Sunday
Oct162011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lawson in the Sunday Times
Oct 16, 2011 BBC Nigel Lawson has a piece up at the Sunday Times. It's paywalled of course, but is reproduced at the GWPF site. Lawson is taking a pop at the BBC, and relates the story of his engagement with Steve Jones after the "no platform" report was published by the Beeb.
Let us just say that Jones seems to have come off considerably worse.
Reader Comments (76)
So now we have The Mail, The Torygraph and the Sunday Times all permitting sceptical views to have a prominent position. What a turnaround from only two years ago!
Climategate - the gift with an effect that lasts a lifetime.....
That apology really was a non-apology...it was the absolute bare minimum required to get away from legal action and nothing more!
The BBC is nothing more than an advocate for Mann Made Global Warming (tm) and the longer the BBC continues to advocate for Mann Made Global Warming (tm) to more tarnished its image becomes.
Mailman
Maybe I am being a mite too critical of the GWPF, but although it is primarily policy focused in its title, the emphasis of many of its articles is with either the science or with shale gas - an opportunity for cheap power for decades to come. The problem that should be clearly stated is that even if CAGW is a likely problem, there is no theoretical policy solution that would not leave humanity worse off. And even if that policy solution was there in theory, in practice it would require a globally coordinated response that ain't going to happen. And even if you could get a globally coordinated response, then there are no project managers with the knowledge or the competency to successfully maximize the reductions in CO2 for the minimum global welfare reduction.
Do you think that any of the climate change hysterics will ever be brought to account for their bias, and all the other wickedness they have perpetrated against us, the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? People like Mr Jones don't seem to have any grasp of their place in society and consequently, they deceive themselves about their true worth to humanity.
Yes, the apology was a non-apology. Typical of the inward-looking arrogance of the BBC. I will not feel guilty for avoiding the Licence Fee.
"Yes, the apology was a non-apology. Typical of the inward-looking arrogance of the BBC. I will not feel guilty for avoiding the Licence Fee." --PFM
Inward-lookingness is one of the early warning signs of proctocraniosis.
jorgekafkazar Says: " Inward-lookingness is one of the early warning signs of proctocraniosis"
I have looked everywhere for a definition of 'proctocraniosis' without luck, does it mean what I think it does?
A preliminary diagnosis of a person or persons, who is thought to have one's head stuck up one's Butt!
Ha!!!
Nigel Lawson's op-ed is an accurately-aimed magisterial 25 pounder, right up the establishment rump.
May his daughter contrive a suitably suggestive confection, in celebration of her father's ace passado.
They clearly don't like it up em.
With apologies to the late David Croft.
Ah yes Lord Pattern Chairman of the BBC Trust, Tory peer and European Union Commission Pensioner.
According to article 213 of the EU Treaty Commissioners,
When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.
The BBC is in a delicate position; not only do its political masters want AGW as an excuse to shove tax monies at targeted beneficiaries but its own pension fund is heavily invested in AGW businesses. One really can't expect the BBC to be neutral on this issue - but it's a pity that they can't be honest about their bias.
> One really can't expect the BBC to be neutral on this issue - but it's a pity that they can't be honest about their bias.
Given that most MSM journalists world-wide are card-carrying "progressives", you could probably widen that comment to most media outlets around the globe.
jorgekafkaza
BBC and proctocraniosis - one for Josh surely?
Proctocraniosis - heads up arses?
The BBC is on the mend. John Craven did one of his tiresome "investigations" into Wind Power on Countryfile last night, and not only were dissenting voices allowed a say, he didn't once mention the dreaded GW words. For such a previous offender, either he's been told not to, or he's seen the light.
Slow, but sure.
Rhoda,
Just so we are clear, the BBC's political masters is not tge current Tory Givernment. The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party.
Mailman
"Just so we are clear, the BBC's political masters is not tge current Tory Givernment. The BBC is the broadcasting arm of the Labour Party."
