Saturday
Apr122014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Booker on Climate Control
Christopher Booker covers the Climate Control report in the Sunday Telegraph, recounting a story from his column a few years back that is a stunning indictment of what is going on.
In 2012, I described an A-level general studies paper set by our leading exam board, AQA, asking for comment on 11 pages of propagandist “source materials”, riddled with basic errors. A mother wrote to tell me how her intelligent son, after getting straight As on all his science papers, used his extensive knowledge of climate science to point out all their absurd distortions.
In related news, Richard Betts tweets his conclusions on the report:
...GWPF have form on distorting the science - which makes me sceptical of their school report.
Reader Comments (57)
It's "beam in eye" time for Doctor Betts.
And I don't think GWPF even got around to considering university courses ...
So, RB casts doubt based on the source of the report. No actual faults found, and a gratuitous slur about something he doesn't explain. This is not in the spirit of fair-minded RB. More like a quote from paid mouthpiece Ward. Why did he find it necessary to tweet? Rapid response, that's why. A propaganda tactic, not a scientific one.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Richard Betts properly looked as though he might be the lone voice of scientific sanity at the Met Office, reasonable, calm, willing to engage (only slightly dismissively) with the sceptics.
Now he tell us that that GWPF 'have form on distorting the science'.
Meanwhile his boss, Julia Sligo, produces a series of supposedly scientific statements deliberately intended, on the basis of precisely no evidence at all, to suggest that Global Warming is responsible for flooding in the West Country, such extreme weather being, in her weasly words, 'consistent with' Global Warming.
Ignoring for a moment that her exact words, quoted back to her, are then asserted by her to have been 'taken out of context', I'd very much like to ask Betts who, deep down, he really believes to has 'form'.
I know he has a job to do. I don't doubt, too, the pressures on him to conform. But can he seriously believe that Sligo, whose agenda and self-promotion are laughably obvious, is to be taken as anything other than a political operator first, last and everything in between?
Do me a buggering favour Betts. Don't take us all for fools.
Better still, go back to the science.
The Pantomime Dame was left isolated by the real scientists in the Met O when she first made her opinions on the floods known. Time has passed, and the scientific establishment has no doubt been reminded about career-limiting actions and their consequences. Expect more of the same from the thoroughly cowed Met O staff.
Richard Betts' Twitter comment is consistent with my model of him.
The science that is climate change is so ugly. What's even worse is that it's the so called gate keepers who are doing all the damage!
It will end in tears I tell you...TEARS!
Mailman
"...GWPF have form on distorting the science - which makes me sceptical of their school report."
Richard Betts has form on being a flower pot man, so who cares what he says! The Met Office has no real scientists anyway!
Signed a real scientist
Did the "scientist" link to any evidence ?
.. I have mentioned before that maybe he doesn't write all his own tweets/comments.
It is quite possible for someone of scientific and moral integrity to be shocked by and supportive of our report while at the same time choosing to give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmist case. It is an indication of the coarseness of the debate, and of low moral and scientific standards on the alarmist side, that none from that side have come forward to say that if the poor behaviours and materials we have referred to in the report are widespread in our schools, then that would be a disgrace that has to be dealt with. Is it that their case for alarm is so weak that they will ignore even the suffering of children in case doing otherwise might just give a boost to those who do not share their views about our impact on climate?
It doesn't take much but a few words, loosely fired off from the hip, in a haste of retaliation, opens up a window on their soul and therein it is revealing of their true thoughts and motivations.
The pressure, of equivocation, hair splitting, dancing on a pin head, of constantly telling large porkies - it just releases almost involuntarily sometimes.
Richard Betts:
Could someone reword the first half of Richard's statement for the folks on the west side of the pond whose English may not be current?
Not so much a "rapid response team" as a "rabid response team"...
Explain yourself, Betts ... provided and discuss 5 examples. You will be graded downward for BS.
"In related news, Richard Betts tweets his conclusions on the report:" - (in less than 140 characters)
These activists that hold research positions at the expense and detriment of the public are very good with terse tweets, 60 second heavily moderated sound bite replies on TV but revival the light of day avoiding legitimate inquires.
OT (Someone posted a video of a panel at Penn State which included Mann here or one of the other well known blogs in the last and I'm guessing two years... In this video Mann & his peers at the front of the room discussed how Penn State was actually more powerful than the State of Pennsylvania and how they had programs where they had groups of people cold calling/knocking on doors throughout the region to sit down and discuss the perils of CAGW). I cannot find a link to it anywhere. If someone remembers it and has a link I would very much appreciate it if you flipped me the link. - Paul
Apr 13, 2014 at 2:50 AM | Streetcred
Don't hold your breath, Streetcred! The view from here, so to speak, is that Richard Betts has yet to demonstrate that he is capable of proving *any* of his derogatory and often irrelevant nit-picking tweets - or his equally derogatory blog comments, for that matter.
