Saturday
Jun232012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Delingpole on the Daily Politics
Jun 23, 2012 Climate: Sceptics Climate: Surface Greens James Delingpole put in a very good performance on the Daily Politics yesterday (video from 30 mins). He was up against some green chappie, who I didn't recognise. Admirable support was provided by journalist Peter Hitchens, while another hack Mary Ann Seighart seemed slightly out of her depth.
Subjects covered included the contribution of environmentalism to the wellbeing of the planet, "green jobs", and temperature trends in the twenty-first century.
Reader Comments (111)
I am reeling from the shock of seeing a "catastrophist" thoroughly on the back foot on BBC TV!
Andrew Neil has a history of disrupting the BBC's narrative on CAGW, to his eternal credit. I suspect his long and chequered career in journalism has made him very capable of spotting a dodgy scare story, even when it is stoutly maintained by the great and the good.
Can't see this in Sweden. Can someone please put it on YouTube?
I could then show it to my 15 y.o. science students in their critical thinking classes.
So says the new 2011 Swedish school curriculum: "Teaching should be objective and encompass a range of different approaches. All parents should be able to send their children to school, fully confident that their children will not be prejudiced in favour of any particular view." I say: Great! :-)
I have a HUUUUUUUUUge crush on Mary Anne Seighart - made worse when she inexplicably posed as a french maid!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17784489
I must get out more.
Can I believe my eyes ! - Andrew Niel, Why not try Prof. Bob Carter. I hope this is not just a "one off" but a return to the spirit of the BBC's charter.
Interesting.
When trendy lefty "opinion formers" like Sieghart start fence sitting on the issue - you know the tide is turning.
A couple of years ago she wouldn't have said "I'm not a scientist so I can't opine on the issue". Normally "opining" is what people like her do instead of breathing.
James D has become a much more polished media performer since his assassination by the BBC & Nurse - the FOE guy sounded like a double glazing salesman losing a deal.
Promising.
Can't see it as Internet speed so slow here and it takes a month of Sundays to download anything, but amused by the idea of Mary Ann Sieghart sitting on the fence, probably because Private Eye sends her up mercilessly as Mary Ann Bighead.
Apparently their (BBC's) lawyers are not very bright; they can't seem to get int'l rights to their own programs.
:sigh:
If you really are a proper farmer, Charlie, I can't see it working out.
Mary Ann is a multi-generational North London, nulab, posh media lefty.
Maybe if you have a (spotless) Range Rover, clean Hunter wellies and a farm in Oxfordshire near a Michelin starred restaurant you could be in with a chance.
Foxgoose
Normally I would agree but I'm happy to give Mary-Ann the benefit of the doubt. (No, you're quite safe, Farmer Charlie; she's not my type).
In general I've found she's not one of the ones who opine instead of breathing and if she's not happy commenting on a subject she'll say so.
I haven't seen the programme but the subjects the Bishop mentioned are not "political" as she would understand the word, I suspect.
However we might view them.
Don't agree Mike.
She's chair of the Social Market Foundation - the ultimate Blairite think tank.
I think when commentators get involved in political policy advice - they're "opining" on steroids.
Following the thought for Today outrage SCEF emailed the BBC to complain. But following the lack of any response from the Today program, the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum wrote to the BBC to make it clear that their false portrayal of "sceptics" amounted to libel. A few days ago we received the official legal reply which as one would expect, did not admit this.
But seeing this program ... it may just be coincidence ... but could this be by way of an unofficial reply?
[Snip - O/T]
In light of this broadcast I found it interesting that on the 'Today' programme (BBC radio 4) this morning when the subject of yesterday's north of England floods was broached the presenter twisted himself into a pretzel trying to get the Environment Agency spokesman to attribute the floods to 'climate change' but the chap wouldn't have it, basically saying floods are floods and they happen. The most he would admit to was that rain in June had been more than expected over the last five years, leaving it at that without any attribution.
Perhaps there is hope after all.