Oct 17, 2011 at 9:29 AM | Mailman
Mmm, yeah, all those rabid left wing programmes like Top Gear, Antiques Roadshow and Songs of Praise. And their avowedly Conservative chief political editor Nick Robinson.
Would you just listen to yourself and get some perspective.
You're probably staggeringly right-wing and believe in all sorts of things which I find rather distasteful. Your lack of objectivity means that you find something politically neutral to be very far to the left of where you're standing. I often find the Beeb to be a little 'establishment'. However, I'm not as blinkered and subjective as you, and realise this is probably a reflection upon me, more than the BBC.
DNFTT
ZedsDeadBed
You have probably missed the fact that the BBC has already publically stated in writing that its rules on impartiality should not be applied to climate change discussions and that skeptics of the concensus arguement should not be given airtime.
Several recent high profile BBC presenters who have recently retired have also said that any questioning of the AGW concensus was not allowed.
Oct 17, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Mac
Quite true, but that's not showing any political bias, that's just reporting what science tells us.
The BBC doesn't give airtime to a lunatic fringe who believe that evolution is the wrong theory, nor should it. The same is true on the subject of AGW.
DNFTT
The BBC is sickening. We also have the spectacle of the likes of Chris Huhne saying he is going to get tough with energy companies because of price increases, while at the same time supporting policies that inevitably lead to price increases (feed-in tariffs and so-called 'renewable' energy). The Financial Times today reveals ("EU faces 20 years of rising energy bills") a leaked EU document that shows we'll all be seeing double the cost for our electricity bills because of the roll out of renewable energy, and even more than that if it's achieved through wind generation.
"European businesses and consumers face at least 20 years of electricity price rises, according to a leaked European Commission report on how the region can meet its green energy targets.
It also forecasts a huge growth in the number of wind farms, which would push up prices even higher.
In an assessment that examines a range of ways in which fossil fuels such as coal can be replaced with cleaner sources of energy, the 112-page report says all scenarios point to wind farms becoming the biggest source of electricity in the bloc by 2050, outstripping both coal and nuclear power.
Wind farms could provide as much as 49 per cent of EU electricity by that date, the report suggests, up from just 5 per cent today.
Average electricity prices for households and businesses would rise “strongly up to 2020-2030” under all scenarios, the document says, and the highest prices would occur after 2030 if renewable sources of power, such as wind and solar, make up a large share of energy production"
This is not just bad policy, it is immoral. When are the BBC journalists going to be able to put their heads over the parapet and tell the general populace the truth: that these 'green' policies will destroy this country and impoverish the people, the very thing that the more extreme Greens and anarchists want, of course?
Nigel Lawson isn't in the business of challenging the so called "science" he's accepted the science but is arguing, quite reasonably, about the policy (the clue is in the "P" in GWPF). I would have thought that it is entirely reasonable for the BBC to allow debate on how we tackle the problem, but that too is banned. This falls in with other topics that are banned from discussion on the BBC because they don't fall within the world view of the left wing political establishment, topics like immigration (racist), Europe (Europhobic), the HRA (racist and Europhobic) are banned on the BBC because they give succor to right wing groups, Banning any discussion on Global Warming resonates with the Catholic Church banning discussion on whether the Sun moved around the earth or vice versae. It's fear of a powerful religious minority.
Just in case the scientifically ignorant troll wants to pick up on this my own position as a child of immigrants and a Catholic, working class boy are:
Immigration, yes but controlled. The more we mix the races the better.
Europe, I love Europe, but don't want to be part of a European Union, because I don' believe it would, or could be democratic.
HRA. Should never have been introduced, it brought no more freedoms to the UK than we already had (the ECHR, a splendidly concise documenit on which the HRA was based, ,was produced mainly by British lawyers and civil servant and was intended to give Johnny Foreigners the same rights as the average Brits to protect them from their governments). That the HRA was so badly drafted has enabled the Judge John Deed wannabes in the judiciary to ride roughshod over our democracy, reck easy endangering the lives of the people of this country by allowing murderers, rapists and terrorists to remain in this country.
