so that they could go out of control with development and build all those bridges choking the old river through the town.

    This is a monumental disaster created by stupid engineers that dictate what the weather should do with models. Nothing to do with maintenance. The architects of this system and the abuse of the old river should be in jail.

    Like

    • 128
      Anonymous says:

      That’s not meaningful in the slightest.

      The real thing causing the floods is the management of farmland, especially at higher elevations. Modern farming practices cause a vast amount of water to be diverted directly into rivers, and at the same time washes far greater levels of silt into rivers than was ever possible a few decades ago.

      A lot of foreign aid is currently being spent in third world countries on planting trees and creating natural drainage channels in rain catchment areas, entirely to the purpose of reducing flooding. Meanwhile in the UK, farming grants are handed out with specific requirements that all trees on the farmed land are removed, and farmers are further encouraged to fill in all natural drainage to maximise eligible hectares.

      Like

  4. 4
    Must burn carbon but not you says:

    Air miles tony
    Multi Air miles tons and tons of fuel in the atmosphere
    Blair, Brown (a bill creating carbon reduction)
    Yeo drives a car; minimum requirement I think is to give up your car if you politically stand on a platform telling people to follow these green mantras.

    Like

  5. 5
    Mine d'Boggles says:

    It won’t stop the “warmists” – they know a good one when they see it. Pass me a windmill, Prime Minister.

    Like

    • 15
      A scientist says:

      True, unfortunately. As a University physicist, with the odd Physical Review paper, I’m utterly ashamed that May, he of the Royal Society, is party to this “the science is settled” claptrap. Even quantum electrodynamics, the worls’s most successful science todate is not fucking settled.

      Like

      • 29
        walking into darkness says:

        If you read any of the populist science stuff these days you won’t have to go to far in to see some sort of reference to how real global warming is, or how climate change is definitely man made.

        It’s like it’s a secret language of saying to peers that you’re not a twat even though of course you are for saying so.

        Global warming has always and will always just be an excuse for politicians to try and lord it over all of us, a way of them reminding us that we really do need them, which as anyone here well knows we don’t.

        Like

        • 73
          Tax is theft says:

          “Lord it over us” not really, it is a cynical scam adopted by our nanny states to allow them to punitively tax us for our own good – because we all know how they love a new tax.
          It also redistributes industrial opportunity to non participating nations through increasing energy pricing and ludicrous carbon trading.
          Pass me that piano wire.

          Like

      • 33
        McAdder says:

        Agreed. I find the argument that the “science is settled” both ignorant and sinister. The attitude was similar to this during the Inquisition

        Like

        • 72
          FFS says:

          Ironically I find it similar to the position of the Catholic Church at the time of Galileo

          Like

        • 86
          low resolution fox says:

          Considering that most climate change models quote a 5-10% chance it doesn’t have any effect whatsoever, it is actually fraudulent to say the ‘science is settled’, unless of course you accept the science says there is a large bloody error boundary in it.

          Like

  6. 6
    Should be sacked says:

    Yeo is a pompous twat

    Like

    • 28
      Mrs Yeo says:

      (Re no.5) And I happen to know that he is an utter wanker.

      Like

    • 60
      Crystal Balls. says:

      Just to let you all know the bad news.
      The “M wave” is supposed to hit the USA tomorrow.
      Don’t say you were not warned. Hold onto you savings if you can.

      Like

    • 69
      Pdubya says:

      I watched it happen as Yeo and co failed to grasp intellectualy that the 1st three pseuds were defending a spurious report which by any measure was a cobbled up opinion by a bunch of tree huggers desperate to hang onto their grants by drowning the committee in newspeak drivel.
      Where Yeo really came into his own was his ignorant dismissal of a real scientist from one of the worlds finest institutions MIT. It made me constantly wince when his sheer lack of understanding gave way to moronic, uninformed sniping at a real scientist who was trying patiently to explain exactly what a total fraud global warming really is and what a huge cost we are all paying for a problem that does not exist.

      Like

  7. 7
    Ed Dafty, LimpDim MP, Climate Change Chieftain says:

    Stop quibbling and pay my Green Taxes.

    Like

  8. 8
    Anonymous says:

    Sometimes you just want to cry…

    Like

  9. 9
    Sue says:

    Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats – all part of the biggest fraud in human history:

    Man made climate change.

