Alex Singleton: Parliament goes hostile on climate change

Posted: September 11, 2013 by tallbloke in Accountability, climate, government, Incompetence, Politics, Uncertainty

ClimategateFictionH/T ‘Grumpy denier’.From the Adam Smith institute:

Written by Alex Singleton | Wednesday 11 September 2013

Parliament’s cushy consensus over climate change is dead. In 2008, when the Climate Change Bill had its third reading in the Commons, only five MPs voted against. But with doomsday predictions failing to materialize, and the planet failing to warm, MPs are starting to get more skeptical.

On Tuesday, in a Commons Westminster Hall debate, the room was overwhelmingly hostile to the Act. One of those MPs who voted for it, David TC Davies, says that the evidence has made him change his mind:

I am sorry that I was not a member of the famous five who voted against the Act in 2008, but I hope I will now do something to put that right. I must confess that I was one of those who accepted the arguments that were made—I supported the Act when it was passed [Of course, part 1 clearly states that the Act is open to amendment if the science changes or if significant developments in science become clear.] I contend that, given what we now know about climate science, we have a strong argument for reconsidering the Act with a view to either revoking it completely or drastically amending it.

While the “famous five” in 2008 were exclusively Conservative, hostility to climate alarmists’ claims now crosses the political divide.  Graham Stringer, a Labour MP, attacked some of the most notable “science” behind climate change legislation. He quoted Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel on the Climategate scandal that found that methodology used was “turning centuries of science on its head” and was not replicable. Mr Stringer said that what had happened “was not science but writing narrative”.

Peter Lilley called for the Act to be scrapped, to much vocal support:

The Act is not just the most expensive, impractically ambitious and uncertainly based piece of legislation that I have ever known; it is unique in being legally binding and unilateral. No other country has followed us down that route. Since we went down that route, Canada and Japan have resiled from Kyoto, and Australia has just abandoned its carbon tax. It is time we looked critically at the Act, repealed or revised it, and do not allow ourselves to be slavishly, legally bound to continue doing something that no longer accords with the evidence or goes along with what the rest of the world is doing.

But one MP, Alan Whitehead, seemed flabbergasted by the views of his Parliamentary colleagues. “I really do not know where to start…”

“That’s cos you’ve been stuffed!” interjected Tory Philip Davies, to widespread amusement.

Read the rest here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    ‘Graham Stringer, a Labour MP, attacked some of the most notable “science” behind climate change legislation.’

    This Manchester MP is a science graduate and has always been in the forefront of questioning the phoney consensus of climate pseudo-science. Try saying that in the online comments of certain national newspapers – instant moderation alert.

  2. A.D. Everard says:

    Music to my ears, Tallbloke. Thank you so much for posting this. The tide is most definitely turning.

    🙂

  3. Joe Public says:

    Love the cartoon

  4. tallbloke says:

    I reckon it’s all over bar the shouting. Mind you, there’ll be plenty of that, and it’ll go on and on…
    Meanwhile the patient and steadfast adherents to the scientific method will continue to work on the interesting question of how the Sun drives climates, and how the solar system drives solar variability. If our current tentative predictions are correct, fairly rapid post 2014 cooling is coming to northern latitudes nations ill prepared for it.

  5. Graeme No.3 says:

    If the coming winter is indeed long and cold, then Climate Change shares will plummet on the Stock Exchange. The public, politicians and even some of the media are already sceptical.
    Another failure of warming will be (dare I say it) a tipping point.

  6. Roger Andrews says:

    As I pointed out in a comment I made earlier this year, you don’t actually have to repeal the Climate Change Act to get rid of it. All you need do is change the 80% emissions reduction by 2050 target that the Act calls for to a more reasonable number, like 0%. The Secretary of State has the power to do this under Sections 1(1), 2 (1) (a) and 2 (2) (a) of the Act, which state:

    “It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.

    “The Secretary of State may by order amend (this) percentage …. if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in scientific knowledge about climate change.”

  7. tchannon says:

    Interesting point RA.

    S of S is responsible for a lot of dire things, such as the BBC regime, FOI applicability.

    Far too many Acts merely pass power to the executive. Out of control.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Roger A’s point wasn’t lost on me when he originally made it. I’ve been plugging it in political circles ever since. Strange that the MoP’s haven’t soaked it up yet. Maybe they’re so wet they can’t absorb anything. UKIP will take us all the way back to energy policy sanity given the opportunity. An end to subsidy for the boys.

  9. ren says:

    Sorry for inclusion, but it is worth seeing, as an anomaly in the southern stratosphere at an altitude of about 30 km lowers the temperature of the stratosphere far north.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml

  10. J Martin says:

    Reality is dawning. I hadn’t expected it so soon. And what timing, just before the trumpeting of AR5.

    I am so looking forward to AR5. Is the IPCC going to make a strategic mistake and paint themselves into a corner with no escape by not mentioning the possibility of cooling, which by AR6 will likely be with us in no uncertain terms.

    The five MPs who voted against the climate change act should be given medals. OBE perhaps.

  11. ren says:

    Ripple is also apparent in the stratosphere above the equator.

  12. Phillip Bratby says:

    Unfortunately Ed Davey has to be got rid of and replaced by somebody sensible (like Peter Lilley, David Davies or Owen Patterson) before the CCA target would be amended to something sensible, like -10%. It’s not going to happen any time soon.

  13. ren says:
    September 12, 2013 at 8:23 am &
    ren says:
    September 12, 2013 at 8:52 am
    What you are seeing is the synod conjunction of the Earth with Neptune on August 26th and the similar surge in the second graph in early January is the synod with Jupiter.

