`Time is running out’ wrote two activists in Scientific American in August, `to limit acidification before it irreparably harms the food chain on which the world’s oceans – and people – depend.’
That's a quote taken directly from Matt Ridley's website and Times article which is used to suggest ocean acidification has been exaggerated. I didn't know Scientific American was biased by activism, shocking. Googling the quote finds the piece and the authors Carl Safina and Marah J. Hardt. They do not describe themselves as 'activists', the relevant point is they are more eminently qualified to write about the oceans than Matt Ridley . Both are PhDs, Hardt's is from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and both have won awards too numerous to mention. Matt Ridley neatly skips past all that, to him they are just 'activists'.
Matt Ridley likes to describe himself as the rational optimist. That's the title of his book and his website. Optimist yes, but how rational ? Perhaps the answer can be found by reading his paragraph 3
"The trouble is, a shoal of new scientific papers points to the conclusion that this scare is based on faulty biochemical reasoning, unrealistic experiments and exaggeration."
Dr Ridley cites three papers and it is clear this statement is opinion rather than fact. There is nothing wrong with having opinions but if he can't be honest about the weight to attach to the opinions of other scientists why should we attach any weight to Ridley's opinions? I've left a comment on Dr. Ridley's website that all this makes him an activist. He hasnt got back to me.
Astroturfing denied by Koch lackey politician
Many American progressives are wondering how the Tea Party have done it. Has the Tea Party hit upon a magic policy formula which finds favour with the wealthy and powerful yet wins votes too? Or is the spontaneous, popular and grassroots Tea Party as portrayed on Fox something of a canard? A recent article by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker is a revelation.
Follow the money. The vast majority of the millions flowing in to Tea Party coffers comes from two brothers from Wichita Kansas, Charles and David Koch. They also happen to be the billionaire owners of Koch Industries, America's second largest private company, and have much to gain from the agenda pressed by the Tea Party. A recent Greenpeace report names Koch as the “kingpin of climate science denial” vastly outspending even ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Nobody quite knows how much money has been spent by Koch on political campaigns but a figure of 37 million dollars is cited just on lobbying alone. Greenpeace have called it the climate denial machine, other observers noting that the Kochs political ambitions are much wider than climate change denial have another name for it "the Kochtopus".
Nobody elected the Koch brothers, but they are hugely influential, and it's impossible to gauge the full reach of the Kochtopus. One commentator describes the phenomenon thus "They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
But in a democracy it's votes that count so a popular movement of ordinary people is mobilised to press the agenda of the Kochtopus. Enter the Tea Party. There are conflicting accounts of whether the Tea Party is grassroots or not. The recent film (Astro)turf Wars shows a slick well funded machine manipulating a handful of deluded activists.
One journalist who thinks he knows the truth is Daniel Hannan who blogs for the Daily Telegraph. "The Tea Party is that rare beast, a genuinely spontaneous popular movement." Mr Hannan insists, dismissing the claims of astroturfing. It's opinion though and not fact so how much it clears the matter up is open to question.
One fact that Mr Hannan fails to disclose to his readers though is that he is surpisingly close to the Koch brothers himself. Mr Hannan addressed the Koch Foundation last year on a pro bono basis. He is quoted on page 7 of the Koch in-house magazine*. And on top of his business as a paid speaker and a journalist Mr Hannan finds the time to represent South East England as an M.E.P. in the European Parliament.
"The idea that the Tea Party is “Astroturf” (meaning fake grassroots) just won’t wash" writes Mr Hannan, a point that might carry a little weight if it was being made by someone at the grassroots, but not by someone so close to the Tea Party's backers. He even defends the Koch Brothers campaign to outspend any opposition "we ought to celebrate political donations" says Mr Hannan, who likes to give the appearance of an impartial observer whilst propagandising for his paymasters.