Harry
Where do ice ages fit into this theory?
I'd love to believe you and being one of your uneducated laypersons I'm a sucker for a good hypothesis but I'd say "runaway cooling" is not a bad definition of an ice age, wouldn't you?
Foxgoose
One of us is right; I won't insist it's me!
Worth watching just to see Andrew Neil claiming that the BBC can't be biased on the subject because they had him on for a few minutes, as 1/4 of the convesratiion while having given 10s og thousands of hours of airtime to inquestioning support of [snip - banned language]
James had a difficult time trying to talk over the environmentalist's interruptions.
Some delegates at Rio were asked the definition of sustainable development and failed to produce a rational answer.
Sustainable development is like asking a cook for a recipe to make an omelet without breaking eggs. Impossible.
Farmer Charlie,
Is that a distaff disproof of the P J O'Rourke assertion -
"Say what you want about the Nazis, no woman has ever had a fantasy about being tied up and beaten by a man dressed as a liberal."
'The cult is dying'
Let's all help it along the way and put it out of its misery
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/22/285-the-environmental-movement-wants-to-kill-you-since-youre-a-nasty-human/
Marc Morano speaking out the things greenies dont want to hear
I was watching the Euro 2012 coverage on ITV 1 .Has anyone also noticed that Dellors (the great man) is the splitting image of Former England international and current TV football pundit Gareth Southgate with glasses
I bet James Dellingpole is better at taking penalties
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gareth+southgate&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Okj&pwst=1&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&prmd=imvnsol&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=0J7lT6DyEcbY8AP44ITFCg&ved=0CHEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=622
I agree that James was excellent. Not at all easy with five people competing for the mic. The best thing was pinning the catastrophic effects of biofuel subsidies on the green movement. How the Friends of the Earth didn't just slink off at that point I don't know. But the public is getting the message.
Harry, you may be onto something here Venus atmosphere 93% CO2average temperature 735k , Mars atmospheric 95% CO2 average temperature -63K. Why isn't Mars hotter? Mars surface pressure 0.636 kPa, about 0.006 Bar. Venus surface pressure 93 Bar. Could it be that atmospheric pressure affects the temperature on a planet? You know the old PV =kT gas law? Or have I stumbled across a new scare story? I think I'll look into it, it seems if I assert that V and T will stay constant in a warming world I can show that the resulting increased surface pressure will stunt human growth until we're smaller than ants. I reckon Nature would publish it and I'd get a slot on BBC discussing it. Looks like my 15 minutes of fame are in sight. If I do it quickly enough it would almost certainly get into AR5.
Yep Venus surface pressure is 15,500 greater than that of Mars, and the temperature is 798K higher. funny that.
Seighart: "Surely it is more sensible to use sources of energy that aren't going to run out than sources of energy that are going to run out..."
That was a statement, not a question. The acceptance of this sweeping non-fact as support of measures taken against a non-problem is non-sense. For that to be the fall-back position when the scam has been exposed shows a complete misunderstanding of the quantities of hydrocarbons available. No Mary Ann, it is not 'more sensible' to base important decisions on incomplete information, it is merely a more prevalent approach to doing so.
[Richard and others, snip]
Thank Jeebus for people like James Delingpole, Andrew Montford, Jo Nova, Donna Laframboise, and Steve McIntyre--it's a dirty job, but only brave, persevering types would be able to carry on reporting on and holding the CAGW scammers to account.
Watermelons and UN bureaucrats: zero transparency, 100% conspiracy.
In other news, Michael "hide the decline" Mann is in good company with this other Penn State luminary and pillar of the community:
Sandusky guilty on 45 of 48 counts
"Sandusky, once a prominent assistant coach under Paterno, was convicted at trial on 45 of 48 counts of sexual abuse. Many elements remain in what is considered one of the biggest stories in college athletics history. Paterno was fired after 409 victories and two national titles. He died of cancer in January. President Graham Spanier, a leader at one time within college athletics, lost his job. Tim Curley, widely considered one of the nation's top athletic directors, lost his job. Curley still faces a trial on obstruction and failure to report charges."
