Bishop Hill Ducking, diving, dodging, weaving
Jul 3, 2013 Climate: Models There was an interesting written answer in the House of Lords yesterday, with Baroness Verma singularly failing to answer a question about falsifying climate models.
Lord Donoughue (Labour): To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Met Office has set a date by which, in the event of no further increase in global temperatures, it would reassess the validity of its general circulation models.
Baroness Verma (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative): General circulation models developed by the Met Office are continually reassessed against observations and compared against international climate models through workshops and peer reviewed publications. The validity of general circulation modelling has been established for over four decades, as evident in the peer-reviewed literature. Such models are further developed in light of improvements in scientific understanding of the climate system and technical advances in computing capability.
Short term fluctuations in global temperature do not invalidate general circulation models, or determine timelines for model development. The long term projection remains that the underlying warming trend will continue in response to continuing increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
It was Baroness Verma who was on the receiving end of Lord Donoughue's questions on surface temperature trends, and her ability to duck, dive, dodge and weave, often at the same time, was something to behold. It was many, many weeks before Lord D was able to pin her down to an answer.
Here we go again.
Reader Comments (109)
osseo
Considering the lack of knowledge shown by EM, he has got off (as all warmists who engage on this blog do) pretty lightly, which abuse of EM caused you to make your comment?
EM has an unfortunate tendency sometimes to lecture other commenters as if they are rather thick and ignorant, while at the same time pretending to be expert himself on subjects where it is clear that his understanding is actually extremely superficial. When he does this, I am often impressed with the good natured replies given to him.
This characteristic of his is regrettable, because he sometimes makes good points or asks thought-provoking questions.
Entropic Man
"Speaking of which, I wonder what coin you used to buy Lord Donohue. It probably wasn't money. Would a passed-over politician be bought by the promise of increased influence?"
------------------------------------------
If Lord D. was litigious, that remark could get you into a lot of trouble. Do you have even a skerrick of evidence for that claim? You are accusing him of corruption in his duties as an MP, and that is a very serious claim.
Next, you'll be telling us that these Big Oil funds we all keep hearing about are behind it.
I agree Joanna - EM is explicitly saying Lord Donoughue has been "bought".
[snip] - anybody interested in truth would applaud the clarifications that Lord Donougue is seeking. He [EM] should withdraw and apologise.
Bish - Sorry you are reluctant to allow me to call a spade a spade.
There is no way EM was not aware of the offensive nature of his comment, in both his explicit and implicit claims.
Dung, what caused me to comment was EM's suggestion that Lord Donoughue might be corrupt ('probably not' implies 'possibly is'). But I wanted to preserve some kind of balance. I had in mind the claims that EM was drunk or on (or off) medications.
My main point is that all this ad hominem is boring - third order stuff. Admittedly po-faced complaints about it (like mine) are equally boring. Let's hear the facts and the arguments!
Next, you'll be telling us that these Big Oil funds we all keep hearing about are behind it.
Jul 6, 2013 at 10:12 AM | johanna
Curious you should mention oil.
Lord Donoughue's Register of Lords Interests mentions a shareholding in Premier Oil plc.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-donoughue/2709
He's also on the Board of Trustees of the GWPF.
From my warmist viewpoint these hardly make him a neutral party.
EM, my superannuation fund (a public sector one over which I have no control) has investments in oil, gas and mining - and thank goodness for that. Does that make me a shill?
There is a big difference between making investment decisions that you believe will benefit you and your family, and being a shill. Lord D. is not an officeholder or employee of an oil company, he owns a range of investments, and AFAIK being on the Board of Trustees of GWPF does not provide him with any financial advantage.
Your insinuations about his integrity are unfounded in fact. I repeat, I should be careful if I were you about making these allegations.
Johanna.
As I collect more information I'm coming to agree with you. Lord Donoughue has not been bought. He's fighting for the Cause!