Not too long ago, for example, Betts had no compunctions about tweeting that Steve McIntyre was "wrong" about something that he absolutely wasn't. Betts' eventual backtrack: something along the lines of 'it was an unfortunate choice of words" on his part.
But that aside, I'm not sure quite what it is that Betts does not understand about the standard GWPF disclaimer on all papers it chooses to publish. Although I should probably not discount the possibility that Betts may have chosen to make this particular tweet in true Gleickian fashion, i.e. without having actually read the Montford-Shade report. As we know from past experience, looking before he leaps to the defence of the indefensible (cf IPCC authors who chose to participate in WWF's "climate witness" program) is not Betts' forte.
However, even without such a disclaimer, we are all entitled to express our opinions. Most of us do so on the strength of what we've actually read. Not on the strength (or weakness) of our perceptions of the "publisher". Unless, of course, one chooses - as Betts appears to have done (and not for the first time!) - to follow the Retwardian way.
But then Betts has "form" when it comes to replying to inconvenient questions in a very non-responsive way. Most recently, from my perspective, in the report of Tol smear thread. And Betts' non-responsive replies became lamer and lamer with each passing "reply". Pls see:
The climate mob targets Tol
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
(1) At time of writing I have not noted any comment upon Booker's Telegraph article and concur there is little to be said. Just an endorsement bringing the Bishop/Shade report to the notice of a wider public and very much to be welcomed.
(2) Maybe off thread but fascinating.
At the side of the Booker article there was another announcing that an climate change MP 'had said' "humans may not be to blame for global warming".
And the MP was Trougher Yeo.
So what's brought this about? (a) Common sense - doesn't seem very likely; (b) an appeal to his constituency electorate following their decision not to readopt him - good news if so because it would seem to indicate that research has shown him that skeptic views predominate amongst them - and maybe the wider public; (c) a move to secure a future income from companies with a stake in activities that will burgeon as the skeptic cause prospers - possible, and given past form, even probable, and encouraging because Yeo, who no doubt keeps himself well informed albeit not for acceptable reasons, perceives that the skeptic cause will prevail.
One swallow does not a summer make, but I am encouraged.
(3) Richard Bett's skepticism. Deeply disappointing.
Richard's employment means he is both bureaucrat and meteorological scientist. In both capacities, he has a duty to be skeptical and, speaking for myself, he has never caused me to doubt that he has routinely subjected incoming information to generous and skeptical review (notwithstanding criticisms in this blog).
Such an approach is normally unconscious to both bureacrats and scientists and is not normally pointed out in the way it is in the tweet. The result of Richard drawing attention to his skepticism n the tweet has been to make him appear prejudiced rather than routinely skeptical to many contributors to this blog - and many comments have resulted.
So a mistake has been made, which is perhaps, understandable. But IMHO it will have a significant impact and Richard may want to consider if its harm can be undone. However, this will not be a small task. Chapter and verse will be required together with a conclusion either acknowledging that the skepticism was misplaced or an assertion that it was justified.
But who is to do all this? I do not know whether the original tweet was made officially or privately. If it were official then presumably the Met office should help. Now that would be quite an experience for them! If private, then all would seem to be lost and Richard can only hope that I am wrong and the mistake is not actually of any significance at all.
But so unnecessary and sad!
"GWPF have form on distorting the science - which makes me sceptical of their school report."
If that is an honest stance he must have little to no faith in the very area he works in given its track record and and of course in his own 'boss' who is never lost for words even if those words are 'distorting' , but I have a feeling that would be 'different'
I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, Richard Betts is one of Slingo's hundreds of useful idiots. They all put their careers before the truth. The fact that us taxpayers are paying their salaries does not matter to them. They do not care about the people of this country. Their actions are slowly but surely ruining this country.
The Met Office has form on distorting the science and lying about it. The Met Office should be decimated, with just a few meteorologists doing weather forecasts.
Ecclesiastical Uncle
The Yeo article was from nearly a year ago, so no doubt his mind has been changed many times since then by the financial advantages of being on the believers' side.
There is plenty of solid evidence on this blog that the Met Office distorts the science. So was Richard calling Andrew and John poor/corrupt researchers there in his tweet??
In answer to the plea for a translation: "GWPF have form on distorting the science" is equivalent to "GWPF have on one or more previous occasions distorted the science". The analogy is with the 'form' (previous record) of racehorses - also widely used by police in connection with criminal convictions.
On the subject of the Telegraph/Booker article, it occurs to me that the smoking gun of the A-level marking may lie with the documentation. Am I wrong in thinking that the person marking the paper has a marking guide or notes which will effectively tell him to fail the examinee if he doesn't say the right thing? Can we get hold of the marking notes? Are they in the public domain or secret?