I hope that in 2013 we will see Peter Gleick, Al Gore, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann all jailed for fraud and crimes against humanity. These crooks are raping our children's right to cheap energy and a prosperous future, and belong in a state pen.
Harry Huffman
I've been visiting your website and I'm starting to understand what you have accomplished now. Its the simplicity of it which makes the idea so devastating.
Keep plugging, this concept is going to be a hard sell, there are a lot of people who have invested their whole lives in climate science who are not going to accept your work. It is too costly. The truth hurts sometimes.
BTW, I don’t think commenter 'Geronimo' above gets it.
cheers
In support of Delingpole's Jones quote in the video;
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.
Lest anyone questions Deller's facts.
ssat
That's the eco-warriors talking about the rest of us.The reason why I christened my blog "Stands to Reason" is that the world is full of people who hear an argument like Sieghart's and immediately reply, "well, of course, it stands to reason, dunnit?"
Sieghart's point (Surely it is more sensible to use sources of energy that aren't going to run out than sources of energy that are going to run out...") is itself a s-t-r argument and like most has an element of truth and logic on its side.
Well yes, of course it makes sense to use sources of energy that aren't going to run out and the idea that since earth's resources are finite they will therefore at some time in the future "run out" is a seductive one. If you're not an expert in these things why would you not believe it?
But it raises two questions which the eco-warriors prefer not to answer (correction: prefer not to have you ask!): on what timescale are we talking? and what do we if the sources that aren't going to run out don't work?
You are quite right to aver that "The acceptance of this sweeping non-fact as support of measures taken against a non-problem is non-sense." But don't be too harsh on Sieghart (or anyone else who isn't a fanatical environmentalist) because the eco-warriors have been very adept at framing this argument to appeal to the "good common sense" of the man in the street who is quite happy to leave these sciencey things to those who know about such matters.
As long as the lights come on when he throws the switch, water comes out when he turns the tap,and petrol can still be bought at the petrol station he will believe someone who tells him that the oil is bound to run out one day.
And he's never even heard of indium!
The truth — as we who have taken an interest know — is that your average eco-warrior doesn't care whether the resources run out or not. To rework foxgoose's quote from the indium thread
And as long as there are people like Mary-Ann Sieghart who can be relied on to repeat these mantras to the sheeple because they think "it stands to reason, dunnit" then we will continue to have a major mountain to climb.
And forget about global warming (the Less than Great and the Not very Good at Rio already have, please note); the globe will look after that question in its own good time. "Sustainability" is likely to be a much easier sell and more difficult to counter.
Why? Because it stands to reason, dunnit.
Mary Ann Seighart used to fawn over Blair so disgustingly that I came to think of her as Mary Ann Seigheil.
Friday's Daily Politics remained in a tab in my browser, which led me to take a look at Tuesday's with Simon Jenkins, Guardian op-ed writer in recent years and one of the few in London broadsheets I will take time to listen to. He's hilarious on the G20, insightful on the civil service and its relationship to ministers but the thing that really interested me vis-a-vis BH the climate blog was his debate about housing and planning policy, as chair of the National Trust, with Claire Fox of the Institute of Ideas - someone we've come across, like her sister Fiona of the Science Media Centre, in times past.
What I want to bring to people's attention is how 'environmentalist' is being redefined in public debate, as the AGW obsession slips away into oblivion. Fox didn't like what she sees as the influential and elitist green hue of the National Trust but what hits me most is that Jenkins, having initially been sceptical about the CO2 scare, and then deciding it must be real, as friends like David Attenborough fell into line, is quite clearly in the sceptical camp again, post Climategate. But Jenkins is an environmentalist or greenie as seen by Fox.