  14. AlecM says:

    The stupidest of all aspects of this madness is that following Davey’s refusal in May 2012 to accept MacKay’s advice that only massive pump storage can make the 15 GW nameplate capacity windmill programme work, the idiots in DECC have embarked on the STOR programme, making up intermittency by vast banks of diesel generators hidden away in quarries and hospitals etc.

    Yet this will increase fossil fuel use for that 15 GW by 80% and CO2 emissions by 150%. It’s easy to prove. Fuel use for 15 GW CCGTs at 55% thermodynamic efficiency is proportional to 15 GW/55%. Assuming 18% CF for the windmills once you factor in 11% disconnection, 30% power loss, an NGC prediction for 2020, the windmill + 25% thermodynamically efficient STOR fuel use is proportional to 82%/25%.

    Thus windmills + STOR uses 82%.55%/25% = 180% fuel compared with the CCGT option, an 80% increase. Assuming the C:H ratio for diesel/CH4 is 4/2.2, the CO2 emissions rise by150%.

    The evidence strongly suggests the madmen in DECC are trying to con the people and government either to save face or for massive kickbacks from carbon traders/big oil.

  15. Bloke down the pub says:

    AlecM says:
    September 12, 2013 at 11:36 am
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I wonder who could possibly stand to gain from providing diesel back-up to wind power? Sure as hell won’t be you or me.

  16. Murray says:

    Maybe there is hope for “the old country” yet? Perhaps we left too soon? Nah! It’s much better down here in “Godzone”. I sense a quiet back-peddling down here. At the Pacific Forum the island nations were all pleading for handouts to save them from GW sea-level rise but the Aussies were busy with an election and John Key did not seem overly enthusiastic. We live in hope.

  17. michael hart says:

    Perkins diesel engines?

  18. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch and commented:
    Could it be we’re getting somewhere at last!?

  19. The newly installed liberal party in Australia is also hostile

    http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/coalition-takes-axe-to-climate-programs/story-fn9qr68y-1226716471498
    ——————————

    Thanks for the info REN. The animation looks amazing. Some reported extremes in SH weather emerging…
    Thanks Richard Holle for the planetary prognosis..
    What alignments will cause the muted global cooling?

  20. ren says:

    This graph shows the close relationship the level of neutrons at the surface of the Earth from the sun’s magnetic activity (Kp).

  21. tallbloke says:

    Benny Peiser adds:

    I urge the minister, in the light of all the evidence that has come out about the lack of any change in temperature over the past 15 years, to think again about the Climate Change Act and to revoke it, amend it and support home owners and British businesses. –David Davies MP, House of Commons, 10 September 2013

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the Climate Change Act is without doubt the most foolish piece of statute that any of us here is likely to see in Parliament? Does he further agree that the very principle of unilaterally re-embarking on a crash programme of carbon reduction can only have the effect of exporting our energy-intensive industries to places where they may emit more carbon, and that carbon reduction will have only a nugatory effect on the problem because, as he correctly states, the Chinese are increasing carbon emissions faster than we are succeeding in reducing them? –Andrew Tyrie MP, House of Commons, 10 September 2013

    What worries me is our attacks on people’s energy bills — the poorest suffer most — and on British industry, because we have such penal energy policies. Tony Abbott recently won an important election victory in Australia saying that for him it was a referendum on the carbon tax, because he simply rejected dear energy for Australia. He was right about that for Australia, and should we not be doing the same here? –John Redwood MP House of Commons, 10 September 2013

    Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the issue used to be called “global warming”, when the globe stopped warming the fanatics changed the name to “climate change” because nobody can ever deny that the climate changes? As he has just acknowledged, the climate always changes, and by changing the name they admitted that their previous hypothesis was wrong. –Philip Davies MP, House of Commons, 10 September 2013

    3.50 pm

    The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I am glad to be able to respond to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has performed a useful parliamentary service in allowing the issue to be aired. Although profound climate scepticism may be only a minority interest, such sceptics voice a view shared by a number of my constituents and people in the newspapers. It is a view heard on the Clapham omnibus and it is right that we hear such views and debate them in the open. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) that a cloying consensus in Parliament does no service to legislation or national debate. However much I profoundly disagree with some of the arguments, it is right that we have the chance to air them in Parliament.

    Steve Baker: We have agreed here that science proceeds by conjecture and refutation, so in an attempt not to have a cloying consensus, will the Minister fund some climate scientists who wish to refute the current thesis?

    Gregory Barker: I am afraid that I do not have a budget for that sort of research.

    Full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130910/halltext/130910h0001.htm#13091045000001

  22. tallbloke says:

    Turns out Alex singleton omitted a sentence from David Davies response which confirms MP’s are aware of the point made by Roger Andrews:

    “Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I am delighted to be one of the four remaining MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act in the previous Parliament, all of whom are in the room today. Although my hon. Friend rightly wants to chastise the Government, does he acknowledge that the Act, which has done so much to add to people’s energy bills, was actually steered through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is now Leader of the Opposition? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Labour party has played a huge part in increasing energy bills, and that it is no good for Labour Members to complain about fuel poverty when they have created so much of it?

    David T. C. Davies: Indeed, I do agree. I am sorry that I was not a member of the famous five who voted against the Act in 2008, but I hope I will now do something to put that right. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) here, because he helped to steer the opposition to the Act at the time.

    I must confess that I was one of those who accepted the arguments that were made—I supported the Act when it was passed. Of course, part 1 clearly states that the Act is open to amendment if the science changes or if significant developments in science become clear. I contend that, given what we now know about climate science, we have a strong argument for reconsidering the Act with a view to either revoking it completely or drastically amending it.”

  23. oldbrew says:

    Surely they will wait for the IPCC to produce some killer evidence in their imminent AR5 report.

    They have got some, haven’t they?

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/9/13/the-d-notice-josh-238.html

  24. Brian H says:

    Blood in the water …