The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has today published its report following their review into IPCC AR5 WG1.
A brief recap with links to earlier posts: the Committee is chaired by Tim Yeo (Con) who has been criticised for his green energy interests, was caught in a lobbying sting and has been de-selected by his local party. There are two openly climate-sceptical members, Peter Lilley (Con) and Graham Stringer (Lab). The inquiry was announced last November with a call for written submissions by December. The remit covered robustness, range of views, climate models, the pause, and policy. Over 50 written submissions were sent in, IPCC-supportive ones from institutions such as the Met Office and Royal Society and many critical ones from individuals (the allegedly influential GWPF did not make a submission). From January – March, three oral evidence sessions were held, the first of which featured three mainstream climate scientists followed by three sceptics. The second session had some interesting clashes between Yeo and Lilley. The third session included science advisors and members of DECC.
Given the disparity of opinion between Yeo and Lilley, it was hard to imagine how they could come up with a written report that both could put their names to. It turns out that they couldn’t.
The two sceptics on the committee, Lilley and Stringer, voted against the main report and issued their own short statement yesterday evening. They said that “The Summary for Policy Makers is far less balanced than the report it purports to summarise”, that it’s hard to justify the IPCC claim of increased confidence, given the current pause in warming and the fact that the IPCC is this time not able to give a best estimate of climate sensitivity. They also draw attention to recent lower estimates of climate sensitivty and the fact that climate models are too warm, before describing the IPCC SPM as “politicised”.
The main report, here in html or here in pdf, regurgitates the main conclusions of AR5 and issues a call to action (“must work to agree a binding global deal in 2015″) but also calls for a small team of non-climate scientists to oversee the process. This picks up on a suggestion by Ruth Dixon in her submission to the inquiry.
The rest of the report proceeds predictably. Climate scientists Peter Stott, Myles Allen and Brian Hoskins tell the committee that climate scientists aren’t biased. There are some comments about the increasing size of the IPCC reports and the long, slow timescale. There is more unquestioning regurgitation of the statements made by Stott, Hoskins and Shuckburgh. The pause in warming is claimed to be “consistent with earlier IPCC assessments”. There is a final section on domestic and international policy, issuing the call for “rapid, drastic action”.
The most spectacular piece of idiocy I’ve found so far is paragraph 50: “Subsequent evidence has confirmed that a number of witnesses supported the conclusions of the IPCC. For example, Dr Stott told us that…”. Peter Stott is coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 report. Myles Allen, also quoted at length, is also an author on the same chapter.
The dissent of Lilley and Stringer is noted at the end of the report, in the “Formal Minutes”, p 50-54. Stringer proposed an amendment to insert “We have received evidence which gives us cause for concern of chronic political and “activist” interference. The procedures to safeguard against this influence are either non-existent or ineffective.”
All in all, another rather pointless exercise in circular reasoning, confirmation bias and division (see previous post).
Matt McGrath for the BBC, MPs bicker over IPCC report on causes of climate change, discusses the main report and the dissenting views of Lilley and Stringer.
The Guardian, predictably, only presents one side of the story, IPCC climate change report’s findings must be accepted, MPs say
On twitter, climate scientist Mark Brandon sinks to a new low by saying that Lilley and Stringer are a bit like astrology-believing Tredinnick.
Bishop Hill describes the report as Climate’s parliamentary cheerleaders.
Carbon brief, UK Parliament says IPCC report is an “unambiguous picture of a climate that is being dangerously destabilised” claims that the report “deals with” the criticisms of the sceptics.
Judith Curry has a post Politicizing the IPCC Report, quoting a chunk of this post.
Lewis Page at The Register focuses on the qualifications with Just TWO climate committee MPs contradict IPCC: The two with SCIENCE degrees