    Like

  10. 11
    Anonymous says:

    Nothing can dissuade these ecolunatics it is their sole reason for existence .

    Like

  11. 12
    Fred says:

    Excellent summary. Well done!

    The problem is that if we do nothing then politicians like Yeo will also lose their funding.

    Like

    • 30
      Denier! Denier! says:

      I’m sure he’ll be casting around already for a back-up gravy train. He knows the writing’s on the wall for AGW, however faint still and however often it’s frantically painted over by the warmists.

      Like

  12. 16
    Ziggy says:

    This will all change when Hell freezes, or when we elect individuals with integrity and a few brain cells!!!

    Like

    • 40
      geordieboy says:

      Apparently Cameron Said “Get rid of the green crap” Will he get rid of Ed Davey and Yeo first at least to make a start.

      Like

  13. 17
    Prime Minister David Cameron says:

    I am spearheading anal awareness week, a campaign funded by the EU.

    Like

  14. 18
    Keitho says:

    Yeo’s ignorance is astonishing.

    Activists from Greenpeace and WWF have a single position, humans are ruining the planet. They pay no attention to the evidence but just bang away about how awful humans are ( themselves excepted of course).

    Lindzen is quite correct, doing nothing is by far the most practical solution.

    Like

    • 67

      Doing nothing, or dynamic procrastination as it is sometimes known, is the very stuff of politics and governance. It is the bureaucracy’s job to ensure that the legislature interfere as little as possible with the daily life of the Nation. The old Civil Service knew this and headed off aspiring totalitarian MP’s to maintain stasis while distracting the ambitious with empty victories. Blair’s government changed all this by making unelectable trots high-ranking civil servants. Our grandchildren will still be paying for the devastation the Blair/Brown Terror wrought.

      We’re busily doing nothing
      Isn’t it such a crime
      We’ed like to beeeeeeeeeeee unhappy but
      We never do have the time.

      Like

    • 89
      Airey Belvoir says:

      Unfortunately Yeo is far from ignorant and knows exactly what he’s doing. There is a lot of money to be made in warmism and he intends to acquire as much of it as he can.

      Like

  15. 19
    bergen says:

    Very good report.

    The committee seems to be split between three special interest groups-those with a genuine scientific interest, those with a personal financial interest and those who follow the red/green agenda.

    The last two groups are no longer having things their own way.

    Like

  16. 20
    Tom says:

    To the Eco-Loonies MMGW is a religion not a science, so facts will no more deter them than followers of a medieval desert religion could be persuaded that the 71 fat virgins, or whatever, are a myth. On Breakfast TV this week a highly placed female lunatic in the Environment Agency was asked about the 16 year pause – her reply was to assume that her interlocutor was in the pay of “Big Oil”

    Like

  17. 21
    Wait - what! says:

    Thank you Simon Carr, this is the best way to hold these charletans to account. Unfortunately, the MPs have been told what to think, how to think it and just as importantly, how to argue the party line and cannot understand when evidence is used against them.
    In a later, more enlightened age, my generation will be mocked and derided for believing this quackery called AGW and with very good reason.

    Like

  18. 22
    Major Eyeswater says:

    “Laframboise suggested that putting an activist in charge of official information was not very healthy.”

    I am stunned, shocked even that Tim Yeo MP felt unable to agree with the lady. Making pots of cash or building a career in public life on the back of the CAGW crisis is never something that Mr Yeo would allow if it presented a conflict of interest, surely?

    Please God let them deselect this porcine, permatanned buffoon.

    Like

    • 77
      FFS says:

      Wasn’t Guido telling us that Yeo was attempting to placate his local association by coming out against windmills? Are we to assume that he is now in favour of them again? Where will he stand on this issue tomorrow?

      I presume his name has been shortened. It should be Tim Yeo-Yeo.

      Like

      • 90
        Tim Yeo says:

        Wind turbines: Good.
        Wind turbines that threaten my reselection to Parliament: V. bad.

        Like

        • 100
          Dodgy Geezer says:

          Wind turbines that I can make money out of: Good.

          Wind turbines that threaten my reselection to Parliament so I can keep on making money out of wind turbines and water meters: V. bad until I am reselected.