I don't feel any pressing need to work out which is right about planning laws for green belts and brown sites, though my instincts would be with Jenkins. It's just an enormous relief that the stupidity of carbon controls and scams are no longer even mentioned. It will take a while to weed them all out of the policy nexus but the debate about the future has moved on, thanks not a little to outliers like James Delingpole who've told it like it is (or how they see it) in the mass media, when they've been given the chance, right through.
Jun 23, 2012 at 12:12 PM | geronimo
I knew Mars was cold but you surely don't mean -63k do you? Since Kelvin starts at absolute zero for temperature, -63k would be a new discovery for humanity... ;-)
Richard et al
After being a bit squeamish for a while, I've come quite recently to the conclusion that "eco-fascist" is the best generalised, description for environmental campaigners.
The "eco" replaces the nationalist allegiance of previous fascist movements - but apart from that all the principles and techniques of fascism are ruthlessly applied.
Rewriting history - check
Use of violent political action - check
Binding people with strict ideology - check
Ruthless denigration and harassment of dissenters - check
Promotion of a morally superior social group - check
Subversion of elective democracy - check
So - if it quacks like a duck............
Also, if we all use "eco-fascist" as much as possible, we'll be able to employ the recent Bain "denier" defence - "everyone in our circle uses it so it's a conveniently understood description".
Foxgoose
IIRC, the Bishop is not dead keen on the word "eco-fascist" though it is one which I make use of, though sparingly.
If you read my ramblings above you'll realise that I make some differentiation between those who propagate the eco-religion and those who merely echo it. I would certainly side with you where the promoters of the Faith are concerned but suggest "enviro-mentalists" for those who have wholeheartedly adopted the religion without really understanding its implications and "eco-luddites" for those who believe that the solution to all our ills is what I call "unpicking the industrial revolution".
Please feel free to us either of these and if you have any alternative ideas I shall be happy to nick them.
Harry Dale Huffman, June 12, 2008
Harry Dale Huffman, today.
Never mind about competent physicists, are there any competent psychiatrists here who can help poor Mr. Huffman?
I think Andrew Neil has read the emails so is much more generous to the sceptical side than most presenters. Peter Hitchens was gloriously dismissive of the global warming "scam", and Dellers. though he didn't get much time, came across well. Mary Ann Seighart posing as the voice of reason suggested that even if temperatures are not going up it makes sense to move to renewable energy sources. This may be true up to a point, but if it really were accepted that the scientific establishment has got it so badly wrong and that the threat to mankind is not nearly as serious or imminent as we have been told then you can forget the heavy government subsidies for inefficient "green" enegy generation.
I do wish I could view the video.
Re eco-fascists. They're out there, but I don't think they are influencing the debate that much one way or the other.
I've always thought of fascism as more a deranged state of mind than a coherent political philosophy. At least as it has been practiced. The theoretical definition of fascism, which I interpret as imposing is socialism without overly riling up the industrialists and lesser capitalists, is generally benign to the extent that you could define FDR and Obama as fascists. It's the historical fact of fascism as it relates to the Nazis and Mussolini that gets the spittle flying. Unfortunately, there are authoritarians on the left who reek of the latter form of it.
Yes I agree - eco-fascist is only for those who actively promote the ideology & try to control the lives or behaviour of others.
For the rationality-impaired cult followers, I agree that enviro-mentalist is appropriate but to avoid ambiguity (and save precious trees) - I prefer the shortened (c. J Clarkson) version of just "mentalist".
Eco-luddites is fine for the Guardian reading, composting-toilet enthusiasts (Hickmanites).
Nicholas: nice summary but I think Peter Hitchens made a tactical error. Funnily enough he was making exactly the same point that I made to some of my office friends an hour or two later: that if even the BBC barely covered Rio-20 (it's been almost entirely absent from the web front page) then it assuredly was the dampest of damp squibs. When I made it this point received instant, wide agreement from others, most as far as I can see coming from a warmist persuasion.