Koch have sent approximately a million dollars the way of the 'National Center for Policy Analysis' and the 'American Legislative Exchange Council' (both of which are mentioned prominently in Mayer's article) which shares senior staff with the ironically titled 'Regular Folks United' a Tea Party organizer. These outfits sponsored Daniel Hannan's U.S. tour.
Some might ask just why is the Koch funding of political campaigns so rotten? "The Koch brothers have been funding free market campaigns since the 1970s without ever sparking anything like this", writes Mr Hannan , indignantly. "The only difference between us and the Kochs is one of scale: the Kochs are wealthy, and good luck to them." That's fair enough if were talking about David Koch's support of the New York City Ballet but it's the political slush funds to support the bottom line of Koch Industries which is so distasteful and is at issue. David Koch stood on the Libertarian Party ticket in the 1980 presidential election, and now appears to be pushing the United States towards a libertarian agenda .
The Koch brothers back their weltanschauung with millions of dollars, against other ideas which stand or fall on merit alone. Lower taxes for billionaires, less regulation for polluting industries, no public healthcare option are just some of the causes that attract the Koch's money, and Tea Party support with it . “If we’re going to give a lot of money, we’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent. And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with, we withdraw funding” , says David Koch.
No one can doubt that Mr Hannan's views overlap with the Koch's to some extent, it is widely reported that Charles and David Koch were particularly influenced by Austrian economist F A Hayek's tome "The Road to Serfdom", Daniel Hannan's new book is entitled "The New Road To Serfdom" .
"I have no special brief for the Tea Party" claims Daniel Hannan in an article which asks "If Tea Partiers are such deluded fools, why are they doing so well?" The answer to that has quite a bit to do with the Koch brothers, whom Mr Hannan appears more familiar with than he is letting on.
*Discovery April 2010 http://www.kochind.com/files/DiscoveryApril2010.pdf
Follow the money. The vast majority of the millions flowing in to Tea Party coffers comes from two brothers from Wichita Kansas, Charles and David Koch. They also happen to be the billionaire owners of Koch Industries, America's second largest private company, and have much to gain from the agenda pressed by the Tea Party. A recent Greenpeace report names Koch as the “kingpin of climate science denial” vastly outspending even ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Nobody quite knows how much money has been spent by Koch on political campaigns but a figure of 37 million dollars is cited just on lobbying alone. Greenpeace have called it the climate denial machine, other observers noting that the Kochs political ambitions are much wider than climate change denial have another name for it "the Kochtopus".
Nobody elected the Koch brothers, but they are hugely influential, and it's impossible to gauge the full reach of the Kochtopus. One commentator describes the phenomenon thus "They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
But in a democracy it's votes that count so a popular movement of ordinary people is mobilised to press the agenda of the Kochtopus. Enter the Tea Party. There are conflicting accounts of whether the Tea Party is grassroots or not. The recent film (Astro)turf Wars shows a slick well funded machine manipulating a handful of deluded activists.
One journalist who thinks he knows the truth is Daniel Hannan who blogs for the Daily Telegraph. "The Tea Party is that rare beast, a genuinely spontaneous popular movement." Mr Hannan insists, dismissing the claims of astroturfing. It's opinion though and not fact so how much it clears the matter up is open to question.
One fact that Mr Hannan fails to disclose to his readers though is that he is surpisingly close to the Koch brothers himself. Mr Hannan addressed the Koch Foundation last year on a pro bono basis. He is quoted on page 7 of the Koch in-house magazine*. And on top of his business as a paid speaker and a journalist Mr Hannan finds the time to represent South East England as an M.E.P. in the European Parliament.
"The idea that the Tea Party is “Astroturf” (meaning fake grassroots) just won’t wash" writes Mr Hannan, a point that might carry a little weight if it was being made by someone at the grassroots, but not by someone so close to the Tea Party's backers. He even defends the Koch Brothers campaign to outspend any opposition "we ought to celebrate political donations" says Mr Hannan, who likes to give the appearance of an impartial observer whilst propagandising for his paymasters.