Oct 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM | ScientistForTruth
For someone who has Scientist as part of your log-in, your rant seems rather emotional and not based in science.
Of course tackling AGW is going to cost, there are no simple fixes, that's why it's a problem.
As far a your whinges about energy prices rising go, we're using a finite fuel resource at a great rate, I'm sure you understand what supply and demand dictates will be the result of that. As for additional costs incurred by changing to carbon-friendly energy production - it's going to have to happen at some point anyway, even nuclear fuel will run out eventually, it just won't be as soon as oil and coal. So why not do it sooner rather than later, and try and minimise AGW in the process.
Either we shoulder the burden, or future generations do, with the additional problem of a warm Earth if we dodge responsibilities now.
Will it involve sacrifice and change? Yes. Is it morally the right thing to do? Yes.
You lot here are just trying to delay the inevitable because, bottom line, you don't want to have to change or pay any more money.
"Nigel Lawson isn't in the business of challenging the so called "science" he's accepted the science but is arguing, quite reasonably, about the policy (the clue is in the "P" in GWPF)."
Oct 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM | geronimo
I don't know about NL's personal views, but the GWPF runs a great many articles which gripe and moan about 'ver science', and generally try and muddy it, undermine it, and suggest it is on a less sure footing than most people involved reason it is. So I'm going to call you on that one.
As for the rest, I don't agree with most of it, but you stated it and gave reasons, which I can respect. And it seems to be a genuine personal philosophy rather than unthought inherited views.
I thought you were an awful eedjit, and now I'm going to have to slightly revise my view.
Couldn't you just do me a favour and get back into a pigeonhole? It would be much easier for me.
"Would you just listen to yourself and get some perspective."
Sound advice. You might even benefit from it yourself.
Oct 17, 2011 at 5:03 AM | Rhoda Ramirez
but its own pension fund is heavily invested in AGW businesses.
Surely, not that old chestnut again.
That gem of mis-information was reviewed 3 months ago here on BH, have a look at this.
BBC top 100 investments here.
As for the BBC's attitude to CAGW, and Jones' support for it, the words of David Hume spring to mind, as they often do for me when some particularly crass climate-alarm deviousness is exposed:
'Inward peace of mind, consciousness of integrity, a satisfactory review of our own conduct; these are circumstances, very requisite to happiness, and will be cherished and cultivated by every honest man, who feels the importance of them. Such a one has, besides, the frequent satisfaction of seeing knaves, with all their pretended cunning and abilities, betrayed by their own maxims; and while they purpose to cheat with moderation and secrecy, a tempting incident occurs, nature is frail, and they give into the snare; whence they can never extricate themselves, without a total loss of reputation, and the forfeiture of all future trust and confidence with mankind.'
David Hume, An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals.
It has been coming to mind a lot as I read Donna Laframboise's new book (http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/), and again just now with this rejoinder from Nigel Lawson.
Oct 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM | Brownedoff
Hat tip to Brownedoff for showing genuine scepticism when that old nonsense about BBC pension funds is aired once again.
Flipside to that being, that all the other readers/commentors here, didn't pick Rhoda up for talking rubbish, and were happy for her comment to sit there.
Zed, it's a fair point. It wouldn't do any harm to police these threads better, some really stupid things are said in the orgy of self-congratulation that usually accompanies a news item. But at the same time, the discussion threads are not a presentation of 'science', they are not a wiki or resource, just a bunch of people's opinions and comments, and should be treated as such, not some sort of official site policy to be held up as evidnce of the failure of scepticism.
