There are currently 850 open EDMs, the vast majority of which are pointless grandstanding – like the one listed above. An extraordinary proportion of them are listed by Bob Spink for some reason.

And the overwhelming majority of them attract the same 40-50 signatures. Making any sort of wider political point from them is utterly fatuous.

And the overwhelming majority of them attract the same 40-50 signatures. Making any sort of wider political point from them is utterly fatuous.

Not necessarily… the EDM is signed by loads of Labour and Libdem MPs though (more of the latter as a percentage actually). So there’s got to be a reason why there’s only TWO Tory MPs.

Now that’s a brazenly inaccurate headline, isn’t it! Only two Tory MPs have signed up to the proposition, which is increasingly being called into question, that “climate change is happening and is man-made”. Given
[1] the IPCC’s acknowledged cock-ups over the Himalayas and the Amazon data,
[2] the discrediting of the risible “hockey-stick graph”,
[3] the highly questionable conflicts of Rajendra Pachauri’s interests,
[4] the coordinated refusal to make base climate data available to sceptics,
[5] the Hadley Centre’s proven abuse of its duties under the FOIA,
[6] the scurrilous behaviour of the ‘ultras’ disclosed by the hacked emails,
[7] the non-scientific background of many on the IPCC, and
[8] the way that this has become a political, and not a scientific, issue
I should think it would be rash for any MP (of whatever party) to nail his/her colours to this particular mast before far more accurate and disinterested information is available.

Climate change is happening, as it has always happened. The extent to which it is a direct consequence of human behaviour, as with the extent to which it has suddenly become non-cyclical, has yet to be established.

Not necessarily… the EDM is signed by loads of Labour and Libdem MPs…

58 of them. And look at the names – it’s like a panorama of pointlessness. Bruce George, Phyllis Starkey, Linda Riordan, Kelvin Hopkins: who are these people? Have they nothing better to do than sign motions condemning dog eating in the Phillipines? *Scandalously* more MPs signed that one than signed a motion condemning human rights abuses in the Phillipines:

EXCLUSIVE: MPs care more about dogs than babies!!!!!

Mr. Bankment: You right-wing doubt-addicts are going to be SO terminally destroyed, politically, over the coming decade, as the evidence becomes more and more utterly uncontrovertible that we (humans) are damaging our climate. You are going to end up looking like the tobacco companies as the case over the smoking-lungcancer connection was gradually decisively vindicated, or like Fascist fellow-travellers after the Second World War. Your credibility will be eliminated.
So: _do_ keep peddling your pathetic crumbs of doubt. We look forward to dancing on the political graves of you and your allies in the Republican Party, in the DUP, the BNP, UKIP, the Tories, the Saudi Arabian government, and the rest of your sad mad gang.

Oh, sorry links:

43 are worried about dog-eating in the Philipines
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40367&SESSION=903

But only 38 are worried about human rights in the Philipines
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39793&SESSION=903

Errr it;s obvious why Peter Bottomley has signed it. He signs everything and anything.

Should add, he’s probably sign a call for polished turds to be praised by Parliament if it came up

7 – well, he’s certainly worried about those Philipino dogs. And the babies too. Serial signer…

Dear C’llr – or should that be COUNCILLOR, since the pinchbeck gong clearly matters to you? – Read,

How swiftly you leap to assumptions. How charmingly you vilify informed doubt. How fervently I hope that you are not a councillor anywhere near me, and that I am not paying (even expenses) for your self-righteous bigotry.

I listed a number of reasons why the climate change ultras have damaged their credibility. Please feel free to counter any or all of them. I will listen to you, just as you appear singularly disinclined to listen to me. I have not denied climate change, in the way that Michael Mann denies the Mediaeval Wing Period. Unlike you, it seems, I am willing – indeed, anxious – to read as much as possible before forming my opinions, instead of taking them off the shelf marked ‘Dogma’.