Sigh.......the BBC are at it again.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27007486
When Richard Betts first came onto this blog, he was accepted at face value, and initially we had some mutually beneficial and constructive dialogue. Gradually, however, co-incident with the woes of the Met Office, CRU, and CAGW “science”, he has gradually become more hard-core, so much so that he is approaching the attitude of ZED, and will become little more than a troll if he continues in this manner. This makes me wonder if a. he always was a Trojan Horse, or b. he has come under increasing pressure from above. There’s always a chance, of course, that a certain Dame has hijacked his moniker and is using it as a nym (perhaps Richard Drake has views on this? :)
Googled my own question, papers and 'mark schemes' are available at AQA's site. Now to find what paper Booker meant and look it up, with the mark scheme.
rhoda: Here is a link given in a response to CB's article.
http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-GENA4-W-MS-JUN12.PDF
PS I see you beat me to it by a couple of minutes.
"...GWPF have form on distorting the science - which makes me sceptical of their school report."
As I understand it the GWPF operates in the same way as most publishing houses in that it relies entirely upon the ethics of the writers and plays no part itself in editing or commenting on the papers so published. It therefore can't have form of any kind in any papers.
Having recently promoted Richard to CSO at the Met, I'm mightily disappointed that he would focus on the publisher and not the distortions he sees in the paper. But then he would have difficulty doing that as it is clear he hasn't read the paper.
How very different our climate science community are to Steve McIntyre who reads, understands and delves into the underlying data before critiquing a paper. A concept so alien to our climate science community that they dubbed his site Climate Fraudit - then they would wouldn't they.
agouts
Given the resemblance to weather events of the late 40s/early 50s and what we know of the effect of warming on the temperature gradient between equator and pole, I would have said it was more likely to be "consistent with global cooling".But what would I know?
Betts, [snip, manners] That sort of comment can only come from someone completely immerse in the biggest scam since Ponzi.
When Richard Betts first came onto this blog, he was accepted at face value
Quite right. He was by some of the more gullible members of this comùmunity but not by me. You see I have worked in and with large government. I know exactly how they function and how the more 'elite' hierarchy groom themselves and their organisation in order to keep the money flowing. If you don't spend it this year, you don't get next year. That sort of thing.
If you don't agree with you senior managers then you will never become one.
That's why when he first appeared here and the Bish was invited to exeter I told him to go away unless he had something open and honest to say. He didn't and he hasn't. The UK MetOff people are among the worst example of this religious ferver in the world. As I pointed out to him, I hoped he could live with the number of extra deaths being created by rthe Met Off lies. It seems he has no problem at all.
Good grief, Fastfingers has even been insinuated into the AQA marking scheme(page 9 source E, see Philip B's 's post above 8.45am).
Phillip, I returned to post that link and found you'd already done it. I find no smoking gun in the mark scheme in terms of specific opinions being required. I did find this summation of climategate:
Figure 7 refers to a controversy surrounding leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Climate change sceptics used some of these emails to cast doubt on data used by those who stress the urgency of reducing emissions.The use of the phrase ‘science-politicising times’ in the final bullet point of Figure7 might be considered significant
Leaked? They usually say hacked. "Cast doubt on data"?
@jferguson
"To have form on" = "to already have a known track record of"
It is generally used in a slightly malicious way i.e. when the record refers to something not to be proud of . The original metaphor related to horse racing. The "form" of a horse refers to its past record of results. It was an expression then taken up (ubiquitously) by the UK police. In police usage, an individual with known form is a person with a known past record of criminal behaviour. Because of the latter use, it is generally not applied to something praiseworthy. For example, you might say that someone had form on self-promotion or mendacity, but you would not say that someone had form on selfless sacrifice. Hope this helps.
@John Shade Apr 13, 2014 at 12:17 AM
In 2007 when the high court judge ruled on the 9 Inconvenient Untruths (weakly in my view) a parent locally kicked off on the topic in the local press (Have Your Say letter). I supported him in his real concern about the indoctrination occurring at his children's school. We were severely battered by the green enthusiasts over our irresponsible approach to children's education on this topic and the far reaching impacts into the future. The parent had hard evidence of course, the greens had nothing but high octane scares and insults.
I hope Gove gets the support to dig well down into this. Thank you and Andrew Montford for your efforts on GWPF and please keep going.
rhoda
Meetings are held before the exams, So that the markers can be briefed. This is supposed to ensure consistency but being cynical I think it is to make sure everyone is on "message". If you act on your own initiative you are very likely to be over-ruled if there is an appeal or by quality control. If you cannot accept this you withdraw from the marking teem !.
or even the marking Team :-)
I think I was one of the first to "scope" Richard Betts for the "false flag" he has proved to be.