Koch have sent approximately a million dollars the way of the 'National Center for Policy Analysis' and the 'American Legislative Exchange Council' (both of which are mentioned prominently in Mayer's article) which shares senior staff with the ironically titled 'Regular Folks United' a Tea Party organizer. These outfits sponsored Daniel Hannan's U.S. tour.
Some might ask just why is the Koch funding of political campaigns so rotten? "The Koch brothers have been funding free market campaigns since the 1970s without ever sparking anything like this", writes Mr Hannan , indignantly. "The only difference between us and the Kochs is one of scale: the Kochs are wealthy, and good luck to them." That's fair enough if were talking about David Koch's support of the New York City Ballet but it's the political slush funds to support the bottom line of Koch Industries which is so distasteful and is at issue. David Koch stood on the Libertarian Party ticket in the 1980 presidential election, and now appears to be pushing the United States towards a libertarian agenda .
The Koch brothers back their weltanschauung with millions of dollars, against other ideas which stand or fall on merit alone. Lower taxes for billionaires, less regulation for polluting industries, no public healthcare option are just some of the causes that attract the Koch's money, and Tea Party support with it . “If we’re going to give a lot of money, we’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent. And if they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with, we withdraw funding” , says David Koch.
No one can doubt that Mr Hannan's views overlap with the Koch's to some extent, it is widely reported that Charles and David Koch were particularly influenced by Austrian economist F A Hayek's tome "The Road to Serfdom", Daniel Hannan's new book is entitled "The New Road To Serfdom" .
"I have no special brief for the Tea Party" claims Daniel Hannan in an article which asks "If Tea Partiers are such deluded fools, why are they doing so well?" The answer to that has quite a bit to do with the Koch brothers, whom Mr Hannan appears more familiar with than he is letting on.
*Discovery April 2010 http://www.kochind.com/files/DiscoveryApril2010.pdf
On tricks
The distinguished Dr. Richard Feynman gave a speech in 1974 to Caltech called "Cargo Cult Science", here it is. He recall's how scientists interpreted the work of Millikan another Nobel Laureate who did some research called the oil drop experiment. Feynman laments that the scientists who followed Millikan were slow to correct errors although they got there in the end. "We've learned those tricks nowadays," says Feynman. The word "tricks" jumps out at me. Isn't that what global warming skeptics are banging on about when they read the CRU emails. Well, there you have it, back in '74 the word trick is used in a scientific context to mean something perfectly innocent. Cargo Cult Science, by the way is well worth a read.
Google Einstein's trick and you will find gravitational lensing the observation that proved light waves are bent by gravity.
Google Einstein's trick and you will find gravitational lensing the observation that proved light waves are bent by gravity.
Booker wallowing in Hubris
Its rather sad to see Christopher Booker and Andrew Montford moan that Amazon no longer seem to list their opuses in 'science' . Both of these writers attack the science that has been held in the scientific literature. Whilst they are writing about science do they have a right to expect their work to be categorized as science? I would argue certainly not . The hockey stick graphs and "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford , cannot both be right , ergo there isn't room for both of them in 'science' . Whilst Mann's work is held "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is polemic. The task and freedom of saying what the book actually is about remains with the bookseller.
Christopher Booker has announced he is getting his publisher to 'look into this' and is agitating for arch sceptical publisher Stacey International (Montford's publisher) to act too.
What's objectionable about Mr Booker is that he is trying to control the context of his work. As a Telegraph columnist he enjoys privileged access to the fourth estate, he uses that to attack the scientific method, and then demands the world look upon his efforts as science. Well done Amazon, I suggest they start a category just for Mr Booker and call it Hubris.
Christopher Booker has announced he is getting his publisher to 'look into this' and is agitating for arch sceptical publisher Stacey International (Montford's publisher) to act too.