Let’s take my points in order:
[1] the IPCC has admitted to having published false data.
[2] the “hockey-stick graph” is flat-out wrong.
[3] Rajendra Pachauri is conflicted.
[4] base climate data has been withheld.
[5] the Hadley Centre has been found to have abused its FOIA duties.
[6] the ‘ultras’ have been shown to have behaved … naughtily.
[7] many on the IPCC have non-scientific backgrounds.
[8] climate change has become a political, and not a scientific, issue.
So, go right ahead and demolish them.

Aha, I see now why you have got so very steamed up about this. You’re at UEA yourself, and thus I have committed the unforgivable solecism of daring to question your academic colleagues, as well as your own Green Party opinions. Loyalty is a commendable trait, but I would have thought that an analytical philosopher would be more open (professionally, if not personally) to the principles of informed debate than your stance of inflexible and petulant certainty suggests.

Nevertheless, Dr. (so very much more dignified an honorific than C’llr) Read, you must be an okay kinda guy au fond, because anyone who has written on T. S. Kuhn cannot be all bad

Er, excuse me, Mr. Bankment, but I think you’ll find that that’ll be Mediaeval Warming Period, not Mediaeval Wing Period!

“more and more utterly uncontrovertible”

Wow!

In fact what will happen is that you will become more and more utterly hysterical.

You people are having fun at the moment, with a cold winter and the UEA email theft, but you won’t be having so much fun when you are out completely in the political cold, along with fascists and smoking-causes-lung-cancer-denialists.
[The best thing that Nick Griffin ever did was come out as a climate-change-denier. You lot are going to find it hard to live that one down...]

see…there you go…

I have not denied climate change, in the way that Michael Mann denies the Mediaeval Wing Period.

Michael Mann definitely does not deny the MWP. He just doesn’t think it was warmer than the present, which is fair enough because that’s what the available data indicate. So you can put that one back on the shelf marked “dogma”, or you could also refile it under “obvious lies and slander”.

Good. Perhaps the Conservative party isn’t full of mindless idiots. This has made sure they get my vote.

The evidence isn’t 100% incontrovertible that obesity increases your risk of heart disease. Fine; but it is nearly there. And you would therefore be very ill-advised to become obese, if you can help it. And any political Party that stakes its political fortune on pushing fatty foods and denying the link will (almost certainly) get its come-uppance. … So will the political Right. They are gambling against science. They may pick up a few Thomas Hobbes’s right now, but in the longer run they are going to lose. GOOD.

Dear Dr. Read

Now what were you taught, in Analytical Philosophy 101, about the counter-productive effect of ad hominem insult? Don’t you think it renders your opinions on all things suspect if you start throwing your toys out of the pram like this? Your intemperate language invites us to discount your views on anything.

Look at your inglorious track-record in just two splenetic posts:
“You right-wing doubt-addicts are going to be SO terminally destroyed … like the tobacco companies … like Fascist fellow-travellers … Your credibility will be eliminated … keep peddling your pathetic crumbs of doubt … dancing on the political graves of you and your allies in the Republican Party, in the DUP, the BNP, UKIP, the Tories, the Saudi Arabian government (eh, you what?) … the rest of your sad mad gang … out completely in the political cold, along with fascists and smoking-causes-lung-cancer-denialists … Nick Griffin – a climate-change-denier. You lot are going to find it hard to live that one down.”

I am not a denier, as I thouight I had made plain in my first post. My scepticism is fuelled by the demonstrably bad science and bad behaviour disclosed in recent months, as well as by reading around the subject. I do not merely feed my prejudice by reading one side of the argument. The IPCC and its ‘useful idiots’ in government are trying to commit the world to staggering levels of investment, and unquantifiably retrograde living conditions, in unproven technologies of questionable effectiveness to reverse a climate change theory which may yet turn out to be as baseless as the ‘global cooling’ panic of the 1970s.

I note that you have not addressed a single one of the eight points I made. Your debating posture appears to be that “there are two ways of looking at this problem: my way and the wrong way”, and we both know that doesn’t convince anyone other than the person who says it. Please support your position with something beyond insult.

I’ve taken a look at your broader political stance, and I admire it. If I were in your constituency, I would be attracted by it. I would not, however, be greatly impressed if a candidate seeking my vote started ’shouting’ at me as you have done here.