          There, fixed that for you…

          Like

  19. 23
    Sunderland is a Labour ghetto thats why its shyte. says:

    Off Topic;That evil scumbag who murdered then tried to behead Lee Rigby has lodged notice of an appeal against his conviction.He should be hung drawn and then quartered with his enttrails being fed to the pigs.When is this country going to get its head out of its arse and start playing hardball with this scum.

    Like

  20. 24
    John Bellingham says:

    Something that intrigues me—before Global Warming (aka climate change( was invented there were a couple of seriously horrible droughts in Southern Africa in the 1980s; in hindsight they were an important component in the social and economic changes of that region. Other droughts that helped to make pop stars with no musical hits very rich and famous had even more wide-ranging social effects. These weather events and similar ones in Australia and South America and co-incident wetter weather in the Northern Hemisphere were put down to the El Nina and El Nino effects and had been part of regular, though unpredictable cycles going back to the Holocene. No one mentions these phenomena any more, but if one seeks information, the “authorities” claim that they have “probably” been made worse by Global Warming (no proof though).
    It’s all very much like religion isn’t it? You HAVE to believe ‘cos someone cleverer that you says so.

    Like

    • 27
      C.O.Jones says:

      Ecoloons are not cleverer, their entry requirements to university are low, with no requirement for maths and physics at A level.

      They are well down the list of achievers before they even start university.

      Like

      • 46
        Charlie says:

        The problem was that in the60s the universities were enlarged mainly by expanding arts and social sciences not applied science and engineering. In Germany , in the 60s most studied applied science and engineering degrees. Germany also expanded the craftsmen/technician training , rather than university training. The result is that the hard left/green /animal liberation front is full of of arts and social science graduates from third rate universities who drift from higher education to NGOs to public sector employment; most of them are resentful and bitter that they have not achieved more in life.. It is very much like the Church post 1300 which comprised vast numbers of monks and nuns living off the labour of others while praying for the souls of their wealthy patrons.

        Seen http://www.insidetheenvironmentagency.co.uk

        The EA hardly employs any engineers with design and construction experience , this is mostly done by outside firms.

        Like

    • 39
      Podiceps says:

      Actually the climate change priests are on to El Niño too. Headline in New Scientist for 25 January: ‘Devastating El Niños to double this century.’ Because of global warming, of course.

      Like

      • 81
        John Bellingham says:

        Thanks, I read the article. The body copy contradicts the headline–it seem that while one prophet claims disaster, another suggests that “climate change” has slowed the incidence of the events, altering earlier prophecies of more regular cycles of severe bad weather.

        “‘So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you'” (1 Kings 22:19–23 NIV).

        Like

  21. 26
    Jasmine Beckett says:

    My favourite song at the moment is Cry Me A River.

    Like

  22. 31
    Is that it? says:

    So, does Theresa May intend to talk as long as possible, simply to prevent debate?

    Like

    • 35
      Basically says:

      She’s talking at length about one set of un-reasonable policies in order to prevent talking at length about another set of un-reasonable policies.

      Like

  23. 34
    Mr Potato Head2 says:

    A ‘doing nothing’ policy is stupid. That is what has led to flooding and anybody who argues that the number of flood related incidents in the UK (let alone elsewhere) has not increased over the past few decades is in denial.

    The current ‘green’ policy however is totally misguided. It should be to deal with the inevitable problems we face (such as floods and droughts), including building new reservoirs, dredging and storm surge protection on populated coastlines. But more importantly we need an immediate end to net immigration, which is just making all these climate related incidents have a much bigger impact (water shortages during droughts and building houses in flood prone areas).

    Globally the only way to stop 7 billion people (and rising) adding to the problem is to spend foreign aid only on natural disasters and birth control.

    Like

    • 47
      Ah! I know now says:

      ….why you’re called Potato Head.

      Like

    • 80
      FFS says:

      Are we talking global warming here or global raining?

      Because it seems we have a one size fits all theory here.

      The Somerset Levels have always flooded. They flood almost every year. They flood with such regularity it usually doesn’t even make the LOCAL news let alone the national news, except now with “global warming/raining/freezing/droughting/winding theory” any event tenuously related to the weather of any sort and in any way is considered international news warning of “The End of Days”.