Personally, I wince when I see any of the following things in any sceptic post:
1. Greenhouse effect is not proven - erm, pretty much is, we contest the 'how much', not the if.
2. CO2 is a trace gas - and so is hydrogen cyanide, fancy a sniff?
3. CO2 is plant food - so is dung, but that doesn't make it nice to be around
4. Temperatures are not rising - yes they are, have been since the last ice age
5. Don't tax us - falsely sullies the scientific argument - willingness to pay does not form an argument
6. Their/They're/There Loose/Loose ALL CAPS and other green pencil type pointers
7. Anything loony, such as chemtrails, planetary alignments, ufos
8. Right/Left wing ranting and other conspiracy theories. It's not a conspiracy, just stupidity and greed.
Yep - read the carefully-weighted article - and the 'Oh, MUST we apologise - try to make it as dismissive as possible because it is REALLY tedious having to acknowledge these horrible little people...' so-called BBC apology.
I thought it was nothing short of insulting.
The fact is that we have embarked on a course of action to solve a problem we don't know exists on the advice of scientists and environmentalists. We have barely started down this path when and the outomes of this course of action are already making themselves know to us. They are energy prices, reduced foreign investment and a plan for future energy sources which is unrealistic and will lead to energy poverty and rationing. And this cannot be discussed in the MSM, and particularly on the BBC because they have been brainwashed into believing that the many thousands of scientists who don't believe we are going to see catastrophic global warming are in the same camp as creationists. In short we live in a democracy and the public are being duped by the very very people that should be challenging any consensus.
ZDB. Just visited the GWPF site, only one article reporting the incredible new theory, propounded by Herbert Lamb 50 years ago and now confirmed by the Met Office, that the sun affects the climate. The rest were on policy, so I have to assume you've never read their site and just make things up.
Zed
You need to read up on Gen IV.
Sorry - phone rang. Starter link for Gen IV here.
DNFTT
Oct 17, 2011 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames
Followed several comments later by:
"Zed, it's a fair point. It wouldn't do any harm to police these threads better, some really stupid things are said in the orgy of self-congratulation that usually accompanies a news item. But at the same time, the discussion threads are not a presentation of 'science', they are not a wiki or resource, just a bunch of people's opinions and comments, and should be treated as such, not some sort of official site policy to be held up as evidnce of the failure of scepticism.
Personally, I wince when I see any of the following things in any sceptic post:
1. Greenhouse effect is not proven - erm, pretty much is, we contest the 'how much', not the if.
2. CO2 is a trace gas - and so is hydrogen cyanide, fancy a sniff?
3. CO2 is plant food - so is dung, but that doesn't make it nice to be around
4. Temperatures are not rising - yes they are, have been since the last ice age
5. Don't tax us - falsely sullies the scientific argument - willingness to pay does not form an argument
6. Their/They're/There Loose/Loose ALL CAPS and other green pencil type pointers
7. Anything loony, such as chemtrails, planetary alignments, ufos
8. Right/Left wing ranting and other conspiracy theories. It's not a conspiracy, just stupidity and greed.
Oct 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames
?? DNFTT ??
Peter Walsh
Please stop trying to control any thread on which Zed appears. Leave it to BH. You are out of order.
"You need to read up on Gen IV."
Oct 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM | BBD
I'm aware of generation 4 reactors. More efficiency won't suddenly turn a finite fuel source infinite though. Do also bear in mind that on the cost front, nuclear would become ferociously expensive if it had to pay its own insurance - that's a subsidy which ever way you slice it. Japan won't have helped that either.
We're in agreement that nuclear has to play a part, we just disagree regarding the extent.
wrt Feeding Zed, if s/he really is a troll, the worst thing you can do to them is agree with them.
Also, being a troll doesn't preclude them from occasionally happening on something worthwhile. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
jorgekafkazar Says: " Inward-lookingness is one of the early warning signs of proctocraniosis"
I have looked everywhere for a definition of 'proctocraniosis' without luck, does it mean what I think it does?
A preliminary diagnosis of a person or persons, who is thought to have one's head stuck up one's Butt!
Ha!!!
Oct 16, 2011 at 10:48 PM | Sparks
I have submitted a definition to The Urban Dictionary - don't know if they will authorise it.