Is this what the consensus looks like?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/9/hansens-colleague-eviscerates-ar4-chapter-9.html

Meanwhile I loved Prof. Watson’s protestations that he hadn’t read the IPCC report because it was too long.

Has anyone actually read it?
As Neil says, perhaps that’s why the errors keep mounting.
He (Watson) also hangs Pachauri out to dry.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/daily-politics.html

Oh, and Albert, Cllr. Read is not as nice as he seems (!!)
See this thread for details:

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/07/15/peter-tatchel-wants-you-to-vote-green-in-norwich/

Dear dunc

Michael Mann and his colleagues put forward, as incontrovertible fact, a chart that has been discredited. They maintained its academic integrity until they could do so no longer, in the face of robust data and supporting historical anecdote (such as geographical crop distribution). The ‘hockey-stick graph’ has been a fundamental tool of the climate-change activists, and it has been shown to be utterly flawed. A little more humility on the part of its promoters, such as the IPCC, would be appropriate.

It is increasingly the case that whenever a ‘given’ of the IPCC is subjected to dispassionate professional scrutiny its assumptions are shown to be flawed, inaccurate, misinterpreted or flat-out wrong. I wish this were not so. I wish the IPCC were as authoritative as it believes itself to be. I wish it were headed by a climatologist, or at the very least an earth-scientist, and not a railway engineer.

I used to give plenty of money to Greenpeace. I stopped in the mid-90s when the ‘facts’ it claimed about Brent Spar (regarding oil and toxic chemicals and metals) were admitted to be lies, and when Greenpeace issued an unapologetic corporate snigger to the effect that lies were perfectly permissible in pursuit of the greater ‘truth’ that Shell was wicked. Analogously, it is the self-righteous certainty of the IPCC and its defenders which is so alienating.

Michael Mann and his colleagues put forward, as incontrovertible fact, a chart that has been discredited.

Which is (a) not what you originally claimed and (b) totally false, as confirmed by multiple independent analyses. No matter how many times you claim this, it is simply not true. There have been some minor re-adjustments in the 11 years since MBH’99, as you would expect, but the basic outline remains the same.

I wish it were headed by a climatologist, or at the very least an earth-scientist, and not a railway engineer.M

So do most, if not all, climate scientists. Rajendra Pachauri was foisted on the IPCC by the US delegation, under protest, because they hoped he would be more conciliatory towards business interests. As I recall, this was quite widely reported at the time.

Dear dunc

The graph has been undermined by fact, and MBH have belatedly shifted their position. A website which proclaims itself as “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism” is hardly going to be entirely objective, it!

Nevertheless, thank you for pointing me towards more informed commentary. I’ll read with interest.

Dunc,

On the paper referenced in 23.

I’m not sure this is particularly well-informed commentary. It does not comment on the key issue case against the hockey stick, which is that the modelling used would show a hockey stick from any figures. Wahl-Amman (2007) was the paper on which these flaws were demonstrated, so is not exactly evidence for the hockey stick working. Nor does it address the problem of data picking and small samples which bedevil the subject at the moment (three stalgmites (Smith 2005) is a small sample, regardless of the difficulty in getting more evidence).

As to the Smith et al (2005) paper, a correlation of 0.43 with Mann et al is hardly conclusive that Mann was right, even if stalagmites are good temprature proxies. My guess is that they are no better than tree rings, in that temprature is only one factor in stalagmite growth (as noted in the paper) and most of these are likely to be affected by human activity.

Oerlemans (2005) seems a good temprature proxy, but only goes back to the little ice age, so is not much use for stating whether the earlier period was warmer or not (one of Mann’s key errors), and it should be pointed out that this early material (based on very few observations) is in fact something greater than .15K colder than Mann’s reconstruction and the early recorded temprature series (see figure S3 in the supporting material), which is likely to be due to small sample (perhaps centred in Scandinavia) rather than anything else. Furthermore, the data finishes in 2000, which is about where Mann’s initial Hockey Stick (published in 1998) diverges from the temperature record (which is effectively flat for the next decade), so in fact only agrees with Mann in that Mann modelled the modern part of the Hockey stick to fit recorded tempratures (for arch-sceptics, that was actually good science: ensuring your model fits the recorded data is kind of fundamental), and that glaciers seem to be good proxies for recorded tempratures.