What's objectionable about Mr Booker is that he is trying to control the context of his work. As a Telegraph columnist he enjoys privileged access to the fourth estate, he uses that to attack the scientific method, and then demands the world look upon his efforts as science. Well done Amazon, I suggest they start a category just for Mr Booker and call it Hubris.
The new iPhone Our Climate app : errors, lies, and critical omissions
A new toy for climate change sceptics is announced . The 'Our Climate iPhone app'. It gets reviewed in the Guardian by John Cook of Skeptical Science fame. John's review points out an obvious flaw " The cherrypicking nature of climate scepticism leads to an interesting phenomenon – sceptic arguments frequently contradict each other. One week, we're told El Nino is the cause. Next week, it's cosmic rays. No wait, we're cooling... Hold on, it's warming again, but this time, it's because of CFCs. Could anyone compile the many sceptic arguments into a single app without a mess of contradictions?"
In a nutshell climate change denial goes no deeper than what can fit on an iPhone app.
What climate change denial really needs is creativity. A new way to say the same old bollocks. Step up to the plate Australian blogger Jo Nova . "Really, this is a great endorsement" , writes Jo . To arrive at this conclusion Jo asks "Has he found errors, lies, or critical omissions?" Well, yes actually, but Jo answers the question for us and those exact words aren't used in John's review.
The flaw in Jo's argument is apparent. She is saying that any criticism that fall's short (in her view) of this yardstick amounts to an endorsement of her creed. It's a belief she is entitled to. But it's only that , a belief, it's not a scientific view. Moreover it demonstrates the bias that Jo Nova applies in her evaluations.
In a nutshell climate change denial goes no deeper than what can fit on an iPhone app.
What climate change denial really needs is creativity. A new way to say the same old bollocks. Step up to the plate Australian blogger Jo Nova . "Really, this is a great endorsement" , writes Jo . To arrive at this conclusion Jo asks "Has he found errors, lies, or critical omissions?" Well, yes actually, but Jo answers the question for us and those exact words aren't used in John's review.
The flaw in Jo's argument is apparent. She is saying that any criticism that fall's short (in her view) of this yardstick amounts to an endorsement of her creed. It's a belief she is entitled to. But it's only that , a belief, it's not a scientific view. Moreover it demonstrates the bias that Jo Nova applies in her evaluations.
Denial journalism - Money for nothing
At the height of the CRU hack the BBC invited Melanie Phillips on to 'Question Time' it's flagship current affairs discussion programme. "Is Global Warming a scam? " asked a member of the carefully vetted audience. "Yes" answered Mad Mel flatly, before positing that "a small group of scientists were conspiring to deny the evidence that the climate was getting colder rather than hotter" and unequivocally stated "there is no evidence for global warming" and "the ice is not decreasing it is increasing". No supporting evidence was offered throughout her rant.
So let's investigate. In answer to 'the ice is not decreasing' read this from the Montreal Gazette. To refute there is no evidence for global warming there is the entire canon of climate science, I reccomend the Skeptical Science website, or NASA.
But how could Mad Mel be so sure 'Global Warming is a scam'? I sent the BBC a Freedom of Information request asking how much Melanie Phillips was being paid to spout this claptrap. The answer came back "Please note that your request is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) but we are happy to explain journalists who appear on news programmes are usually paid a nominal disturbance fee plus any necessary expenses they incur and Question Time is no different."
So there you have it . The BBC is free with completely false claims on global warming. The scam is that licence payers money is paid to Mad Mel and her ilk to keep the lies coming.
Mad Mel - Disturbed
But how could Mad Mel be so sure 'Global Warming is a scam'? I sent the BBC a Freedom of Information request asking how much Melanie Phillips was being paid to spout this claptrap. The answer came back "Please note that your request is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) but we are happy to explain journalists who appear on news programmes are usually paid a nominal disturbance fee plus any necessary expenses they incur and Question Time is no different."
So there you have it . The BBC is free with completely false claims on global warming. The scam is that licence payers money is paid to Mad Mel and her ilk to keep the lies coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)