Tuesday
Jun112013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lilley is new chair of ECC
Jun 11, 2013 Climate: Parliament Congratulations to Peter Lilley, who has been appointed chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee.
Peter Lilley is the new Chair of the DECC - first meeting today at 9am - open to the public at 10am (Thatcher Room)
Update on Jun 11, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Leo Hickman tweets that the appointment is temporary. Presumably until Yeo has cleared his name.
Snigger.
Update on Jun 11, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Or perhaps it's temporary while the commitee as a whole elects a new chairman.
Update on Jun 11, 2013 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Barry Gardiner has just tweeted that Sir Robert Smith (a LibDem) has been elected chairman.
How confusing.
Reader Comments (71)
This is good news indeed. Troughers beware!
Good!
Excellent news! He was one of the few MPs who has any scientific training, who voted against the CC Act and who turned up to hear Richard Lindzen at the HoC.
Excellent news. Long overdue but very welcome.
Will Timmy still be attending, to answer a few charges..?
Very often people are neutered by responsibility/power. Let us hope not this time. End of the beginning ?
I cannot believe it. Questions flyng around my head. This seems a deliberate rebuff to the greenie beenies.
Wow !
Andrew
I have confidence in Peter Lilley, as he is older and wiser than the average MP and has already been a cabinet minister, unlike young up-and-coming MPs who can be subverted by the trappings of office.
What will Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt say?
the Guardian are going to go mental about this ;-) !! expect lots of smearing and inuendo
I still think the interesting point is how times have changed. the Times, previously cheerleaders for CAGW policies, CHOSE to go after Yeo.
We'll drink a drink a drink
To Lilley the pink the pink the pink
The saviour of our human race
For he invented, sceptical compound
Most efficacious in every case
Mr Davey had greenie ears
And it made him awful shy
And so they gave him sceptical compound
And now he's learning how to thrive
More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/s/scaffold/
So who appointed Mr. Lilley? Is he elected by the surviving members, or is he a government (Cameron) appointment?
If the latter Nick Clegg will be disappointed and Ed Davey will go ballistic at having one of the three MPs who voted against the CCA overseeing his department.
Interesting times, n'est-ce pas?
PS - is this the first time an avowed greenist has been directly replaced by a definite sceptic? If so, the message is clear and just a confirmation that slowly but surely the tide is turning against the green hegemony.
Now I'm confused.
Tweet says DECC. DECC = Department of Energy & Climate Change = Ed Davey's dept.
Did somebody mistweet?
If this is true, then as Barry says, the response of the Guardian, Independent, Business Green etc is going to provide good entertainment today.
Hey AlecM, pretty good for you :-)
See, if you just drop your tiresome "back radiation" mantra you CAN function as a normal human being!
Let's start a "Support a Greenie's Attempts at Lowering Their Blood Pressure" campaign
Hi Simon:
Qdot = - div Fv (read it in any standard physics' text). Integrate over all lamda. QED Sorry.......l
Expect numerous media reports of green outrage, and little of any mention of sceptic jubilation.
Time to sever the final "CC" from the departmental title, methinks.
Seriously...shouldn't there be a complete reform of the conflict of interests legislation? "Declaration" is obviously not enough...just like publicly boasting about being a womanizer is no defence against accusations of adultery.
Anybody in charge of anything should not be in the position of receiving any significant gain whatsoever from their own decisions. I would place "significant" to an amount in the region of £100 or less.
omnologos - why should they even be allowed the £100?
nby - I trust your question is in jest. Anyway, there are rules in the financial sector about corporate gifts.
BH - doesn't matter how temporary it is. Even a few weeks ago this would all have been unthinkable.
Speaking of which...if the UK government of 2030 fails to meet self-imposed targets on CO2 emissions and/or energy generation, who will be the beneficiary of any penalty? My guess is...the UK government of 2030 ;)
Omnologos.
Agreed. It was one of those things that I picked up at a young age, that seemed obviiously fair and sensible, that I stuck away in my mind as how the world should and did work...only to have my naivety hopelessly exposed by later events.
I was working as a trainee at the now defunct Thorpe Marsh power station (in CEGB days) and got to shadow the Station Manager for a week which was very interesting. Two Wimbledon tickets arrived from a major supplier and he just sent them straight back with an apology that he couldn't accept them. So, if such an important chap as him could turn down such a small "bribe" then I reckoned that's how things were.
(O/T Similarly, watching the excellent film Green Card with Gerard Depardieu and his difficulties in moving to the US, again I took it as gospel that to enter another country you had to prove you were going to assimilate and be an asset to the new host country....oh.)
Cat? Pigeons?