I can’t really comment on Huang et al (2000) because I do not understand the underlying science that allows someone to reconstruct historical tempratures from a current day borehole (my initial reaction was disbelief, as a greater source of heat lies underneath, not above, rocks, but I suspect there is more to it than that). I will however comment that a proxy which is almost entirely based in temperate zones (only about 25 of 616 boreholes were in what I would judge tropical areas judging from fig. 1, none in artic and not many in arid zones) is not actually global. I also note that only 77.76% of boreholes (479 of 616 – this is the sample in the paper, not the 358 mentioned on skepticalscience which is an earlier sample!) show warming according to these methods, less than I would have expected considering warming has clearly happened over the last few centuries. I do not think these points disprove the paper, but they surely need addressing.

Note also the chart from Mann (2008) finishes all lines, including temprature data, in 2001 (which was 0.8K hotter? Are we sure). Not because temperature data flattens after that?

Proving the hockey stick is valid requires engaging with the problem, not trying to marshall a number of extra papers (which clearly are intended to support Mann, and were written before the problems with the hockey stick were published) which have superficially similiar results to agree with the findings. None of these papers show the rapidly increasing temperatures of the future which is one of Mann’s two key errors nor does either support the lowering of estimates of earlier temperatures by Mann which was the initial point of controversy. In fact the post appears to miss the point of the criticisms by the like of Steve McIntyre totally. It certainly does not function as a defence.

Early Day Motions.

Polar bears got 139 signatures:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40270&SESSION=903

whereas

The Gatwick Airport Pantomime Society only recieved 2 signatures:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40420&SESSION=903

Dear Watchman,

You took the words right out of my mouth!

It does not comment on the key issue case against the hockey stick, which is that the modelling used would show a hockey stick from any figures.

What this argument overlooks is the magnitude of the “hockey stick”. Yes, McIntyre produced a “hockey stick” from red noise, but it was (IIRC) something like 2 orders of magnitude smaller. Then there is also the fact that the “blade” of the “hockey stick” in MBH 99 is based entirely on the modern instrumental record, not proxy reconstructions. If you want that to go away, you have to argue that all those instrumental records are also wrong.

It’s amazing to me that people (who call themselves “sceptics”, no less) can be so ruthlessly detailed in their search for the slightest possible criticism of Mann, yet completely overlook such large and obvious flaws in his critics.

Finally, even if the “hockey stick” were completely wrong, there is still more than enough other evidence of AGW. It’s not a crucial paper in the way so many “sceptics” assert. Important, yes, but not crucial.

None of these papers show the rapidly increasing temperatures of the future which is one of Mann’s two key errors

Say what? MBH99 says nothing whatsoever about future temperatures.

nor does either support the lowering of estimates of earlier temperatures by Mann which was the initial point of controversy.

And those estimates were based on what, exactly?

I also note that only 77.76% of boreholes … show warming according to these methods, less than I would have expected considering warming has clearly happened over the last few centuries.

Is that based on your paper in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Guessology, or is it from the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Blokes I Met Down The Pub? You’ve already said that you don’t understand how they produced their results (which is not especially hard, but I’m not going into it here), so how can you comment on whether they’re within the expected range? How very “sceptical” of you: “I don’t understand it, but I know it must be wrong!”

Once again, I see I’m completely wasting my time. I give up.

Dunc,

The hockey stick is used as a predictive tool – a model, because otherwise it just shows the temprature we already know about (and some historical tempratures, but the debate over these proxies does not cover them). So it is the future predictions that are important. If you feed red noise in you get a hockey stick. If you feed figures that show some actual increases in (such as say the temperature readings), you get a much bigger hockey stick because of the pattern of increase in the raw figures. The hockey stick was indeed a result of the temperature figures, but only because the statistically invalid model that produced it will stretch any figures into a hockey stick, with the steepness of the blade depending on the increase in the figures. Lets put this simply. If the model can be shown to have an inbuilt bias, then it is flawed. It doesn’t matter if the end results match what you might expect (which was probably Mann’s mistake – we don’t challenge what we expect), because the model is flawed. End of. Thus I fail to see the flaw in the critics – a critic challenged the model, found it was flawed in that it always produced an upwards curve, and therefore showed it was not valid.

