Bishop Hill Deben makes waves
Sep 24, 2013 Climate: Sceptics The Times has a raft of articles about global warming this morning (all links are paywalled). There's a Ben Webster article on the Met Office model, a leader:
So far there are only theories as to why the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years than some models predicted. The models may have been wrong. The scenarios inferred from them may have been alarmist. This much is clear: the IPCC must tackle head-on what it calls the “hiatus” in global warming, and follow the evidence rather than buckle to political pressure from either side of the debate.
And finally there's a short piece about Lord Deben's rather slimy reaction to my being allowed to speak on Radio 5 yesterday (unfortunate spelling mistakes per original):
Lord Debden, the former Conservative Environment Secretary who is chairman of the government-appointed Committee on Climate Change, yesterday used Twitter to criticise the BBC for interviewing a prominent climate sceptic.
Following Radio 5 Live’s interview with Andrew Montford, Lord Debden (known as John Gummer before being made a peer) wrote: “Does BBC give platform to those who don’t believe smoking causes cancer?”
Lord Debden was himself then criticised on Twitter for making a false comparison by implying that the science linking manmade emissions to rising temperatures was as strong as the evidence linking smoking to cancer.
Reader Comments (59)
Debden really is a nasty piece of work. But it is striking how yet again argument No. 6 (of a grand total of perhaps 8) from the Alarmist's Handbook to Swatting Away Climate Deniers (Ha! Ha! and Ha! again) is dutifully wheeled out, to wit the wholly nonsensical assertion that there is some kind of link between climate 'denial' and those, invariably in the pay of 'Big Tobacco (not to be confused with those in the pay of 'Big Subsidies'), who dispute the links between smoking and lung cancer, the clear inference being that both groups are foam-flecked, swivel-eyed, ranting loons.
Maybe some in the media need to scan through the rest of Deben's twitter feed? It is full of that level of poorly thought out facile drivelling. For a while genuinely thought it was a spoof account. Apparently it isn't.
Sounds to me like you struck a nerve.
Please keep up the good work.
Beat me to it, LITB. Confirmed by the Times, no less, so he must be for real! Heaven help us.
I transcribed a fascinating talk Deben gave at Oxford University at
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130226_ld
and analysed it at
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/dirty-deben-does-drugs-and-potty-talk/
He has some odd views about climate change, including the belief that The Science is as incontrovertible as the Roman Catholic religion, and that sceptics’ views are to be compared to Cliff Richard’s religious beliefs. I don’t think he campaigns to keep Cliff off the airwaves though.
I love the disingenuous way the Times implies (from the quote) that the IPCC is some kind of impartial asessor of the various climate change claims rather than being, in reality, just another warmist propaganda outfit.
So Deb(d)en doesn't like free speech. Remind me, what political party does he belong to and what party won't I be voting for in the future?
I wonder how the editors of the papers and programmes are feeling about the Debens and Wards of the world telling them who they should and should not be interviewing.
".....implying that the science linking manmade emissions to rising temperatures was as strong as the evidence linking smoking to cancer."
So far as I can see, the "science" linking manmade emissions to DANGEROUS temperatures, is way weaker than even the rather weak evidence linking "passive" smoking to cancer.
And of course the greenie agit-prop team always miss out the "passive" bit when pretending that a few sceptic scientists are stooges of Big Tobacco.
Unlike Al Gore and Bob Ward, of course, where there seems to be a more-or-less direct financial trail to Big Tobacco (and much else besides).
He's a member of the Tory Party Phillip. You may remember the image of him stuffing a beefburger down his young daughter's throat during the BSE media scare period.
LiT: I know, it was a rhetorical question!
Lord Dipin's reaction is the typical reflex of a pig faced with the removal of its trough.
I've always thought the global warming cult's position on John Selwyn Gummer (Lord D) and Tim Yeo very revealing.
During the nineteen eighties these two were pretty emblematic of the sleazy Tory grandee, so hated by the left. Yeo and Selwyn Gummer were unmistakable figures of ridicule. But wait! Behold the amazing transformation. They begin to speak on global warming and suddenly everything they say is taken at face value. Their business interests are not questioned. They are given free rein by the left-wing media and pressure groups.
Curious.
