SKETCH: Peter Lilley v Tim Yeo

That was a first. Not even Ellis vs Vaz has produced a moment like Peter Lilley flying at Tim Yeo in committee this morning.

”That is disgraceful!” Lilley spat out as Yeo took the questioning away from him. “Absolutely disgraceful! You have protected a witness who cannot answer a question.”

Would not, rather than could not. We had a masterclass in passive aggressive responses from Emily Shuckburgh of the Royal Meteorological Society. Her winsome smile, her quiet, disbelieving giggle, her cosy chuckling with allies in the room, her manner of explaining something really, really difficult to a seven-year-old. And almost effortlessly constructing answers just wide enough of the question to confuse the issue, the audience and the questioners.

Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”

She didn’t say, “Slightly decreased.” They only use short answers when they want to be understood. Such as: “Do you think there’s anything in the latest climate report to justify a change of policy? “No.”

The weather chief used the ever-suspicious beginning: “I think the first thing that’s important to note is”. . . Sceptic-sounding facts or questions always have to be contextualised.

Lilley: “First of all, answer the question. Increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence in the projections.”

Shuckburgh: (Smiling winsomely) “Mr Lilley, I’m going to answer your question, don’t worry.”

But to answer a question from Lilley directly is a loss. A defeat. An acknowledgement he has a right to an opinion.

Had she been among friends, and in private, and not-to-be-quoted, she might have said: “We have significantly decreased confidence in short-term warming as rapid as previously thought. The IPCC has, in fact, reduced its forecast accordingly.”

But no. She was dealing with a Lilley and she wasn’t giving him a single bone to chew on. When he repeated his question – increased, decreased, unchanged? – she looked cornered for a moment. Struggled for an answer and then inspiration struck:

“Your question in itself is not well-formed. You ask whether it leaves unchanged future projections of temperature change, but in order for your question to be well-defined you need to articulate over what time period.”

That’s passive aggressive fighting talk.

She gave her answer in such a way as to satisfy her allies and infuriate her opponents.

Lilley: “Witness refused to answer the question.”

Shuckburgh: (Always accuse your opponent of your own most obvious fault) “Oh no, come on, you’re playing politics.

Yeo: (Smoothly) Rather a comprehensive answer.

Shortly after this, Lilley’s burst of anger made his opponents purr with satisfaction. It was a small but significant climate change victory. A sceptic had been made to lose his temper.

As far as I could follow it, Lilley wanted to know why the model projections differed from the expert judgements. Whether the projections had been fudged to make the models produce the desired answers.

Ms Shuckburgh’s explanation was that the models were constructed for 100-year predictions and were no good for predicting climate over the next couple of decades.

And then, by way of finesse, she also said that you could feed other data in and the models could be used to predict the next 10 or 20 years.

The difficulty with – and brilliance of – passive aggressive confrontations is that you can’t quite follow what’s going on. And usually, it’s not worth finding out. But climate change is a multi-trillion dollar issue and deserves better.



Tip offs: 0709 284 0531
team@Order-order.com

GuidoFawkes Quote of the Day

Rod Liddle:

“Family of 12 from Luton – including a baby and two grandparents who are suffering from diabetes and cancer – feared to have joined ISIS… yay – result! That’s saved us all quite a few bob, no? Carry on like this and we might clear the national debt.”

Top Posts This Week

Guidogram: Sign up

Subscribe to the most succinct 7 days a week daily email read by thousands of Westminster insiders.

Facebook

MEGA INTERCONTINENTAL ROBOT WARS MEGA INTERCONTINENTAL ROBOT WARS
Dave Meets UKIP Dave Meets UKIP
Secret Fracking Report Doesn’t Reveal Much Secret Fracking Report Doesn’t Reveal Much
Environmental Advantages of Airport Expansion Environmental Advantages of Airport Expansion
PMQS SKETCH PMQS SKETCH
“Dodgy” Dave v “Jurassic” Skinner “Dodgy” Dave v “Jurassic” Skinner

Missed PMQs? Catch Up in Full Here Missed PMQs? Catch Up in Full Here
Do you have what it takes to join a GCHQ hacking SCHOOL? Do you have what it takes to join a GCHQ hacking SCHOOL?
IDS Expenses Row: Was Credit Card Suspended Or Not? IDS Expenses Row: Was Credit Card Suspended Or Not?
Questions Channel 4 News Don’t Want to Ask Questions Channel 4 News Don’t Want to Ask
Zac and Boris Warn Dave Zac and Boris Warn Dave
NHS UN-APPY NHS UN-APPY
MP Shagging His Secretary on Highest Paygrade MP Shagging His Secretary on Highest Paygrade
Owen Jones Gets Owned Owen Jones Gets Owned
Read Sajid Javid Speech Slamming CBI Read Sajid Javid Speech Slamming CBI
Watch: BBC3 Greatest Hits Watch: BBC3 Greatest Hits
LORD DEBEN’S CLIMATE ALARMISM LORD DEBEN’S CLIMATE ALARMISM
WATCH: Terror Training Exercise in London WATCH: Terror Training Exercise in London
Meet the Next Generation of Troughing MPs Meet the Next Generation of Troughing MPs