Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 23 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 22 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Disagreement over nothing | Main | On advice to government »
Wednesday
Oct162013

Valentine's day

Over the weekend I received a copy of Phil Valentine's An Inconsistent Truth. There was no covering letter, but I assume it came from the publicity people for the film.

At a loose end, I took a look and although "Documentary presented by American conservative talk radio host" is a genre that I would tend to be a little suspicious of, in fact it was a very amusing way to pass an hour or so. Valentine has none of the bombast that I was expecting, coming across as a wryly amusing, very straight kind of guy, ready to have a laugh with anyone about anything. I really warmed to him.

The film itself is pretty much as you'd expect it, covering Climategate, the holes in the global warming hypothesis, and interviewing lots of sceptic scientists. In some ways it can be seen as an extended mickey-take of Al Gore, with much of the time spent focused on his high-carbon lifestyle.

The film has none of the showmanship of the Great Global Warming Swindle, but its more understated tone probably means it will hit home with a different audience. The only gripe is that they get Hide the Decline all wrong - lots of talk about hiding declining temperatures, a la Sarah Palin. That apart, it's a very pleasant way to spend an hour or so.

Buy it here.

 *corrected 11.20am.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (102)

The movie is called An Inconsistent Truth, I think you are confusing it for the one by the fat guy, you know, the one that invented the internet, or world peace, or something.
[Thanks.Now corrected. BH]

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

s/inconvenient/inconsistent/g

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterChris Long

Bishop, when you said, " interviewing lots of sceptic scientists", how many would that be?

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Chandra, we have had quite a few "tail pullers" here over the years... you will have to up your game if you want to join the Hall of Fame...

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

Be careful; the DVD apparently only comes in American NTSC format rather than the European PAL, so it should not play on UK TVs (it should work in computers I think).

FD

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Davies

Chandra, as a matter of interest, do you know how science works? There's no such thing as a non-sceptical scientist. We question things, otherwise we're not scientists. Consensus is anathema to people with questioning minds.

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

You didn't read it, he said "sceptic" scientists, not "sceptical" scientists. The two are different - the latter have open minds, the former closed. So how many "sceptic" scientists were interviewed? How many is "lots"?

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Chandra,

You could always watch the video and tell us!

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterSwiss Bob

@Chandra. There you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

Chandra

You didn't read it, he said "sceptic" scientists, not "sceptical" scientists. The two are different -

Wrong. I'm a scientist and I'm a CAGW sceptic. My mind isn't closed, I'll accept CAGW when I see the evidence. Until then I'll stay sceptical.

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM | Registered CommenterHector Pascal

Chandra,

Is that it? Is that what your argument here boils down to? The definition of words? Wow. Are you serious? In an ideal world all good scientists are sceptics. Not just sceptical, but sceptics. First, last and always. They should believe nothing until they have no choice but to believe it. That’s the problem with a lot of science today, especially, it seems, with climate science. There are too many in the profession who really ought to be advertising agency executives instead. Come up with an idea and immediately proclaim it to be truth. As for closed minds, I think we can all see which side of the argument suffers that particular malady thanks very much.

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM | Registered CommenterLaurie Childs

Sceptic: A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions. Noun
Sceptical: Not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations. Adjective

Pedant: A person who is excessively concerned with minor details..... like someone with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered Commenter52

If 'x' number of "scientists" predict an event that fails to occur, are the 'y' number of "scientists" + others who are yet to be convinced that event may occur, 'sceptics' or 'better scientists'?

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

I liked John Brignell's comment on "Numberwatch" that putting "climate" in front of "scientist" is the equivalent of putting "witch" in front of "doctor".. :-)

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterPogo

Be careful; the DVD apparently only comes in American NTSC format rather than the European PAL, so it should not play on UK TVs (it should work in computers I think).

FD

Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Davies
=======================================================================

AnyDvd removes region protection on a PC. There are prolly free equivalents.

Google, or your DVD plater manual, will tell you what code to enter to make your DVD player deal with DVDs from all regions.

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Poynton

PAL v. NTCS isn't related to region locks. If the DVD player and/or TV cannot use ntsc, no unlocking will help.

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered Commentersteveta_uk

@ Jeremy Poynton 11:39 AM

The NSTC video format has nothing to do with region restrictions. Unless the DVD player will read the NSTC format there is no way we can view it in other parts of the world. Most computer based DVD units should work because they do the conversion in the viewing program.

