"We have trouble with all the Climate Denier reports in the Daily Mail and such .. but you know what whenever we invite skeptics to speak to the Climate Committee they always refuse to come"
- This seemed like devious clever politics to me as the sudden comment that seemed to come out of nowhere at the end of a session. A maximum impact statement that left the audience with the false impresssion skeptics arguments are so weak that we run away was slyly slotted in slotted in after the audience questions.
- I felt that statement was a lie as a few skeptics like the Bishop had spoken to the committee, but Bish also mentioned that here that time and time again almost all of the people invited to submit are climate panic activists and skeptics are rarely invited.
- Lord Krebs was there as Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and Chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee (of the Climate Committee)
- The thing was an hour earlier at the beginning of the talk I had written down a question "can you please explain how the science committee goes about selecting who will submit to it ..as most of the people invited seemed to be activists ?".
- The session was titled Big Ben meets Big Bang: How Parliament impacts on science
Parliament regularly examines the big scientific challenges facing our society. Find out how at this event.
Science is political, and Parliament plays a key role in examining the big scientific challenges facing our society. Find out how it does this, and debate some of the big issues facing scientists and politicians at this interactive event.
- But then Krebs had opened the session by stating that instead of questioning the politicians, the format would be a competion with the audience acting in the role of the select committee and listen to 3 scientists making submissions and at the end voting to which scientist the funding would go. So MY QUESTION WAS SCUPPERED as we weren't able to question the politicians on "how it does this"
- The 3 science peoples topics were
- a bloke saying more funds should be awarded to aging research
- A local Solar PV professor activist saying that renewables was a bigger priority.
- An economist saying that pure science research was the priority ..quoting that despite graphene being discovered in the UK other countries were getting far mor patents.
- So I reformatted my question. *
1. Didn't the profs understand that there are good reasons why scientists don't go chasing patents, cos it is better for world science to leave things open instead of closing them down with patents ?
2. Didn't the speakers understand that there is a difference between "validated science" and just "scientists say" ? So where is the real data ?
3. Didn't the scientists think it was more effective to untax and allow the market to find innovations rather than tax and choose some field to subsidise ?
- After a stunned silence .. Krebs opened with yes the committe had recently asked scientist to come back with proper evidence and then the scientists responded Miss Solar PV replied that yes today she had not come with any real data today cos she was speaking in front of the general public , but if she would if was speaking in front of the real committee.
- Mr Aging Research did go onto quote evidence for a number of his topics. Mr Science Research flustered and no one tackled my free market question.
* (I chose not to hit on UK solar straight, cos it's already pretty much debunked and to explain why would have made a long question.
1. Years ago on a proper BBC science programme 2 scientists had explained that the angle of sun at UK latitudes was outside the efficiencey envelope. "said that PV wasn't economical above 50 deg of latitude which is all the UK except south Cornwall." Although solar PV corps try to bluff thru this problem
- 2. If you really cared about reducing CO2 would you put in in North Europe or in a sunny coountry where you'd get 5 times plus as much output ? )