Sunday, August 07, 2011
Assorted Links - Things Not As They Seem
-it cost £140,000...
it is an attempt to shut down debate and impose ideological conformity on a highly controversial issue – the extent and likely consequences of man-made global warming.Why Professor Jones was thought a suitable person to conduct the Review at all is not a trivial question. Having long toiled in obscurity on the genetic makeup of snails, Jones owes his sudden metamorphosis into a ‘media tart’ (to use his own phrase) entirely to the BBC, which chose him to deliver the Reith Lectures in 1991.
Numerous further radio and TV appearances followed, and with them book sales of which he could not previously have dream....
It is also worth asking why the Trust decided to blow its money (a little under half of which went on Jones’s fee) on examining its science reporting: there are surely other areas of public policy significance – immigration, for example – where a casual viewer might conclude that BBC coverage can be self-censoringly selective.
Such subjects are uncomfortable, and for that very reason, an objective analysis of the way the corporation handles them is arguably overdue.
But the real problem with the Jones Review is its bewilderingly misleading content. Jones writes that his own knowledge is ‘remarkably broad, but fantastically shallow’.
one of the things Gates’ research has shown – although he doesn’t like to say it flat out because he is trying to maintain some level of civility with the teacher unions – is that you can improve most schools by a factor of two by firing the 10% least competent teachers. This shouldn’t be surprising: it’s the case with most organizations. Weeding out the worst is always an effective means of increasing the efficiency of an organization. Gates has also shown conclusively something that honest education theorists have know for fifty years: class sizes don’t matter much, and spending more money seldom improves schools.
I was actually rung by a London-based BBC World Service journalist yesterday, inviting me to go on a discussion programme that evening, to talk about the select committee hearing. "A lot of our overseas listeners", he said, "are amazed at the amount of coverage that was being given to this issue".
Steve Sailor disagrees, pointing out that juvenile murders, which should be a marker, did not drop but rose and that the total number of births by these mothers did not greatly drop as they had more babies later.
Here are seven questions that no climate so-called “skeptic” has been able to answer. If they were to answer them honestly they would be forced to admit that their entire anti-science jihad is corrupt:
1. Do you agree with Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer’s statements that anthropogenic global warming is undeniable?
2. Do you accept that the rise in CO2 has increased ocean acidification, hastening the destruction of marine ecosystems with long term negative consequences for seafood production?
3. Do you accept that the National Academy of Sciences, and subsequent peer reviewed literature, have affirmed the fundamental conclusions of the “Hockey Stick” temperature reconstructions presented Mann and his colleagues?
4. Do you accept that many claims from people and organisations on the denialist side, such as Steven McIntyre’s claim that the National Academy of Sciences supported his critique of Mann, or Wegmann’s critique of Mann being shown to be plagiarism and fraud, are examples of denailist “voodoo”?
5. Do you accept that there are a number of carbon-based fuel conservation solutions and alternative energy sources that are both affordable and will have to be undertaken eventually anyway as fossil fuel reserves are depleted?
6. Do you accept that denialist fraud (Such as Wegman’s or McIntyre’s) detracts from the credibility of the entire denialist movement?
7. Of the alleged "skeptics" - can you name 2 climate specialists, who have no track record of fossil fuel industry support, who deny the scientific consensus regarding global warming outlined by the IPCC?
I must admit, in my naivety, to have been quite shocked to find most "Scienceblogs" sites, which claim to be serious science discussion board not even attempting sientific discusion and resorting purely to ad homs obscenity & censorship.
Nonetheless I will not return his obscenities with the same but will answer, even though in boilerplating this abusive comment he has managed not to put it on actuallt relevent threads.
1 - I would require links showing if they did say this, if they said it would be serious and the context. I certainly do not consider measurable anthropogenic warming to be "undeniable".
2 - There appears to be a tiny move towards not ocean "acidification" but to ph neutrality by alarmists. This may well be limited to only the small areas measured. The ocean naturally varies considerabkly more than this "change". There is no evidence this produces long term reductions in seafood production. If anything neutrality should do the opposite.
3 - Certainly. The NAS benefits from government patronage and as the continous failure to answer my Q 7 shows, while government funded "scientists" support alarmism not a single real independent scientist cann be named who does. It is to be expected that the NAS (& the Royal Society in Britain) would support this government funded fraud.
4 - No I don't and you have, as normal with ecofascists, not attempted to produce any evidence for the assertion.
5 - Absolutely not. Windmillery and the rest of the renewable stuff is both horrendously expensive and does not work. The alleged threat of "peak oil" is so far over the horizon that it is now at an infinite distance.
6 - This is simply a repeat of Q4. You made no attempt to substantiate your allegations there and haven't here. I regret this is clearly an acceptable substitue for facts among ecofascist "scientists".
7 - Stephen McIntyre, Fred Singer - I have named them before on "scienceblogs" and nobody made any attempt to provide evidence to back up the claim. By comparison you and all the other alarmists have repeatedly been unable to name 1 warming alarmist who is not f=paid by the state.