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterivan

Deleted scene from the movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMByPQltLJ8

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterharold

I think I'm warming to 'Chunder' as our new resident troll.
I like the way he repeatedly puffs himself up and asks his killer question only to discover that it is nothing of the sort. Non

Very entertaining with none of the bile of previous incumbants.
7/10 - a keeper

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

As it's from a self-confessed conservative it already has restricted its audience to the already converted. Conservatives tend to disbelieve any idea that increases taxes on principle - unless they can obtain some of the subsidies for themselves that is. This is the only reason some bothered to look more closely at the science. But If the scientists had said we need more defense spending and reduced welfare they'd be all over it without reading a word. Alas the liberals know this very well and hence find it easy to dismiss anything any conservative has to say about anything.

The extensive and clearly facile attacks on Al Gore are not going to help anyone's cause. In many peoples opinion if Gore had been in power there would have been no Iraq war and likely no World Trade Centre attack either, since he'd have taken the time to actually listen to the CIA, the FBI and the Security team at the WTC, all of whom predicted an attack and therefore he wouldn't have disbanded the team looking for Osama and neither would he have actively hindered efforts to investigate Moussavi's hard disks as apparently the Bush administration did.

When you can get past the partisanship and deal only with the science, then you may manage to bend the ear of the vast majority of politicians who know diddly about anything until it has been stuck on 6-page powerpoint idiot guide.

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Why doesn't the Bishop just quantify his "lots of sceptic scientists" and end the suspense. I'm sure we're all interested, you because you expect it to be dozens and me because I'd be surprised if it exceeded five. We know you watch the comments, Bishop, as you moderate where necessary. So come on, how many is a lot in your world?

Okay, I know you won't so here is the list from IMDB:


Politicians:
Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Greg Walden

Policy wonk:
Ken Green

Talking Heads
Steven Milloy, Drew Johnson, Phil Valentine

Scientists:
Frederick Singer, Roy Spencer

So now we know that "lots" in Bishop-speak means two! The Bishop is winding you all up.

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Why doesn't the Bishop just quantify his "lots of sceptic scientists" and end the suspense. I'm sure we're all interested, you because you expect it to be dozens and me because I'd be surprised if it exceeded five. We know you watch the comments, Bishop, as you moderate where necessary. So come on, how many is a lot in your world?

Okay, I know you won't so here is the list from IMDB:


Politicians:
Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Greg Walden

Policy wonk:
Ken Green

Talking Heads
Steven Milloy, Drew Johnson, Phil Valentine

Scientists:
Frederick Singer, Roy Spencer

So now we know that "lots" in Bishop-speak means two! The Bishop is winding you all up.

Oct 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterSomeone

Did you enjoy the video, Chandra? Perhaps you can explain the difference between the noun "sceptic" and the adjective "sceptical"? I have given you the hint. Because they have the same root, they mean the same thing but in different grammatical contexts. You are not allowed to make up your own grammar.

Oct 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Chandra, two is 100% more than one, so is 'lots', especially as one can be 'enough'.

Oct 16, 2013 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterDannyL

Oh Chunder my dear boy. That really is quite a faux-pas posting the same thing under both of your pseudonyms. Or are we supposed to believe it is a coincidence? You know infinite number of monkeys and all that?

Please don't go though.

Oct 16, 2013 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterFarleyR

I agree. Chandra for president!!

He/she is really daft (boiling kettles with cigarette lighters, proclaiming a noun and an adjective of the same root mean different things, thinking a scientific point of view only has merit when lots of people agree, posting comments twice with two different pseudonyms), but still has the nitpicking pedantic quality we love so much...

So much fun to watch. Thanks Chandra keep it up!

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterWijnand

What wonderfully spontaneous pseudonyms: Chandra and Someone.

Almost as random as Lew and Owsky.

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered Commenterbullocky

Black is black

Black is black
Since Chandra's back.
It's grey, it's grey,
semantics all the day

Oh-oh, what can I do??
'cause I-I-I-I-I,
I'm feelin' blue.

If I had my way,
he'd not be back today.
But he don't need time
to see us again

Bad is bad,
this fella is so sad.
It's time, it's time,
that he found peace of mind.

Oh-oh, what can I do
'cause I-I-I-I-I,
I'm feelin' blue.

Apologies to Los Bravos

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Only 2 scientists, said a troll who hasn't watched it
- When the Bishop who has watched it says lots : from experience I am inclined to believe him
....I see the name Dr. John Christy, below the title
"He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville."
He said he is "a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels".

- Opinions inconsistent with reality is the DramaGreens characteristic.

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:23 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

So Chandra, in the 100 German scientists against Einstein, how many of them were right? The answer is none!
AGW is a neo-Lysenkoism; ie a state mandated scientific lie. Those who pretended to affirm the doctrine of Trofim Denisovitch at least had the excuse of fearing execution or the gulag. Our dissemblers risk nothing more than status or career. Jobsworths or cowards or both.

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterGordon Walker

"That really is quite a faux-pas posting the same thing under both of your pseudonyms."