The Guardian can still spin this. “Tim was burnt toast. The committee was just de-carbonising.”
There must be some mistake. He's the right man for the job.
"COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE TO APPOINT A NEW CHAIRMAN" - Bishop Hill
Presumably they just have. The most senior and the most experienced.
There are, after all, only 11 (10 ?) of them.
As the committee members are appointed by the whole House in a ballot there will be no need for one unless or until Yeo resigns, is sacked or is cleared.
Should he be 'cleared' THEN it could be interesting.
Ah, I though this seemed a bit unlikely!
Is Baronet Smith the Herman van Rompuy of Parliament?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iulNvamNzeg
Apparently, Sir Robert Smith is not very well informed.
Here he is at a recent meeting of the Select Committee SMART METER ROLL-OUT:
Dr Evans: Also, I would like to raise the query about the ICNIRP guidelines,
[ .... ]
We follow the ICNIRP guidelines, which are 9 watts per metre squared. Russia and Italy have gone for 0.1 watts per metre squared, so that is about 100 times lower.
Q16 Sir Robert Smith: Italy has smart meters?
Duh.
Smith voted in favour of the government signing up to the 10/10 campaign — which I don't think augurs well!
They've got the wrong Robert Smith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwA8V6hcqQo
I was thinking perhaps there should be another 10:10
These are only my thoughts. Any other suggestions for a definitive ‘skeptical’ 10:10 would be appreciated.
Things we have in common:
1. The Earth has experienced ice ages and much warmer inter-glacial periods of time - This is climate change and natural variation on the largest scale
2. Arctic and Antarctic ice has therefore expanded and contracted greatly during these periods
3. In the early life of Earth there was no oxygen but very high levels of CO2
4. The sun has positive radiative forcing on the planet
5. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’
6. Since reasonably accurate measurement of CO2 (1958) the atmospheric level has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm (2013)
7. The most widely used CO2 data are collected from the slopes of the worlds biggest shield volcano
8. The burning of fossil fuels increases the level of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
9. Global sea levels and temperatures have risen and fallen over time
10. Volcanic eruptions have a cooling effect on the atmosphere
Things we disagree about:
1. The accuracy of the historic temperature record is suspect, due to; early thermometer inaccuracy, poor UHI adjustments; inaccuracy of tree-rings as temperature proxies; inaccuracy of ice-core data as temperature proxies; inaccuracy of other core data as temperature proxies
2. The positive/negative radiative values of the sun, water vapour, clouds, CO2, aerosols and other gases and particulates are not fully understood
3. The atmosphere has had much warmer periods than today with less CO2
4. The atmosphere has had much higher levels of CO2 without catastrophic effect
5. 17 years of global cooling, along with steadily increased CO2 levels, diminishes the strong correlation between CO2 rise driving temperature rise held by the IPCC
6. The length of time science has been monitoring sea level and temperature changes and the methods used are to short to have significant value
7. The dates used as start points in historic inaccurate temperature data are ‘cherry picked’ to show worst-case scenarios
8. Understanding of the effect of volcanic eruptions and venting (surface and subterranean) is not fully understood
9. Mankind, in terms of CO2 has only a very minor impact on the atmosphere
10. The science is not settled;
a. if you don’t fully understand the individual parameters and the interrelationship between all positive/negative radiative forcing
b. if historic temperature records are not totally accurate it is impossible to predict the future with accuracy
c. if there is poor statistical analysis of data used in scientific papers, lack of proper peer review, missing, misleading or hidden data and code, for replication purposes
Perhaps this may provide better PR of the skeptical side of CAGW
Musical chairs?
MUSICAL CHAIRS - as Greensand says.
'By tradition' or 'to maintain a balance' this committee has had a Tory chairman.
As he's been replaced by a LibDem can we now expect Ed Davey to be replaced by a Tory, or is the Party with only 8% support nationally still too influential ?
The Graun is reporting that Sir Robert Smith was "unanimously" voted in to replace Yeo.
Last night I found myself wondering what Barry Gardiner was making of all this. Sometimes it's wiser to wait until one's opponents confirm the good news heard on the grapevine. Can't say I blame anyone looking forward to it but, as the Bish alluded to earlier, there are issues for all of us to think through in terms of private business interests and their relationship to being paid to lobby.
In the Daily Mail report on the story out in the last half hour we have this:
I'm sure we'll all enjoy a lecture on public propriety from that source. But what is our stance? More significant for me at present, and perhaps partly answering my question about my old school chum Barry:
I can't see Yeo making a comeback based on that. But as Andrew Neil said towards the end of the Sunday Politics, why weren't basic questions asked before?