Hitchens was going well but, being from the Daily Mail, couldn't resist a big dig at BBC bias and that became the subject, not the important truth of how little anyone cared about Rio. A mistake in argument - setting off your own red herring - that I have made times without number. The BBC was in this instance less important than Rio as washout. It was key not to get diverted - especially given that the moderator of the discussion was Andrew Neil, who we all can see allows much more space for sceptics than anyone else at Auntie. It was unhelpful to Andrew and unfruitful generally for the debate to become about the Beeb itself.
I mention this partly because I can imagine some BH denizens not spotting this mistake, because we're all far too wound up about BBC bias. Whoops, now I've really put my foot in it. (I think it should be disbanded by the way, in this world of new media. We need the burst of creativity that would let loose in London. But that's a discussion for another day too.)
"If you really are a proper farmer, Charlie, I can't see it working out.
Mary Ann is a multi-generational North London, nulab, posh media lefty.
Maybe if you have a (spotless) Range Rover, clean Hunter wellies and a farm in Oxfordshire near a Michelin starred restaurant you could be in with a chance."
Damn damn damn. Alas, Foxgoose, I am but a lowly tenant farmer, driving a Hyundai Terracan, with rotting Aigles and an overdraft that makes Greece look financially healthy. A poor yeoman such as I has no chance. I do have a huge organ, though. (That's 'organ' as in a Roland RD-170 which I am about to go and play with my band at a local wedding).
OT - but too good to miss out on!
Adam Corner's Talking Climate blog is announcing a once-in-lifetime, unbeatable, time-limited offer.
Apparently "Risk Analysis" mag has launched a special edition - featuring free download of a whole bunch of key papers on "climate change risk perception and communication" by superstar authors in the field - such as Adam's boss Nick Pidgeon.
http://talkingclimate.org/new-academic-papers-on-climate-communication-free-to-download/
If you rush over there now you can gorge yourself by filling up your hard drive with free pdf's of top hit numbers like "The Rise of Global Warming Skepticism: Exploring Affective Image Associations in the United States Over Time" ....... and many, many more.
I had a dip into "Risk Communication, Public Engagement, and Climate Change: A Role for Emotions" by Sabine Roeser - who has made the earth shattering discovery that sometimes, our behaviour is affected by our emotional responses to problems.
Seriously, it's worth having a look at this stuff to see what's going on in the psycho-climatological fringes - I'm just slightly worried that releasing it all at once might be a cunning plan to ensure that sceptics lose the will to live.
(A little mean voice in my head says Adam's only doing this 'cos he got money for his blog "to disseminate academic research" - and we caught him out using it for blatant propaganda - is that ungracious of me?)
"I knew Mars was cold but you surely don't mean -63k do you? Since Kelvin starts at absolute zero for temperature, -63k would be a new discovery for humanity... ;-)"
LiT, humbled it is of course 63K or else the speed of light would be 400k/s. thank you.
Would love it if some kind soul could post this video on Youtube as it's not available here in the US either.
regards,
Henry.
Mike Jackson et al: A simple allegory about how "Surely it is more sensible to use sources of energy that aren't going to run out than sources of energy that are going to run out..."
I worked for a major multinational and my office shared a pool of secretarial support. I needed to get a new A4 (legal) pad and went to the secretarial station to get it from secretary i/c the stationery cupboard. She told me that she had just the one left. "Great!", said I, "I only want the one."
"But I can't let you have it," said she, "If I let you have it I shall have none left - and where shall I be if anyone comes along wanting one?"
You've got a band as well as wellies?
That changes everything - Islingtonians go mad for music in wellies - think Glastonbury - all you need now is a posh Moroccan tent and you're in.
Take along something cuddly - like one of those alpaca thingies or a baby lamb (NOT freezer ready! - she might be a veggie).
Oh - and don't mention the french maid thing too early on, she's probably a feminist and they generally take a bit longer to get around to that sort of thing.
Snotrocket,
"'But I can't let you have it,' said she, 'If I let you have it I shall have none left - and where shall I be if anyone comes along wanting one?'"