The problem with any religion and that is the way that the whole issue is treated i.e. believers and non believers, is that it is based on the non scientific concept of faith ( models) as against rational fact ( empirical results). It is when the believer has his faith shaken that the fundamentalist ( i.e. vested interest) becomes more scornful and repressive. This is what is going on at the moment in this debate when even the BBC are letting the doubting and rational siren voices in.
I was never too impressed with Lord “Don’t call me Shirley” Drebin when he was merely John Selwyn Gummer, MP. All that does impress me of about him, now, is the size of his bank account, and his absolute arrogance in his entitlement to get so wealthy off the tax-payer.
Also, I am of the opinion that Cliff Richard is more of a Christian than many self-proclaimed Christians, including many in the Roman Catholic church, and Loud Drebin.
As for equating those doubting AGW to those doubting smoking causes lung cancer, so what? There is very, very little evidence for smoking causing lung cancer; there is absolutely no evidence of “passive” smoking causing LC – and I am speaking as a lifelong non-smoker, who would always have to have a shower after a night out.
Rad Rodent
There is actually plenty of evidence showing smoking causes lung cancer, and the correlation between them has been quantified to an enormous degree. 'Passive' smoking, I grant you, is much more tenuous.
Whilst I've no intention of feeding the troll (particularly one whose malice and stupidity has made her a legend in her own time), it might be worth remarking that her 'contribution' is confirmation of precisely the point I made about the greenie agit-prop team at 10:14 above.
Bishop takes Lord at AR5. Checkmate.
...There is actually plenty of evidence showing smoking causes lung cancer, and the correlation between them has been quantified to an enormous degree...
There are large numbers of papers showing a correlation between smoking and a variety of illnesses, cancer and heart conditions in particular. It would be hard to get a paper published which did not show this. But oddly, no one has yet been able to show a proven mechanism for the connection, and the connection remains stubbornly statistical.
Doesn't mean that there isn't one, of course...
Why are not average temperatures shown rather than changes in temperature based upon some average? Average temperatures would be much easier to understand. If there was a graph showing temperatures based upon satellite, balloon sonde, thermometer and then proxy going back to last ice age: then it would be much easier to understand. There needs to be much more use of diagrams which are easy to understand . This would enable people to understand that AGW is not happening.
A graph of temperature vs date at the top of the website would help illustrate the point.
Lord Dobbin is fortunate in that he doesn't have to ask the electorate for votes after insulting them.
.... Lord Deben's rather slimy reaction
Qualifying any statement or remark by the Noble Lord Deben as "rather slimy" is redundant. They stand, in fact, as definitions of the term.
Charlie
Let me sort that one for you.
"Why are not average temperatures shown rather than changes in temperature based upon some average?"
[Because] Average temperatures would be much easier to understand.
Does that solve it for you?
Actually, I am assured that there are other reasons why "anomalies" (properly called "variations", but anomaly has a certain useful bit of pejorative baggage attached!) are a more reliable way of discussing temperatures though no-one has yet explained it satisfactorily.
Dodgy Geezer (and Rad Rodent)
Over 50 known carcinogens have been found in tobacco smoke. Many of these have been observed to interrupt programmed cell death. The surprise would be if smoking did not cause cancer.
We digress...
Why should the BBC give a platform to a little shit who is intent only on lining his pockets? And why do none of the world class hahaha BBC's investigative reporters ever look into the curious links between his enthusiasm for the cause and the size of his bank balance? And yes, as Stuck-Record points out, how notable is it that 'progressives' views of Gummer and Yeo have changed, now that they are on the 'good' side. While Gummer was simply ridiculed for shoving a burger down his daughters throat, Yeo was a sleaze poster boy, banging some other woman and having the happy family press conference at the farm gate once he was rumbled. All sins can be forgiven .....
I'm afraid Debden is one of the worst examples of Ecofascism. He, like the so called Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey wish to stifle any disent from their orthodox warmist religion. They are both a disgrace to the Parliamentary positions they hold. They are similar in their views to that awful woman Margeret Beckett, who suggested that sceptics, she called us deniers, should be treated like terrorists and banned from giving our views in the media. What makes these people so odious?