We do as sceptics need some clearer ideas on exactly what we expect from our MPs, Peter Lilley included. I don't know the answer. So I've created a discussion page: Lobbying scandal.
Here's the Guardian report. There doesn't seem to be any doubt: it's Sir Robert Smith, not Peter Lilley.
Richard Drake
How about starting with logic and integrity, to do their utmost good of the UK plc. Both these qualities have been sadly lacking in politicians of all parties, for some time. I stupidly thought, that was the role of an MP, but it just gets worse. No wonder there is a lack of trust in our politicians nowadays.
Neil: I would most certainly agree. But the global warming issue has changed the goalposts for many. The good of the planet has become paramount - and with that logic has gone out the window. (A process I'd still like to understand far better.) Still, none of this answers the hard questions raised in the Daily Mail and elsewhere right now.
Smith is already under attack, because he owns shares in Shell. Clearly some vested interests are of more concern than others.
The whole matter of AGW has parallels with the 'official' view of cholera outbreaks in the 19th century, which were firmly thought to be due to 'miasma' (bad air).
It wasn't until one John Snow noticed that one particular parish in London had no cholera, yet in neighbouring parishes people were dropping like flies. He discovered that the one parish had fresh water piped in from outside London, whereas the second one was using recycled Thames water (which was, at that time, nothing more than an open sewer).
He of course put his findings to Parliament, which promptly ignored them.
Nothing changes, eh..?
Umm whats in it for him. Or is that a little harsh?
If we are going to disqualify everyone on the basis of what shares they hold or whether they have business interests outside parliament then we are very rapidly going to end up governed totally by policy wonks.
At the risk of becoming tedious it used to be the norm for Members to have "proper" jobs and, apart from the odd case, this never posed a problem.
There is no need to criticise Smith for his shareholdings or Lilley, or Yeo for that matter, for his directorships.
All three would be obliged to divest themselves of their shareholdings and directorships if they became Ministers but there is no such obligation for chairmen of Select Committees (maybe there ought to be but at the moment there ain't!).
In Yeo's case, on the other hand, he was president of a trade association which means (since trade associations are by their very nature set up to represent their trade) he was Chief Lobbyist and as chairman of the E&CC committee he was also Chief Lobbyee.
Different situation entirely and one which ought to have been sussed a lot sooner, as Andrew Neil rightly points out.
Richard:
When an MP is put in a position of direct influence over any issue, he/she, in their decision making processes, must never have a conflict of interest. I don’t understand why their ‘interests’ aren’t fully known about prior to an appointment and if they are, why are they appointed. Ah, maybe there wouldn’t be any committee members.
I think Mike's first point is a key one, indeed all he writes seems well judged. But I've also been reading James Delingpole on this for the first time. James takes the latest examples of MPs judged to have misbehaved - Mercer and Yeo - and comes to very different conclusions about the two men. But has James come up with general principles to guide us? I certainly think he's helped.
No hard feelings if the general discussion of lobbying and MPs' business interests happens here rather than in my embryo Discussion. But I think we would benefit for getting some firm principles in place.
Mr. Lilley if there is only one thing to remember in all energy/climate/CO2 debates -
The ice core evidence show us that CO2 follows temperature rises, and not vice versa.
Update on Jun 11, 2013 by Bishop Hill
Leo Hickman tweets that the appointment is temporary. Presumably until Yeo has cleared his name.
Snigger.
-------------------------------
Or until The Grauniad clears his name. Bit of a dilemma for them.
Chortle.
Google "Reg Sprigg" if you want to know how blatant obvious in-your-face scientific evidence was ignored for 90+ years by modern scientsts. The story includes a rejection by Nature of a seminal paper, which rejection by itself retarded the field by 10 years.
http://omnologos.com/how-science-will-get-rid-of-the-agw-dogma/
The only way the most evident of evidence got accepted by Scientific Consensus, was when an Established Scientist finally came around to understand it.
I think Yeo's problem is that he (allegedly) sold influence. Deben's is that he misrepresented his interests to Parliament.
On Smith and Lilley, I think one needs to determine what the risk of misconduct is. Could Lilley conceivably benefit the oil company he is involved with if they don't operate in the UK? If people can make the case I'd be interested.
Mike Jackson - your point is well made. But there are ways around this difficulty. In the US, for example, rich pollies often put their interests into "blind trusts" (ie they have no control over, or idea of, financial decisions).
Your point goes to the lack of diversity in legislatures more than to the pursuing of private interests. People from small to medium businesses and skilled workers are almost extinct in modern parliaments. They are mostly political apparatchiks, lawyers and ex public sector employees. Few genuinely rich people would give up their work and lifestyle to a round of dreary meetings for comparatively low pay.
Will repost this on the dedicated thread.