Zed
In very simple terms: Gen IV uses 'spent' fuel from all types of reactor up to Gen III+. Existing 'waste' is good for a thousand years of clean energy if we can get Gen IV on a commercial footing.
I am reasonably confident that humanity will sort out some alternative clean energy technology over the course of the next millennium. But we will need a power source in the mean-time. Gen IV is not just the best, it is the only likely candidate.
An old anti-nuke tactic. Debunked here.
That's because you don't appear to appreciate how over-hyped renewable potential is. Nuclear will dwarf renewables by mid-century, or we will still be running mainly on coal and in the process of reaping the consequences.
What scares you more?
CO2 is a odorless HEALTHY trace gas INDISPENSABLE to be there in a human body as Dells Buteyko post pointed out. most plantlife is STARVED of CO2 as it was in earlier history more abundantly available in the atmosphere.
As for Gen IV nukes, the nukes should be build much smaller (100MW max) with complete failure designed in. There is little point in many onion layered supervision systems if a shell break causes half a country to be evacuated. Shells will break,like the Titanic's one did, one has to build in passive security = double shells instead of lots of measuring and hardware pumpsetc . In the end a shell is just clunking in concrete. if all the money wasted on Sir Reginald like enrichment schemes for wimmills would hv been invested in a rejuvenated nuclear industry, we would be a LOT better of now , economically.
I'm slightly baffled that no-one is really up to speed on the shale gas revolution. Many plusses, very few minuses. And talking of proctocraniesis - it can be extracted laproscopically
BBD
I know it's Wikipedia and all that, but it does deal with many of the points your article raises, and gives a nice little summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Indirect_nuclear_insurance_subsidy
BBD quantified it far better than I could, but I would claim that an energy supply is *effectively* infinite if it lasts beyond the technological horizon, which for the energy industry is perhaps 50 or 100 years. Nuclear fits that definition, even without Gen IV-type plants. Re-using "waste" products is an excellent improvement, but isn't actually required to make the argument.
Oddly, some of the same people who steadfastly maintain that solar cost will quickly decrease to be less than that of fossil fuel, express concern about the finitude of fossil fuel (and/or nuclear) resources. If solar really *does* supplant other energy sources in the future, then we don't have to worry about an unending supply of the others, do we?
As much as I don't believe the C in CAGW has been proven, I have no problem at all with the stance of those like BBD, which I would characterise as "OK we believe we've got a problem, let's fix it the best way we know how."
Most others on that side of the debate I would characterise as "OK we believe we've got a problem, can you make the blank cheque out to........"
Zed
No. That wiki article is classic anti-nuclear propaganda. It all hinges on Zelenika-Zovko and Pearce (2011)Diverting Indirect Subsidies from the Nuclear Industry to the Photovoltaic Industry: Energy and Economic Returns. ZZ&P are very, very keen on solar. And I suspect may have been responsible for writing this wiki.
Please go back and read the link I gave you properly and it will become immediately apparent why ZZ&P are providing advocacy, rather than solid argument.
For example, the linked article concludes:
Which sums this up rather well.
What studies have convinced you that renewables have the potential to displace coal from baseload? I think it's time we all had a closer look at what you are arguing from.
The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change does not know the number of birds killed by wind turbines: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/birds_killed_by_wind_turbines#incoming-219154
From the BBC today;
"In my opinion unit prices will only go one way unless someone discovers huge amounts of gas and imports it into the UK: the international price for gas I am afraid is going up," Phil Bentley, the managing director of British Gas.
Looks like UK shale is not to be mentioned either.
Matt Ridley does mention it however;
Little wonder a furious attempt to blacken shale gas’s reputation is under way, driven by an unlikely alliance of big green, big coal, big nuclear and conventional gas producers. The environmental objections to shale gas are almost comically fabricated or exaggerated.
Re gas prices, here's a site which shows the spot price of natural gas at Henry Hub between 2006 and now. I know little of these things, but to me it doesn't look like an upward trend.