For the back story click here and here
This morning I found myself listening to BBC Radio London. The Vanessa Feltz phone-in had Mr Addison Lee a.k.a. John Griffin spouting bollocks about cyclists. The basic premise of the programme was 'are cyclists bad road users?' I called the radio station twice but didn't get on air so here in a nutshell is what I told them. Firstly I said it's entirely inappropriate to allow John Griffin to agitate against cyclists whilst not mentioning that he is also inciting his 2500 drivers to break the law. The producer/telephonist said he might get back to me, he didn't. I called again to set straight a different point that road tax is levied against emissions and that Griffin's "pay up" demand was a red herring. "So are you pro bike or anti bike?" asked the producer/telephonist. I pointed out that it's not that simple but if you're going to frame it like that I'm pro bike. Again I was told they might get back to me - they never did.
I'm wondering if the producers screen out sensible voices in order to create conflict, and hence a story. Most of the callers seemed to support Griffin with nothing more than anecdotal evidence. But I really think my points should have been made up front.
Griffin's hypocrisy knows no bounds. He calls for restrictions for cyclists whilst calling on his own mini cabbies to break the law and drive in road space reserved for cyclists. When this point was made to Feltz she said "what's that got to do with cyclists then?"(37:20). Griffin also says (12:40) "I'm not in the business of breaking the law" , that's not true, and he was not challenged on that.
The worst point that was made was that cars have side impact protection and air bags and bikes do not. Hang on a mo' Vanessa, the idea behind air bags is to make your car safer for you, not for making the Queen's highway into a stock car race. Sheeesh.
Vanessa's broadcast was simply irresponsible because it used a broad brush to polarize road users. Yet we all have a right to use limited road space, until John Griffin acknowledges that he shouldn't be allowed to use the BBC as a platform. In short cyclists need a union to fight against this kind of prejudice.
Tweet
Olympics are worst thing for Londoners - it's Official
The Olympics are coming to town, you can be sure of it because they are going to have their own express lanes through OUR traffic jams. But Olympic VIPs don't just get to speed past ambulances on the roads - they've enjoyed a superhighway through the legislative process too with get this Bespoke Legislation . And if that aint enough just mentioning London 2012 could land you in hot water with Seb Coe and his cronies. Yes, you can't say come to London in 2012 unless you are a sponsor of the Olympics.
So, as a Londoner in 2012 throughout that charade I might feel a little resentful towards these sponsors . But I better not have a heart attack 'cos the ambulance taking me to hospital would be gridlocked 'til London 2012 sorry, the games are over.
To relieve us of this ire Greenwash Gold are asking "Who is the worst Olympic sponsor of 2012?" It's a tough call, but the organizers have narrowed it down to three. Tar sands developer BP, monolithic mining polluter Rio Tinto and Bhopal tragedy profiteers Dow Chemical.
They're all in very bad company, in fact I sometimes wonder if it's all a parody of good taste, what with Atos Origin sponsoring the paralympics. Who's the official doctor, Harold Shipman ? Here are three official campaign vids .
Click Here to go to the Greenwash Gold site and cast your vote for the Worst Olympic Sponsor London 2012 Vote Early and Vote Often
Tweet
So, as a Londoner in 2012 throughout that charade I might feel a little resentful towards these sponsors . But I better not have a heart attack 'cos the ambulance taking me to hospital would be gridlocked 'til
To relieve us of this ire Greenwash Gold are asking "Who is the worst Olympic sponsor of 2012?" It's a tough call, but the organizers have narrowed it down to three. Tar sands developer BP, monolithic mining polluter Rio Tinto and Bhopal tragedy profiteers Dow Chemical.
They're all in very bad company, in fact I sometimes wonder if it's all a parody of good taste, what with Atos Origin sponsoring the paralympics. Who's the official doctor, Harold Shipman ? Here are three official campaign vids .
Click Here to go to the Greenwash Gold site and cast your vote for the Worst Olympic Sponsor London 2012 Vote Early and Vote Often
Tweet
Anthony Watts can't do Attribution
Update: This post has been substantially rewritten now that Anthony Watts has printed my comment to his blog.
Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”
Tweet
Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”
To support this assertion Watts draws on the work of Dr Martin P. Hoerling of NOAA . Hoerling finds GHG forcing "likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave" which turns Watts's headline on it's head. Dr Martin P. Hoerling is an expert on attribution. Anthony Watts is not. So there's a wide gulf between the words of a NOAA scientist and what the blogger says the scientists said. WUWT cannot reflect the highly nuanced question of attribution. And that's not opinion, that is observation.