Also, I was not saying the hockey stick was vital (actually, I think AGW has a better argument without it, as despite Al Gore’s best efforts it always looked too much to be believable). I was responding to your link by questioning whether it really proved what it said, which you have not refuted.

Off topic, but in answer to your question about an off-the cuff explanation of mine, I believe the earlier estimates of global temprature during the medieval warm period were based on ice cores, which are one of Mann’s proxies. I never said Mann’s proxies don’t work at all, just that they were mainly inappropriate.

As to your clever editing of my comment on the number of boreholes, the original quote was “I also note that only 77.76% of boreholes (479 of 616 – this is the sample in the paper, not the 358 mentioned on skepticalscience which is an earlier sample!) show warming according to these methods…”. Perhaps removing the figures I used before criticising my methodology was unfortunate rather than deliberate, but it does look rather calculated (although I would not associate that sort of low trick with Dunc, so probably not). Anyway, my expectation is due to the fact that if we look at any version of the temperature record, it has clearly got warmer over the last three centuries as the little ice age ended. As so few of the boreholes were in the tropics, the 22.24% of boreholes with recorded cooling must be in the main in temperate zones, which felt the little ice age harder, and which on the basis of everything I have read (and you have told me – remember you claim the world is getting hotter than I do) must have got notably warmer before 2000. I am not sure that a significant minority of sites getting colder during the last few hundred years fits with this picture and it surprised me – I do not claim it is evidence for or against AGW as I do not understand the science behind this measure enough to try to work it out. I can comment on things that do not support my point of view you know – I think that is a scientific principle. Anyway, on what is a totally uninformed guess based on this data, maybe global warming is actually an average of much more extreme local variation than I know about, which would actually explain a lot (but would lead to major questions about the ways in which it is measured).

Oh yes, quick guide on English. Just because I would not expect something does not mean it would be wrong. I would not expect Sunny to give me a million pounds but I would not think it wrong if he did (odd and probably not the best use for his money, but not wrong…).

I’m not sure about wasting your time Dunc. I’ve found this useful at least. Sorry if you haven’t quite grasped what I was saying though. I’ll try to be clearer if something is an argument against AGW or just a general observation in future

“The Gatwick Airport Pantomime Society only recieved 2 signatures:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40420&SESSION=903”

One of whom was Peter Bottemley. Does the guy sign everything that comes his way, or does he read things first?

Or perhaps he just likes pantomines?

Dear Dunc,

When science is used to support a thesis that the entire planet is under immiment threat of climatic crisis, that sea-levels are going to rise Xcm, that glaciers could disappear in Y years, that temperatures are going to rise by >Z%, that crops will fail, that island nations will be engulfed and that we are poisoning the world so fast that we are destined to bequeath a wasteland to our grandchildren, it’s not unreasonable to be slightly peeved when that science proves to be slipshod.

I fully accept that the intellectual purity of science may well have been corrupted by the unscientific dogma of the non-scientist majority on the IPCC, who demand a headline to frighten politicians and populations (and keep the lucrative gravy-train rolling along to lavish summits with lovely expense-accounts). I also acknowledge that the wider populace may misunderstand and misinterpret, often wilfully.

The trouble is that science has form in this regard. Remember how, in the early 80s, we were all going to die of AIDS. Remember global cooling. Remember ozone layer depletion. Remember how, in the late 80s, we were told that as many as 500,000 could die of CJD (later vCJD) in the UK alone. Remember, more recently, bird flu and swine flu. It’s not unreasonable for people to suspect that the boys are crying “wolf” a bit too loud and a bit too often, and that they may well doing so to scare up research funding with their successive Doomsday forecasts.