My dad loves to tell the story of when he went into Binns in Sunderland and asked for some product or other. "Oh we don't sell that anymore, it just left the shelves as soon as we put it out, so it didn't seem worth it."
Slightly more on topic:
Having watched the discussion, I'm still not convinced that James Delingpole comes across well on TV. His body language, and facial contortions make rather uncomfortable viewing for me. That may seem rather trivial, but TV is a trivial medium. Peter Hitchens, on the other hand, is so pompous I just want to... [self snip]
One day the sceptics might actually find someone who comes across well in this new medium of TV. (And if anyone says Monckton...)
On Ms Seighart's comments:
"Surely it is more sensible to use sources of energy that aren't going to run out than sources of energy that are going to run out..."
The comment as I heard it is this:
"Even if global warming isn't happening [...] surely it makes sense to use more sources of energy that aren't going to run out and fewer sources of energy that are going to run out, and oil and coal will eventually run out, the sun isn't going to stop shining, so i don't really see what the problem is with using more renewables."
That has to qualify as being one of the silliest utterances of all time. Concepts such as "cost", "reliability" and "time scale" are strangers to her, apparently.
James Evans
re: Seighart on "renewables"
Mere quibbles, sir, considering that she does make for such a lovely French maid......
Oh I suppose she really does want to be taken seriously, but she is hardly worse than most of what passes for "Green thinking"....
Was it a good performance? I though JD came across as nervous, not able to sit still and constantly suppressing a giggle. I half expected him to wave at his mother: hi Mum, look, I'm on TV! I haven't seen him before though so maybe he is usually worse.
Joking aside, where does this 'green jobs destroy other jobs' nonsense come from? Is it just because of the taxes? Is it just 'green' taxes that destroy other jobs or all taxes? Since a large proportion of GDP is tax-related (40% or so?), that seems a big claim; tea-party stuff even. Are we to understand that every policeman, nurse, teacher, civil servant etc is destroying another private sector job, just by his or her mode of employment? Are BH readers exclusively private sector and if not what do the public sector readors thing of this?
BitBucket,
"Joking aside, where does this 'green jobs destroy other jobs' nonsense come from?"
I think it comes from stuff like this:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
snotrocket/James Evans
"Tsk! You're the third person I've told this morning; there's no demand!"
I've heard the stationery story before - or at least a variation thereof. Think yourself into her head. There is a certain unarguable logic at work in there.
As from July 1 it will be mandatory when driving in France to have in the car a personal breathalyser kit ready for use. The advice is to buy two. But I only need one and the law says I only need one. But as soon as that one is used, if you don't have the second one you are breaking the law!
Different situation but another example of an aspect of modern life you need to get your head round.
Pass the aspirin!
BitBucket
Perhaps the 'green jobs destroy other jobs' nonsense come from:-
'Despite its hyper-aggressive (expensive and extensive) “green jobs” policies it appears that Spain likely has created a surprisingly low number of jobs, two- thirds of which came in construction, fabrication and installation, one quarter in administrative positions, marketing and projects engineering, and just one out of ten jobs has been created at the more permanent level of actual operation and maintenance of the renewable sources of electricity.
This came at great financial cost as well as cost in terms of jobs destroyed elsewhere in the economy.
The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.
Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and employment levels in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco industries.
Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Or this
This report examines the costs and benefits of government policy to support the renewable energy industry in Scotland and the UK. The Scottish Government in particular is promoting the renewables sector as an economic opportunity, and the purpose of this report is to assess whether this is justified. The report therefore does not investigate measures designed to reduce carbon emissions directly, nor does it consider the merits of renewable technology as part of the attempts to slow climate change.
The report’s key finding is that for every job created in the UK in renewable energy, 3.7 jobs are lost. In Scotland there is no net benefit from government support for the sector, and probably a small net loss of jobs.
http://www.acci.asn.au/Files/Worth-The-Candle---The-Economic-Impact-Of-Renewabl