      My home town used to flood every year until they straightened the river out. The Thames Valley floods about once every three years with a big flood every 10 years.

      Like

      • 88
        John Bellingham says:

        Hotter than average temperature= Global warming=carbon taxes +jobs for the boys.
        Lower than average precipitation=Global warming=carbon taxes+ jobs for the boys.
        Higher winds than normal=Global warming (warmer oceans)=carbon taxes+jobs for the boys.

        Cooler than average temperature=Global warming (ice sheets melting)=carbon taxes+ jobs for the boys.
        Higher than average precipitation=Global warming =carbon taxes+jobs for the boys.
        Lower winds than normal=failure of wind farms to perform as predicted, power-cuts, black outs, economic hardship.

        Like

  24. 43
    Ah! think it's rain says:

    UK weather: Why has it been so wet?
    By Nick Miller
    Meteorologist, BBC Weather Centre

    Like

    • 51
      Casual Observer 6 says:

      Lots of warm moist air coming up from Mex!co – keeping the country warm – and low pressure.

      This is not global warming, and the folk who are not benefiting from the UK’s good weather conditions can testify.

      Like

      • 57
        Ah! brilliant! says:

        Wish I had the ability to post as @ 2……46.

        May copy that on to my Light Green Friends as well.

        Like

  25. 44
    Anyoldiron says:

    Oh dear, wot a shame, my contribution has slipped off this site again.

    Like

  26. 45
    Dick the Butcher says:

    It might be worth noting that the last three holders of the post of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change have been/are Ed Milliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey.

    Like

    • 56
      Gus O'Donnell ministers Qualification says:

      Could have a physics O’level between them. Maths, all three yes, Stats no. Computer modelling knowledge, whats that.

      Like

    • 97
      (Rarely) Dangerous Brian says:

      So, when they insist on everything in triplicate they mean complete dic*heads as well?

      Like

  27. 49
    Moley says:

    Suffolk Conservatives are all looking forward to the day when Yeo is voted out and the cry goes up “Taxi for Mr Yeo”

    Hopefully it will be one of his own make, to drive the point home that it was his own greed and self interest which led to his expulsion from the body politic.

    Like

  28. 53

    There was and will always be hot, baking hot/cold, freeze the balls off/dry, parched/wet, soaking wet wellie weather. Either you get it ALL in one year or perhaps a nice/nasty mix over more years. So we don’t need clever cods to tell us what was or what perhaps might or might not happen over the next 50 years. For now I rely on my corns and it is freezing.

    Like

  29. 62
    Eco-loon says:

    Quite clearly taxation of ‘toffs’ at 99% marginal rate is the imperative.

    Like

  30. 66
    Moleykins says:

    Suggested headline ‘ La Framboise blows Committee a raspberry’

    Like

  31. 74
    A Nutter says:

    It’s because all the insects are being killed off by systemic agri-chemicals, so the lack of wing beats is reducing the wind speed so increasing temperature ranges across the globe. Also the food for predatory birds and reptiles is now polluted and so reduced that the populations will significantly be reduced, so freeing up more green belt land for development! It’s all in the plan!!!

    Like

  32. 78
    Hell for Leather says:

    Parliamentary coverage at its best, yet again.

    I do hope this piece is brought to the attention of those responsible for re-/de-selecting Yeo.

    One small query though, regarding the 11th paragraph in the section below the sub-heading “Maybe the IPCC should be disbanded?”

    It reads: “He took exception to her suggestion that a Greenpeace and WWF activist should be put in charge of a Chapter.” Am wondering if it should perhaps read… “her suggestion that a Greenpeace and WWF activist should NOT be put in charge of a Chapter.”

    Like

    • 94
      Hell for Leather says:

      Ha! That piece was so good, I re-read it. And loved this:

      Yeo: (incredulously): Are you suggesting that people who had gone into this field of work were academically or intellectually inferior to those who’d chosen other fields of work?

      He could so easily have been talking about MPs vis a vis private sector!

      Like

  33. 83

    Brilliant, Simon. Absolutely fucking brilliant!

    The best thing I have seen you write. Funny but also on the button as to the complete lack of integrity, desire to establish the truth and for providing the reasons why they argue this way.