Tweet
Sophistry takes on science
Amazon Book Review of The Hockey Stick Illusion
1 Star
This book has become something of a cult classic amongst those seeking to deny anthropogenic global warming. Telling the story of Stephen McIntyre's assault on Professor Michael Mann's temperature graph which demonstrates the steep rise in late 20th century temperatures.
The statistical methods under dispute are analysed in tedious detail by Montford, but The Hockey Stick Illusion is notable for what is left out rather than what the author has chosen to include. This sleight of hand reaches a crescendo on page 212 when Montford slips in that McIntyre would not be offering up an alternative global temperature reconstruction but was “merely demonstrating that Mann's was not robust." This second hand unfootnoted account of where McIntyre has set the bar for his own quest is all we have to define "discredited". Whether that speaks to McIntyre's confidence in his own work or his objectives is a good question which Montford never asks, probably because the answer would result in criticism of his hero which is outside the scope of this hagiography.
So McIntyre's approach never actually leads to a destination, it's the journey that counts. And because Montford always faces the direction opposing scientific consensus on climate the book misleads the reader as to the scale and importance of observed recent global warming.
This is wrong because science is what is known, not what you want it to be. Someone once described science as lighting a candle in the darkness, sadly Montford and McIntyre's science is the opposite.
Numerous researchers have replicated the hockey stick graph but McIntyre is not one of them. A true skeptic would smell a rat at that point. A scientific theory remains valid until it has been disproved or somebody comes up with something better. Neither has happened, so this book settles for the next best thing – magnifying the uncertainties inherent in scientific research whilst translating it into a popular narrative – and because this takes place under the shadow of public policy a dash of libertarian flavour is added too. For that Mr Montford will probably be remembered as the 21st century's most successful propagandist.
Tweet
1 Star
This book has become something of a cult classic amongst those seeking to deny anthropogenic global warming. Telling the story of Stephen McIntyre's assault on Professor Michael Mann's temperature graph which demonstrates the steep rise in late 20th century temperatures.
The statistical methods under dispute are analysed in tedious detail by Montford, but The Hockey Stick Illusion is notable for what is left out rather than what the author has chosen to include. This sleight of hand reaches a crescendo on page 212 when Montford slips in that McIntyre would not be offering up an alternative global temperature reconstruction but was “merely demonstrating that Mann's was not robust." This second hand unfootnoted account of where McIntyre has set the bar for his own quest is all we have to define "discredited". Whether that speaks to McIntyre's confidence in his own work or his objectives is a good question which Montford never asks, probably because the answer would result in criticism of his hero which is outside the scope of this hagiography.
So McIntyre's approach never actually leads to a destination, it's the journey that counts. And because Montford always faces the direction opposing scientific consensus on climate the book misleads the reader as to the scale and importance of observed recent global warming.
This is wrong because science is what is known, not what you want it to be. Someone once described science as lighting a candle in the darkness, sadly Montford and McIntyre's science is the opposite.
Numerous researchers have replicated the hockey stick graph but McIntyre is not one of them. A true skeptic would smell a rat at that point. A scientific theory remains valid until it has been disproved or somebody comes up with something better. Neither has happened, so this book settles for the next best thing – magnifying the uncertainties inherent in scientific research whilst translating it into a popular narrative – and because this takes place under the shadow of public policy a dash of libertarian flavour is added too. For that Mr Montford will probably be remembered as the 21st century's most successful propagandist.
Tweet
GWPF paymaster is Big Oil fundraiser
So now we know. Michael Hintze the bigshot behind hedge fund CQS and Sugar Daddy to the Prime Minister is a key backer of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Climate contrarians are claiming that Hintze has no link to big oil. That is not true.
The GWPF maintains strict secrecy about the identity of it's backers and has always claimed that it doesn't accept donations from the energy industry or individuals with a significant stake in the energy industry. Leo Hickman (h/t) explains why this part of the story was spiked "lots of hedge funds, pension funds etc have things like this but a bit of a stretch to say that means he = big oil I think"
The odd £30milllion that this appears to be worth to Hintze may seem like a drop in the ocean only because Hintze is a billionaire, but it's still a significant sum of money.
Tweet
The GWPF maintains strict secrecy about the identity of it's backers and has always claimed that it doesn't accept donations from the energy industry or individuals with a significant stake in the energy industry. Leo Hickman (h/t) explains why this part of the story was spiked "lots of hedge funds, pension funds etc have things like this but a bit of a stretch to say that means he = big oil I think"
The odd £30milllion that this appears to be worth to Hintze may seem like a drop in the ocean only because Hintze is a billionaire, but it's still a significant sum of money.