So, go ahead and hurl your disparaging insults, de-haut-en-bas, at Watchman and at me, if it helps to reinforce your sense of innate intellectual superiority. There’s nothing wrong with being sceptical, however, with having a mind that is open to persuasion and not closed to all dissent.

Interesting articles on M&Ms “hockey stick” paper and their hidden anti-global warming backers:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/04/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-1-in-the-beginning/#more-1289

http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/

31. Albert M. Bankment

Are you not slightly peeved that the critics of anthropomorphic global warming are so slipshod they can’t even get an argument together that can explain the evidence or get published in a journal?

31. Albert M. Bankment

You have a high regard for your intellectual abilities and understanding of the subject, to be so convinced the experts at the IPCC have it so wrong.

I hope however, you still approve of generous aid relief for the people suffering from the consequences of climate change despite being so unconvinced of the causes, and therefore sceptical of any real solutions.

The thousands of people and families like this that are homeless because of rising sea levels:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2234

Dear 3Baskets,

Quite the reverse; I’m diffident about my ‘intellectual abilities’ in this matter. I have an enquiring mind, however, and am suspicious of people who maintain that matters are beyond doubt. They certainly are not. I resent the way in which people reach immediately for their quiver of insults as soon as anyone troubles them with facts which might cal their certainties into question. Look at the way in which childish use was made up there ^ of words like ‘fascist’, ‘deniers’, BNP and so on. It#s unwise, unbecoming and slightly disturbing, moreover, when it comes from someone who seeks endorsement for a seat in Parliament.

Dear 3Baskets,

Quite the reverse; I’m diffident about my ‘intellectual abilities’ in this matter. I have an enquiring mind, however, and am suspicious of people who stridently maintain that matters are beyond doubt. They certainly are not. I resent the way in which people try to bludgeon dissent and reach immediately for their quiver of insults as soon as anyone troubles them with facts which might call their certainties into question. Look at the way in which childish use was made up there ^ of words like ‘fascist’, ‘deniers’, BNP and so on. It#s unwise, unbecoming and slightly disturbing, moreover, when it comes from someone who seeks endorsement for a seat in Parliament.

I was in the pub the other night with Prof Ian Morison, FRAS, Gresham Professor of Astronomy, chap who knows a thing or two about physics, and the role of our sun in this solar system. His view is that, firstly, there certainly is no “scientific consensus” on AGW, and secondly that the role of the sun has been largely ignored – with no good reason. Talking about the “Maunder minimum”in the 17th century, and subsequent “little ice age”, and other minimums with correlated cooling on Earth, he was pretty adamant that the key driver of earthly climate change is… t’sun. Pretty bloody obviously.

Oh, sorry, does that not count ‘cus a pub discussion isn’t “peer reviewed”?

AGW is bullshit. Lefty fakery. We all know it.

So, FF, why do such people not speak out more?

I know the younger academics have research grants and even tenure at risk, but what about the oldies?

cjcjc, I wrote the book on it, nearly literally…

Index on Censorship, Vol 28, ish3, Big science and little white lies

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=g783391112~db=all

(wrong cover picture in that page there)

We found that exactly the same pressures revealed by climategate – distortion of peer review by pressure on journals, cherry picking, failure to release complete datasets, imposing IP on datasets are common to many branches of science, and probably always have been. Further, the pressure to confrom – which is, as you suggest, directed by funding, tenure, as well as peer pressure, is again extremely common. Science is, and always has been, political, with a small and large P. And money always looms very large. Climate science is not an exception – where big money is invloved, “unscience” is rife.

And climate science never was science in the traditional sense – no controls, no replicability, everything dependent on models – that ain’t science…

The hockey stick is used as a predictive tool

No it bloody isn’t! Prediction is a job for climate models. The hockey stick is entirely about the reconstruction of past climate.

Jesus, it’s like arguing anatomy with someone who literally doesn’t know their arse from their elbow. If you can’t even grasp the most basic and elementary concepts of the science (such as the difference between prediction and reconstruction), then there really is absolutely no point in my trying to explain anything to you. Perhaps you should go read the Dunning-Kruger paper a few more times.