    It should be carved into granite blocks and set up at the entrance to the BBC. No BBC employee should be retained without having read it and questioned to ensure he has absorbed it.

    It should be shown as the test card, before they start broadcasting and before closedown for at least ten minutes, just before they play the National Anthem.

    What? Don’t they? Well they can jolly well start that again too…

    Like

  34. 87
    crash says:

    Why 1919-1940 but 1979-1998. One is 19 years, one is 21 years. Not a natural comparison. Why have these dates been selected? Both sides choose time series to fit their agendas, it proves nothing.

    Like

    • 107
      Keitho says:

      Perhaps if you shortened the early one you might find it has the same slope as the later one. There is a really obvious flex point at the start and end of each rapid warming period and being natural they have slightly different lengths.

      Like

    • 112
      Dead Ant says:

      You do know that _rate_ of change is change over time so the period length becomes irrelevant.

      It is perfectly valid to measure rates of change over any period you like. You only commit a fallacy if you compare absolute changes.

      Like

  35. 91
    dive master says:

    As Commander Vimes would say Follow the Money!

    Like

  36. 101
    I here my Gravy Train a'coming says:

    Yo! Yeo’s a yoyo!

    Like

  37. 108
    Graham says:

    First it was Global Warming then Climate Change. What next ? The thicko Yeo and the rest of the useless c*nts on that IPCC will come up with some other crap. Yeo’s constituents have already decided that he’s a fucking joke , so he will elevated to the second House of Scumbag Troughers post 2015. It really is time for a real Guy Fawkes to rid us of the bloody lot , except for Redwood, Field, Hoey and Tebbit. They have brains and are realists.

    Like

  38. 109
    Rabid dribbler says:

    Only problem with a yoyo is the fact they come back!!!

    Like

  39. 110
    Graham says:

    And let us not forget Stephanie Harris and the Liebourite scumbags at the BBC all spouting their shit propaganda. The UK version of Radio Moscow – full of leftie bollocks and blatantly anti-Conservative.

    Like

  40. 111
    john in cheshire says:

    I think there should be a round of applause for both Richard Lindzen and Donna Laframboise. I suspect most people who read this blog and contribute to the comments don’t have a clue who these people are. Read Donna’s blog or go to Bishop Hill Blog or Watts up With That Blog and learn something about real people who have real knowledge and want to impart it for the public good. I know that Ms Laframboise had to pay the majority of her costs to come to London to give evidence; because I sent her a small donation. These two people are representative of a large body of normal, honourable people who know the subject of which they speak. Unlike the likes of Mr Yeo and his claque of opportunists and carpet-baggers.

    Like

  41. 114
  42. 115
  43. 117
    A Physicist says:

    Simon,

    An excellent post !

    Yeo and his committee are, how shall I put it, a Comedy of Errors.

    Like

  44. 118
    David Holland says:

    Well if any validation was needed of Dick Linzen’s suggestion that not all IPCC participants were the sharpest tools in box, or Donna Laframboise’s that IPCC Review Editors should be independent folk, you should read on Bishop Hill what Prof Peter Wadhams wrote in his report the to IPCC.

    Like

  45. 119
    ZT says:

    If you want to watch Lindzen tutoring of Yeo – it is on YouTube here: http://youtu.be/6GzNATrGH7I 2:35:00 is place to scroll forward too…

    …it is scary!

    Like

  46. 120
    George Walton says:

    Quote: The aerosol cooling effect, he said, was much larger than previously thought, so the warming – whatever caused it – must have been proportionately smaller.

    This seems backward to me. I think I read that the aerosol cooling was *smaller* than assumed in the models. Therefore the warming effect would have been proportionately smaller to cause the observed rise in temperature.

    Like

  47. 122
    bartslartbastard says:

    Christ on a crutch.

    Yeo won’t read the IPCC report because it’s 2,000 pages long.

    It’s your job you idle bastard. That would take me probably 3 days. But you, you idle little turd, you, the head of the committee that advises the government on climate change, you can’t be arsed to read the report.

    You boy, are a fucking disgrace.

    Like

  48. 123
  49. 124
    pdtillman says:

    Thanks for this. Very entertaining!