Obviously there are lots of them.

Oct 16, 2013 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

StewGreen, count them yourself: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1806777/

I am not really surprised that you all don't object to the Bishop misrepresenting the film. And at least he wasn't actually selling it to you. I imagine you know very well that there just aren't "lots" of skeptic scientists worth asking and consider two to be a good number. Better than one, eh? And maybe they just didn't pay enough in appearance fees to get more.

As we have established that some among your number have no idea even what feedback is and nevertheless feel able to reject climate science, nothing would really surprise me here.

Oct 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

@Chandra: there is feedback in our climate system.

However, it is strongly negative and because it uses CO2 as the working fluid, CO2-AGW is near zero (the real AGW has been from polluted clouds with reduced albedo).

Oct 16, 2013 at 3:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

oh dear Chandra, did you just admit that climate scientists are not sceptical? What an admission.

Oct 16, 2013 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Chandra, I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve here. Do you think that if you somehow reveal the Bish to be a man of straw, then all who comment here will instantly lose faith and wander off into the desert like a bunch of leaderless disciples?

It doesnt work like that. Speaking for myself, I'm grateful for Andrew's hard work and persistence in sharing his thoughts and discoveries, and his generosity in hosting this place. I have learned a lot whilst lurking here, often from other commentators vastly more intelligent than me, and I value that.

Of course I reserve the right to disagree with the Bish, and from time to time I may get surprised or disappointed when my comments get chopped for reasons that are not competely clear to me. But so what? None of that detracts from the value of Bishop Hill one iota.

If its religion you need, may I recommend Dana "He's been a very naughty boy" Nuccitelli and his band of acolytes over on Cartoon Central. That environment might be a little more to your taste.

Oct 16, 2013 at 3:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJerryM

Diogenes, like your namesake, who was apparently banished from Sinope for debasement of the currency, you engage in debasement of our currency of communication. Fitting, except that I expect your errors are unwitting.

Oct 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

Chandra:

Are these your words?

"I imagine you know very well that there just aren't "lots" of skeptic scientists worth asking"

That seems to imply that climate scientists are not sceptical, according to you. If you refuse to admit what you have just written, then you are really even more amusing than you have shown previously.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Talking of funding, who funds this eco group:

http://crowboroughvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/zedsdeadbed-busted.html

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Goats Gruff

I see my mistake. You really are a Greek! No wonder you don't understand English very well.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterChandra

What a pathetic individual.

Takes one to know one.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Goats Gruff

Oct 16, 2013 at 11:14 AM | Registered Commenter Laurie Childs

".... In an ideal world all good scientists are sceptics. Not just sceptical, but sceptics. First, last and always. They should believe nothing until they have no choice but to believe it. That’s the problem with a lot of science today, especially, it seems, with climate science. There are too many in the profession who really ought to be advertising agency executives instead. ...."

==============

That deserves repeating. Could be excellent tagline for every blog posting

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM | Unregistered Commentereyesonu

Chandra says:

As we have established that some among your number have no idea even what feedback is and nevertheless feel able to reject climate science, nothing would really surprise me here.

Hey Chandra tell us again how your kettle always boils, no matter how much water you put into it.

I loved it, the intelligence, the intellect. Inspiring!
Come on dude, don't call other people dumb, you don't need it. Act from a place of strength, and dazzel us with your knowledge.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:14 PM | Unregistered Commenterwijnand

My innate scepticism regarding today's posting sequences and characteristics makes me think 'sockpuppetry' - do our apparent plethora of bridge-dwelling ectoparasites have a common IP number Bish? We've seen one of them do it right here, after all.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

Zandra/Ched - sorry, could you define 'feedback' for us? Seems your grasp of my language is somewhat limited. I am a sceptic. This means I am sceptical.

Verstehen Sie?
Ydych chi'n deall?
Capis?

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

Denialist troll - 'Chandra' IS also 'Someone' - see above. The posts arrived almost simultaneously.

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM | Registered Commenterflaxdoctor

Time for the Bishop to get out his 'mop and bucket'... "Clean-up on aisle three"

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Chandra @ 10:21, 10:46, 12:53, 12:56, 3:05, 3:56, 4:08

Is this your job?

Oct 16, 2013 at 4:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

ssat,

If it is his job he must be on a probational period and with a vanishingly low probability of full time employment.

Chandra,

How old are you physically? Mentally you appear to be in your mid teens. I wish you the maturity to see yourself as others do.

Oct 16, 2013 at 5:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Singleton

Please return to a reasoned discussion of the topic of the post.

Oct 16, 2013 at 5:31 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

DNFTT

Oct 16, 2013 at 5:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterRetired Dave

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>