Cigarette smoke contains several known carcinogens and tumour promoters. There is evidence of direct DNA damage and hence mutation and tumour production by cigarette smoke. Lung cancer is pretty rare in 'never' smokers. There is a dose - response effect; i.e. the more one smokes, the greater the risk of lung cancer (about 25 fold on 20 a day) and that risk slowly reduces after smoking cessation. In the UK the 10 year survival is about 5%. Probably worth avoiding cigarettes.
Nothing to do with climate, except Deb(d)en seems keen to link them!!
Look at the famous photo of Gummer eating the burger with his daughter and pay particular attention to the burger itself. Notice the 'dangerous' bit is hanging out at the bottom (ooh err) making it look likely that Gummer hasn't actually eaten any of the meat. As with all things Gummer, it pays to look closely.
What the Great and the Good don't understand is that, before climate change, more people had a good opinion of University professors and researchers; of investigative journalism; of science reporting; of the BBC; of the House of Lords; of Government ministers; of dozens of charities, and especially of the Big Ones; of international organizations; etc etc.
The whole brouhaha will be remembered as another stage in the self-destruction of Western society. With them at the helm. Poor idiots.
"I love the disingenuous way the Times implies (from the quote) that the IPCC is some kind of impartial assessor of the various climate change claims rather than being, in reality, just another warmist propaganda outfit."
The Daily Mail isn't much better - they have an article about this today, written by "Science Correspondent" Fiona Macrae, in which she describes Bob Ward as "A climate change expert at the London School of Economics"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430116/Met-Office-global-warming-figures-fatally-flawed-result-millions-squandered.html
Charlie: I think they do not use average temperature because saying that the planet has changed from 14 and a bit to 14 and a bit more is not going to scare anyone.
I didn't realise you didn't beleive that smoking causes cancer Andrew....
Sorry to leave it so late, but the first sentence that you quote has got a little mixed up. It should of course read,
So far there are only theories as to why the Earth [...] warmed [in the 20-odd years from about 1975 to 1997].
Of course climate change causes cancer too don'tcha know :)
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/geh/climatechange/health_impacts/cancer/index.cfm
What a nasty little man...
Charlie (11:09 AM): "Why are not average temperatures shown rather than changes in temperature based upon some average? "
There are two good reasons for presenting anomaly series (i.e., changes in temperature from a baseline) rather than absolute.
One reason is to remove the distraction of cyclic variations. For series which represent samples at higher than annual rates (say, monthly or daily), the primary behavior is the seasonal cycle. [Or the daily cycle, if sampled faster than once per day.] By subtracting off the average for a particular day (or hour), one can perceive slower variations which would otherwise be obscured by the larger swings.
Second, one of the lesser-known issues with the suite of GCM's, and also to some extent with the observational data sets, is that the absolute values of temperature do not match up perfectly. For example, at the top of Figure 9.8(A) of AR5 WG1's Second Order Draft, the vertical bars indicate the mean temperature for each model in the ensemble over the reference period (1961-1990). The two-sigma range is over one degree Celsius, exceeding the average temperature change over the 20th century. If one compared the models (or observations) on the basis of absolute temperature, the eye would be drawn primarily to the relatively static difference between curves. Hence, the average is removed from each time series, allowing an easier comparison of the differences in time dependence.
When comparing temperature series from different locations, both factors apply. While the absolute temperatures may differ by many degrees, the ups and downs often -- by and large -- coincide. By removing the average (item #2), it is easier to perceive the changes over time. The first reason (removing strong cyclic features) applies here as well, as a location further from the equator will, all things being equal, display a greater seasonal variation.
"...the Earth has warmed so much slower in the past 15 years"
That's like saying my weight loss is much slower in the past 15 years.
Gixxerboy (Sep 24, 2013 at 10:45 AM) – there is a lot of supposed evidence, but look at one simple fact: when 90% of the population smoked, 90% of lung cancer sufferers smoked; now that <40% of the population smoke but, surely the proportion of LC sufferers who smoke should remain about 90%? No. The proportion of LC sufferers who smoke(d) is <40%. Where is the link?
As for passive smoking, the thinking amongst the more rabid antis seems to be that passive smoking is more dangerous than actually smoking! When people work on that level of logic, you do have to question their motives, as well as their information.
Are we sure that JSG is not suffering from some mental problems post his family's well-publicised consumption of beefburgers?