    Cheers — Pete Tillman
    Professional geologist, amateur climatologist
    “Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” — Voltaire

    Like

  50. 127
    Gras Albert says:

    Would that Lindzen had responded to Yeo’s

    Just because we’ve had the hottest decade on record doesn’t seem conclusive proof that global warming has come to an end

    with

    You, Mr Yeo, have just had your tallest decade on record, are you suggesting that fact is conclusive proof that you are still growing?

    How Climate Science (And Yeo) sees trends

    Like

  51. 129
    Anonymous says:

    I’m fully in support of healthy skepticism, but Guidos generation will be retired before the dangers of climate change can be proved true or false, and they will all be dead before there are any serious consequences.

    Whether climate change can be proven or not, who is going to have to deal with it? It will be my generation, people in their 20s and 30s just starting their working lives. It will be us and our children. Not Cameron. Not Guido.

    Moan all you like about environmentalists taking money out of your pocket, and telling you what to do. Someday your children will look at you and see nothing but crass arrogance and a piggish desire to stay living in the manner to which you became accustomed to in your youth.

    Like

    • 132
      chris says:

      What you argue makes zero sense!

      You state that you are young (as am I, BTW), yet you want the western governments to squander Billions of tax payer’s hard earned, not on growth, so that us and our children will live in a healthy, job rich society, but on crazy ‘green’ policies, to which the key recipients of all this money are already the richest in society – and you want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

      How is that helping our kids?

      Plus, don’t forget, there has been no warming for a decade and half. Prof Turney didn’t believe that and look where that got him, believing in models rather than reality!

      Like

  52. 135
    ZT says:

    Professor Lindzen tutors Yeo: http://youtu.be/HUT7hLtFXIk

    Like

  53. 136

    There have frequently been complaints that the Mainstream Media (MSM) don’t cover the climate. Until recently I regularly sent press releases to the MSM trying to get their interest.

    Finally I twigged. The reason the MSM don’t cover climate is because the CNM (Citizen News Media) already do it much better and this article is a notable example.

    So, what we are seeing here, is the luddite tendency in politics who still read the MSM thinking that’s “where it’s at”, who haven’t a clue that politics and science and much of life if you’re on facebook, is now part of the online CNM.

    It’s a revolution: as big or bigger than the printing press which led to the break up of the catholic church. It’s a change as big as the rise of the mammals. These dinosaurs like Yeo & the MSM can’t understand where all the rats have come from and they hate us for being who we are. But slowly and surely as the declining circulation figures of the MSM show, the CNM is taking over.

    Down with these political dinosaurs … the rats are winning!

    Like

  54. 138
    Anonymous says:

    Yeo what a smug self-serving cock, add the likes of John Robertson and the committee is a sham

    Like

  55. 142
    Carl says:

    Reblogged this on Conservative Commentary and News and commented:
    ##

    Like

  56. 149
    Andy H says:

    Interesting thing to note from this thread is the absence of Warmmungers ,is the intellectual challenge too rigorous?

    Like

  57. 150
    WRITTEN BY says:

    Awesome post.

    Like


Seen Elsewhere

Bercow’s £12,000 of VIP Sporting Freebies | Sun
Aldous Huxley v George Orwell | FatPita
Blinkered BBC is Ripe for Reform | David Keighley
Calls for Bercow to Face Inquiry | Mail
Labour Mad to Fight Tories on Tax | Dan Hodges
Right to be Forgotten is a Disaster | Padraig Reidy
Dave Could Be Finished Before 50 | James Forsyth
Why Do Politicians Keep Getting Caught on Tape? | BBC
Ed Guru: It’s Good to Tax the Dead | Mail
Dave Must Get Serious or He Will Lose | Tim Montgomerie
Polling Averages Trend | PoliticalBetting.com


new-advert
Westbourne-Change-Opinion Guido-hot-button (1)


Knifed former civil service chief Bob Kerslake on his recent troubles:

“Many thks for kind wishes following back opn. Incision measured 16cm. A pretty big knife in the back! Photos on request.”



Rob Wilson says:

Without Predujice

Darling

What time will dinner be ready this evening?

Yours

Rob Wilson MP

In the interests of me I am placing a copy of this email in the public domain.


Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:






RSS




AddThis Feed Button
Archive


Labels
Guido Reads