UK Parliament holds hearings on UN IPCC Jan. 28, summary by Dr. Judith Curry

.
US taxpayers provide at least half the expenses of the UN IPCC. Via US politicians.

1/28/14, "UK Parliamentary Hearing on the IPCC," Judith Curry, Climate Etc. 

"A fascinating hearing on the IPCC was held today by the UK Parliament Energy and Climate Climate Change Committee.

The link to hearing video is [here]. The witnesses:

1. Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Grantham Institute, Imperial College London, Professor Myles Allen, University of Oxford University, and Dr Peter Stott, Met Office
2. Professor Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nicholas Lewis, Climate researcher, and Donna Laframboise, Author

I listened to the entire hearing this morning, I really didn’t have 3 hours to spare in today’s schedule, but I couldn’t resist.  It was definitely worth listening to.

A quick reaction to the form (rather than the substance). I found this format to be much more illuminating and informative than the typical Congressional hearing in the U.S., where the members posture and pontificate and try to catch out the witnesses with ‘gotcha’ questions. By contrast the UK MP’s had really done their homework and asked very good questions, with a minimum of ‘gotcha’ type questions.

Blog articles are starting to appear on the Hearing:

• Bob Ward
• Paul Matthews
• RTCC
• Bishop Hill (mainly the comments)

The most extensive discussion is on RTCC which also includes tweets; the RTCC assesses the hearing from the ‘warm’ perspective. The best summary of the hearing I’ve seen so far is this comment from John Shade posted at Bishop Hill:

There was no knock-out punch from either ‘side’, so the contest has to be decided on points. Points may to some extent be in the eye of the beholder, but to my eyes, the 3Ls made at least a couple of dozen good ones, while the ASH team were largely, and not very convincingly, on the defensive. If the committee is a rational one, I think this hearing today will serve to have broadened and deepened their grasp of key issues, and to have shifted them away from the sort of dumb deference to the IPCC that has so disfigured such as the Royal Society in its political posturings for example. Both panels deserve our admiration for remaining courteous and to the point throughout. I think the hearing did credit to Parliament, and to the panelists.
.
I append below the notes I took during the Hearing, paraphrasing the questions and responses (I found it difficult to hear/understand many of the questions), and this pseudo transcript is not complete as I had so step away a few times, but it provides the gist of the hearing. To get the exact statements, you will need to listen the video, or look at some of the transcripts in the other blog posts.  I have tried to represent the comments faithfully (but I am not a court reporter). My quick summary of most significant statements from the witnesses (not necessarily ones that I agree with, but ones that I think defined the Hearing):...

Lindzen: Whatever the UK decides to do will have no impact on your climate, but will have a profound impact on your economy.  Trying to solve a problem that may not be a problem by taking actions that you know will hurt your economy."...via Climate Depot
.

===================
.

In Dec. 2013 UK Parliament asked for submissions:
.

12/18/13, "UK Parliament: IPCC 5th Assessment Review," Judith Curry

 "The UK House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has invited submissions to an inquiry on the IPCC 5th Assessment. The Committee requested submissions that address the following questions:"...
.

====================
.

Another link about the UK hearings:

1/28/14, "The AR5 hearings, live stream," WUWT, by Anthony Watts
.

============================ 
.

Posted prior to the hearings:
.

1/27/14, "IPCC Hearing Brings UK Closer to US Polarisation on Climate Change," Climate Desk, Posted by Bob Ward

"Leading sceptics getting big slots to reject global warming indicates a growing climate denial bias at Westminster."

=============================

Comment to Mr. Ward: The climate industry has grown over several decades via massive diversions of taxpayer dollars that could easily have gone elsewhere but didn't. All viewpoints must be analyzed on behalf of taxpayers who fund this $1 billion a day industry. It's their money. This should've taken place long ago.
 

==================== 
.

1/3/12, "U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half the Cost of U.N.’s Global Warming Panel," CNS News, Barbara Harrington
.

GAO says no one knows the total millions of US taxpayer dollars given yearly to UN IPCC because agencies aren't required to report these contributions to congress. US gov. personnel hand out the cash in numerous ways, eg through the State Dept., NSF, USGCRP, etc.. Example below about the State Dept.:
.

=============================
.

In 2013, $13 million US taxpayer dollars went to the UN IPCC just from the State Dept.:

4/12/13, "Despite sequester, State Department ups support for the UN," George Russell, Fox News
 
"State Department contributions to “International Organizations and Programs” include a 30 percent hike, to $13 million, for the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose assessments of global warming have been sharply criticized by skeptics."...  

  
==========================

2/19/11, The Hill reported US taxpayers gave $12.5 million a year to the UN IPCC:

"The IPCC receives about $12.5 million per year from the (US) government (taxpayers).  
.

==================== 
.

2/24/2013, "Yes! We Should Defund The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change," Larry Bell, Forbes
.

====================
.

2/19/11, "U.S. to kill funding for the IPCC?" Judith Curry, Climate Etc. 
.  

======================
.

Comment: For decades US politicians have enjoyed funneling US taxpayer money to the UN IPCC. Politicians like that ordinary Americans are continually slandered by unelected jet setters and pathological liars and we can do nothing to stop it. They also like the IPCC because it helps them sell a lie they use as a permanent excuse to steal from US taxpayers. The lie being non-existent CO2 danger. George Bush #1 deserves much credit for advancing this. The IPCC tax dollars are in addition to billions of other US tax dollars given to the UN yearly for gen. expenses.

. 

.