Everyone and his dog is going to be suggesting what went wrong and how to fix it, so I thought it was worth resurrecting this thread so that we can all have a go at some armchair management.
Archive for the ‘Pseudoscience’ Category
What’s Wrong With England? (Revisited)
Monday, June 28th, 2010More On Climategate
Thursday, January 28th, 2010It looks like Climategate is slowly but surely entering the consciousness of the MSM and by extension the general populace. Unfortunately, it seems you can break FOI laws with impunity if you actually manage to go six months without anyone spotting you doing it.
Meanwhile, I’m oscillating between gobsmacked and incredulous regarding how much these people have got away with. Latest evidence to come to light, a document called Climate Policy – From Rio To Kyoto. The section Politics Enters Into Drafting The IPCC Report (pages 19 / 20) makes very interesting reading. And this has been in the public domain for nearly ten years.
Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century
Thursday, December 17th, 2009Most truly objective observers of the BBC will find that this comes as no surprise, but even so I’m so gobsmacked by this that I thought it was worth posting.
The weekend before last, I happened to catch a “debate” on BBC Breakfast about Climategate. It caught my attention, because as I mentioned in that previous post the MSM coverage on this issue has varied from smear campaigns to ignoring it entirely.
During the conversation, one of the “sceptical” scientists mentioned that the BBC coverage of MMCC was heavily biased. I was surprised to hear one of the BBC people reply that this was policy mandated by the BBC Trust.
I’ve waited to bring this up because I wasn’t sure I could believe my ears and couldn’t find any footage on the net to check what I’d heard. Unfortunately, BBC Breakfast isn’t on iPlayer. Last night, however, I followed a link to a document on the BBC website called From Seesaw To Wagon Wheel, subtitled “Safeguarding Impartiality in the 21st Century”.
There, on page 40, is the BBC’s policy in writing.
“Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus.
Granted you should read this in context, as the document is not suggesting a blanket ban, but nevertheless it’s now easy to see why the BBC covers this issue in the way it does.
Follow The Money
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009Every time I write something about AGW I wonder “Am I being too paranoid? Isn’t this really just another conspiracy theory?”
Then I read stuff like this story in today’s Guardian about a leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations. Read beyond the headline and you’ll find that this leak suggests that more power will end up not in the hands of “rich nations” (that would ultimately be you and me) but the World Bank and the rather sinister sounding GEF.
Pixie Dust
Tuesday, December 8th, 2009
Or maybe tea. That’s what aeroplanes run on. You thought it was JETA1? Silly you!
At least, that’s the only conclusion I can draw from the fact that “Climate change advisers have decided that an extensive building programme at Heathrow — including the construction of a third runway — can proceed without jeopardising the Government’s carbon emissions targets.”
After all, these people are always right. There’s a consensus. Who are we to doubt them?
Please Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain
Saturday, December 5th, 2009
Please ignore the man behind the curtain. Move on ... nothing to see here ...
Sometimes I wonder if we’re living in Oz, not the once Great Britain.
After a couple of weeks, the Climategate story is starting to gain momentum in the mainstream media, including the Washington Post and even the BBC grudgingly acknowledging the seriousness of the leak and their AGW evangelist environmental correspondent Roger Harrabin discussing the topic. That latter one is a bit rich, given that he hasn’t chosen to refute claims by the Daily Fail and others that he was sent the evidence some weeks earlier but chose to ignore it.
Meanwhile, back in Oz, Our Glorious Leader is telling us that we shouldn’t be distracted by Climategate. Isn’t it a bit rich that the man leading a government that sacks scientists who tell the truth and allegedly refutes any inconvenient argument by saying “I don’t recognize that data” calls those of us who would like to see the Scientific Method more closely adhered to “Flat Earthers”.
Elsewhere in Oz, the BBC are trying to imply that the AGW movement is somehow not part of the mainstream by covering a “protest” by Stop Climate Chaos, referring to them as “Climate Change Activists”. Let me get this right … this facepainting group are running a demo to encourage our government to take AGW more seriously? And this is somehow radical? I need more iron(y) tablets. I agree with the implication of their name, however – it would be nice to stop the chaos surrounding the AGW claims and actually revert to some proper science.
Another story from Oz, which I’ve not been able to find on the BBC site amongst all the coverage of the protesters, is even more boggling. The Met Office have announced that in the light of Climategate they intend to review 160 years’ worth of data, which will take three years. Predictably, HMG are trying to stop them because “it would be seized upon by climate sceptics”, which I assume is code for “not likely to improve our credibility on this issue”. Laughably, I heard someone on R4FM say that because the figures show an increase of 0.7 degrees C in global temperatures over the last 100 years, it “proves that Global Warming is true”. That’s a fudge. No-one is claiming that the figures don’t show that, what’s debatable is whether (a) this is unnatural, (b) not part of a regular cycle, (c) whether the “hockey stick” graphs are good science and (d) this shows anything other than correlation with CO2 emissions as opposed to a causal link.
Finally, if you dig into the BBC’s site a bit deeper, you’ll find a story about oceanic CO2 uptake. This is clearly another aspect of the model that we seem to know less about than we thought.
Anyone seen any ruby slippers?
Climategate
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009Over the last few days I’ve been following the Climategate story and the response to it in the mainstream media. The latter is particularly interesting – I’ve seen little if any reporting of this story on the BBC, whereas The Guardian seem to be covering it quite well, with even George Monbiot admitting that this is important stuff.
My particular interest lies in the software models that form much of the basis of the hysteria being whipped up by the IPCC, especially in the run-up to Copenhagen. I spent a lot of yesterday evening looking at the notes from one particular coder who, it seems, spent years trying (and failing) to reproduce some of the published results.
The downside of this story is that something I’ve feared will happen may well come to pass. With so-called scientists apparently playing fast and loose with the scientific method, the door is now wide open for the anti-science mob to take over the agenda. I may be an AGW sceptic, but that only extends to my discomfort with the way the science has been subsumed by the political and corporate powers-that-be. We do need to look at green issues, but unfortunately if environmentalism is tarnished with the kind of nonsense we’ve been hearing over the last few years, popular opinion is going to swing violently towards anti-science and anti-environmentalism.
Anyway, I’m curious. Have you heard about this story, and if so what is your take on it?
Freakonomics on Climate Change
Thursday, November 19th, 2009Have you read Freakonomics ?
This is worth a listen. From the book Superfreakonomics, a controversial view on climate change and the folly of trying to control carbon emissions
Thoughts ?
The Billion Dollar Gram
Monday, August 17th, 2009http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/
Lots to look at elsewhere on this site, including Twitter Stats and Mountains Out Of Molehills, but it was the Billion Dollar Gram that really caught my eye.
Innocent? Guilty? What’s The Difference?
Tuesday, July 21st, 2009http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/20/evidence-in-support.html
“innocent people who have been arrested are as likely to commit crimes in the future as guilty people.”
Yes, this is really what your Government thinks about you.