I took some flak for not "engaging" with him.
Seems my BS meter was spot on.
Of course. Here's a translation into proper English:
"... GWPF have previously been convicted of distorting the science...."
Richard Betts has cast aside the mask he presented initially on this blog, a mask of sunny reason that went with his being willing to discuss 'the science' amiably. He was very obviously operating a 'false flag' strategy which approves of and uses the nasty drive-by ad homs that have little to do with science, reason or good will. I have seen Football hooligans in action and I now have seen the Civil Service version of that apalling social phenomenon.
I was never entirely sure what my late father, a veteran of both WWI and WWII who fought alongside men from the UK as a fellow Briton, meant when remarked that the British were a nation of lions led by donkeys, and other similar remarks about the UK officer class and its civilian equivalent.
After my own experiences while teaching in England, my sympathies go out to ordinary rank-and-file teachers who have to deal with the multitudes of ghastly functionaries who infest the Brit Establishment.
Christopher Booker’s article devotes four short paragraphs to our report and some of its implications. From such a heavy-hitter in journalism, and with a background of considerable research and writing on the climate and other scares, each one packs a punch. Here is the first paragraph:
Here is the ending of the second:
His third begins with:
And his fourth notes, in connection with an academically talented child being penalised for an apparently cogent analysis of climate issues:
This is no opportunist seizing on our report for a few easy column inches. These are the words of a man deeply immersed for years in revealing the harms which a combination of sloppy science and supine media/political classes bring to society. Here, for example, is an extract from that excellent book ‘Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming – How Scares are Costing Us the Earth’ which he co-wrote with Richard North in 2007:
If you have not done so already, I urge all those who pass this way to get their own copy of this important book. It may be true, and I hope it is, that the moral and intellectual case for climate alarm from CO2 is so shot full of holes now that it will sink in due course, but the legacy of harm could continue for decades. Not least in our schools.
Richard Betts' boss, Dame Slingo, has form on supplying misleading answers to a government minister who wanted to respond to a parliamentary question, doesn't she?
Met Office admits claims of significant temperature rise untenable
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html
Am I the only one who thinks that Michael Gove's response is unsatisfactory? Although he responded very quickly to the GWPF report all he did was to restate the law. Ensuring that the law is observed is another thing entirely. What is Offsted doing to ensure that school lessons aren't simple vehicles for green propaganda? What is Estyn, the Welsh equivalent of Offsted doing, and what are the relevant agencies in Scotland and Northern Ireland (I'm afraid I don't remember their names) doing?
And what about the school inspectors themselves? Are they upholders of green orthodoxy?
Richard disappoints.
Alexander Kendall
Whether the British are still lions is open to debate but certainly in my view the donkeys have been replaced by hyenas.
John Shade
My copy of Scared to Death is in danger of falling apart so well-thumbed and re-read is it!.
Booker occasionally finds himself under fire for not checking his facts as well as he might and North for being a bit on the fanatical side. On balance, however, the pair of them are doing the British public a great service and it's a brave man who ignores their output.
I don't usually buy a Sunday paper since they are so bloated with stuff that you wouldn't want to waste even a rainy day on, but I decided to reward the Sunday Telegraph with its share of my £2.00 today. This is to encourage them to keep on publishing sound articles on climate such as today's by Christopher Booker. Imagine, then, my dismay at seeing the (different from the online version) photograph that went with it captioned with these words:
That suggests that Andrew and I, as global-warming believers, have produced a report calling for an official inquiry into the harm we are doing in schools. I guess the sub-editor who wrote this caption is one of our victims.
John Shade
That's not how I read the alternative headline. It seems a reasonable choice of words to describe what is happening in education, there is propaganda in schools and the topic of GW has been hijacked by GW believers (unless the content of the paper article is now entirely anti your report.)
Messenger - that was not a headline, it was a caption on a photograph. As someone who finds the evidence for some global warming in the 20th century reasonably convincing, I think I would be classed as a 'global warming believer'. It is a broad category of course, and as such it lacks the discrimination which is important to our report. The content of the paper article is, in my view, entirely supportive of our report. The picture caption is, however, misleading and invites all who 'believe in global warming' to think they are being attacked by us.
Betts doesn't disappoint at all. From the first time he posted here I fingered him as the Jack Lint of the Met Office. Parading his family life and dandling his daughters while off duty from the Ministry of Truth.
I've met plenty of ambitious apparatchiks. They aren't hard to recognise.
..."an eminent LSE climate scientist, Bob Ward"...
Apr 13, 2014 at 9:05 AM | Messenger
I hope that was included as an example if misinformation!