DNFTT
John Gummer, confirms what an imbecile he is and thus as is natural conforms to type. In that, he is a know nothing, goldmining public troughing scumbag of the first order, this 'gem', along with Albert Gore going mental and making similar accusations across the pond.
Indeed, after observation, the only conclusion one can draw is, the anthropomorphic global warming loonies are abroad and howling at the moon in unison.
After 20 years of puffing and 5 years of huffing, I finally quit smoking 3 months ago. I don't know whether smoking causes lung cancer or cures it. All I know is that I feel much better physically and that I might live to see beyond 70. Maybe it is some placebo effect.
I cannot see the justification for linking smoking to climate other than to smear one's opponents. However, the figures are interesting and it shows how easily people can be misled by statistics. The following are very round numbers:
90% of people who die of lung cancer were smokers. 90% is a high figure, if it were even larger would that be more conclusive? Well, 100% of people who die of lung cancer were water drinkers. Therefore, water causes cancer?
The figure you actally need is the other one: Only 10% of smokers die of lung cancer. The sceptic mind now wants to know why, if smoking is the cause, the other 90% do not.
bill indeed for supporting 'the cause ' cleans one of alll you past sins , so the very type of 'Tory scumbag' that the left would otherwise hate , becomes a heroic figuer whose words can never be doubted , once they wrap themselves in 'green'
If you actually look at the report that Richard Lindzen contributed too about smoking, he actually says the scientific research has to be of the highest quality to prove the link between cancer and smoking. Nowhere in the paper does he deny the link. Although, he has said in retrospect he now regrets taking the money for that piece of work, but only because of the lies spread by trolls who use it against him. I think it's a case of - nothing to see here - move along.
What a nasty little man...
Gummer probably still has a sore head following rejection of the Severn Barrage scheme a few days ago. Something close to his family businesses.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-18/u-k-rejects-40-billion-severn-barrage-tidal-power-development.html
For background with references to the good works of this blog.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9498568/The-tangled-tale-of-Lord-Deben-and-a-dodgy-Severn-barrage.html
To see the possibility of other lucrative incomes of tax payer and bill payers money slipping from his grasp must be truly irksome for such as he. He might even be demoted from Globe International for bringing shame on their enterprise. :)
Mick
@ Sherlock 1 - 'What a nasty little man...'
Of course he is but he has the advantage of being in a position of huge influence ... along with many other nasty little men. Which is why it is so difficult making our voices heard and speaks volumes of the achievement of His Grace in storming the bastion of the BBC news propaganda machine!
(Sorry about above entry .. pressed the wrong tit!)
Smoking is a cause of lung cancer. Not the only cause. There is increased risk in uranium miners, those living in areas with increased levels of radon, nickel, chromium and mineral oil exposure to name but a few. Laryngeal and bladder cancer risks are elevated in smokers too. Sometimes no 'cause' is found but it is biologically plausible as I said above. Family studies suggest genetic susceptibility. Just because it is a cause doesn't mean 100% of smokers would be expected to get lung cancer.
Thankyou, HaroldW, for that technical explanation which, in essence, brings us back to Disko Troop's comment: an increase from 14 and a bit to 14 and a bit more is not going to frighten anyone. Put it on the Kelvin scale and it looks even worse — from the warmist point of view, that is.
I don't believe that there is any way in which it is now, has ever been or will ever be realistically possible to calculate the earth's temperature to less than 0.5 of a degree, let alone 0.01 so the exercise is largely meaningless anyway. But the use of the word 'anomaly' and an obsession with putting out press releases each month to say whether it is up, down or the same as compared with last month or this month last year or any other combination of dates and times means that the scare can continue for a bit longer.
In reality, some parts of the world have warmed and some have cooled (as even Phil Jones was forced to admit when his data finally saw the light of day and as the BEST survey proved) and the end result is not a helluva lot.
On the subject of smoking and lung cancer.
If smoking were a cause of lung cancer then I would have lung cancer. Smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer as it is for heart disease (and as crossing a busy road is for getting hit by a car). Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic here.
There is a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer such that it would be foolhardy to dismiss a causal link. Slightly different thing.
On the subject of passive smoking, the biggest survey ever attempted was initiated by the American Cancer Society and carried out by two non-smokers. When the results came in the ACS refused to publish them. No prizes for guessing why.