Tweet
Barry 1316 characters all for you
Despite writing for WUWT Barry Woods seems like a nice chap. He's got a chemistry degree from a redbrick university and was my first climate follower on Twitter. I need more than 140 characters to address some minor point. So if your name's not Barry Woods CLICK ON THIS LINK you'll find it far more interesting.
Barry, you suggested that 1 or 2 degrees of warming might result in no negative impacts, I've asked to see some science to back that up but you haven't come up with any. OK peer reviewed science apart, I've asked for you to expand your idea, but you haven't answered me.
So your notion that negative impacts can be mitigated against positive impacts needs setting straight. The positive impacts aren't going to be felt by the same people as the negative impacts. So one can't mitigate against the other. I suggest it belies a difference in approach between right and left because broadly the left strive for social equality and the right strive to justify social inequality. You object but you're providing no support for your stance . Sure Canadian wheat farmers are set to benefit from AGW but I don't see that assisting the plight of climate refugees living at sea level in Bangladesh, do you ? Give me one fair example of positive impacts mitigating against negative impacts in the real world.
* Update 11:10 am: Barry tells me he also has a Masters Degree in computer modelling/cybernetics. And here's Barry's considered response to this post.
* Update 2: Apparently my requests for science supporting Barry's claims have 'crossed over the line' and Barry has blocked me on Twitter.
Tweet
Barry, you suggested that 1 or 2 degrees of warming might result in no negative impacts, I've asked to see some science to back that up but you haven't come up with any. OK peer reviewed science apart, I've asked for you to expand your idea, but you haven't answered me.
So your notion that negative impacts can be mitigated against positive impacts needs setting straight. The positive impacts aren't going to be felt by the same people as the negative impacts. So one can't mitigate against the other. I suggest it belies a difference in approach between right and left because broadly the left strive for social equality and the right strive to justify social inequality. You object but you're providing no support for your stance . Sure Canadian wheat farmers are set to benefit from AGW but I don't see that assisting the plight of climate refugees living at sea level in Bangladesh, do you ? Give me one fair example of positive impacts mitigating against negative impacts in the real world.
* Update 11:10 am: Barry tells me he also has a Masters Degree in computer modelling/cybernetics. And here's Barry's considered response to this post.
* Update 2: Apparently my requests for science supporting Barry's claims have 'crossed over the line' and Barry has blocked me on Twitter.
Tweet
Message for Mr Montford
I have briefly been able to view the Bishop Hill blog and catch up with the comments there, thanks to a neat little widget called HideTheIP. Montford has now blocked my proxy IP so I don't know whether this comment (left on BH blog at approx 8.52pm 25th March 2012) has been modded , answered or deleted.
Mr Montford,
At 9pm you asserted that I had lied about how you had reported Heartland . Well lying is a very specific allegation, if I have lied I would be delighted to apologise to you, but I am flummoxed as to what you could actually call a lie.
The next step therefore is for you to point out the supposed lie. What are the actual words at issue ?
It should be noted that I had already attempted to address this question before you blocked me . At 8:19 pm I asked if you would care to enlarge on your characterisation of my contributions as 'dishonest'. You have not done so .
I have to also observe that despite blocking me from access to your blog last night commenters here have continued to make comments about me for some time afterwards. That is hardly conducive to grown up discourse is it ?
Blocking me from reading to your blog on my PC serves no one, except of course it positions yourself as a gatekeeper to climate skepticism . That does not sit easily with your oft repeated claim that climate science should be more open.
Salutations
Hengist McStone
Tweet
At 9pm you asserted that I had lied about how you had reported Heartland . Well lying is a very specific allegation, if I have lied I would be delighted to apologise to you, but I am flummoxed as to what you could actually call a lie.
The next step therefore is for you to point out the supposed lie. What are the actual words at issue ?
It should be noted that I had already attempted to address this question before you blocked me . At 8:19 pm I asked if you would care to enlarge on your characterisation of my contributions as 'dishonest'. You have not done so .
I have to also observe that despite blocking me from access to your blog last night commenters here have continued to make comments about me for some time afterwards. That is hardly conducive to grown up discourse is it ?
Blocking me from reading to your blog on my PC serves no one, except of course it positions yourself as a gatekeeper to climate skepticism . That does not sit easily with your oft repeated claim that climate science should be more open.
Salutations
Hengist McStone
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)