Thursday
Jul102014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Thought for the day, Stern edition
If the BBC thinks that non-mainstream or non-expert views need to be flagged as such, will Lord Stern's future appearances on the airwaves be so caveated? Will his funding by the Mr Grantham warrant a mention?
Somehow I think not.
Reader Comments (33)
The rules only apply to anyone who doesn't tow the line. Considering anyone who doesn't tow the line ca no longer appear on the BBC then there is no need for such a rule, therefore the rule doesn't apply.
Mailman
Might I suggest too that the views of those firmly in the pocket of Big Goverment be flagged as such.
(Which inter alia includes everyone at the BBC.)
Mailman, do you mean TOE the line? Sorry to be pedantic but so many people get that wrong and towing the line makes no sense.
Haha, yes...toe the line. Curse this English language and it's subtleties! :)
Regards
Mailman
MM: That would be: "Curse this English language and its subtleties!" (not "it's", which is short for "it is").
I shall be reaching for this every time I hear the names Lucas, Ward, Bennett, Stern
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/#anchor
A Stern rebuke? Dream on.......
Mailman,
Would you, like me, be appreshiative of Mark Twain and his comments on spelling?
http://www.twainquotes.com/Spelling.html
In my defense pedant it was spell cheker wot did it! :)
Regards
Mailman
When Stern wrote his famous and famously ridiculous report, he was employed by $100 billion carbon trader, Jeremey Grantham.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/5799#.U755vZT0-14
David Shukman, Roger Harrabin, the BBC environment big-wigs do not have a climate science qualification between them.
Natalie Bennett, Caroline Lucas, Green party leader/s. Nothing.
Ed Davey, PPE.
Caroline Lucas, shadow environment minister. American Literature & film studies. (from UEA!)
Chris Huhne, jailbird, has the inevitable PPE.
George Monbiot, activist, zoology
John Vidal, (Guardians Environment editor) journalism
Polly Toynbee, University dropout
Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chair & railway engineer.
To name but a few vocal 'climate change' commentators....not a climate science qualification between them.
The dearly beloved Bob Ward does come in with a first in geology, though.
A journalist with a mischievous bent could have some fun with this line of enquiry....
Grantham's lap dog is a little chap by the name of 'Bob Ward'.
Grantham and his wormtongued advisors, behind the scenes working the puppets - why is that Grantham seems bullet proof and he always gets his men on the airwaves?
"Wheels within wheels" and that nice madman Mr. Brown and his moral compass pointing always to south and therefore to Socialism thought of Lord Stern that, verily did the sun shine out from his posterior. Gloomo Brown, and so easily done, was duped by the socio-economic claptrap that Stern espoused.
The eco lunacy and its vehicle the green agenda with all of its attendant though puny palliative technologies, was a monstrous leap into the unknown and it plays, gaming with all our lives here in Britain - it will be the single cause and bring about national power outages.
To the point, that influencing the direction of travel, towards the green mania and all of it based on some pretty poor and lax science of lies and computer simulation - most if not all of it, is now defenestrated.
The British public has a right to ask indeed should posit, why is that Grantham who is a very wealthy man, can project and influence - with so much sway which enables and maintains the incessant echo of so many lies pertaining to the great scam?
Finally, how is it right that, because this guy makes such a helluva [soz to anonymous pedant] splash in the cozy bubble of Westminster and beyond - and actually - no one ever voted for Jeremy Grantham - how can this be allowed to happen?
Money, it's always about money and if it is only about money - why does he get away with it?
"carbon trader, Jeremy Grantham"
How's that working out, I wonder..?
smifffy, I've always referred to Ward as Grantham's Monkey. as in "organ grinder, monkey". Lap dog will do, though.
JamesP - not so well, but in 2010, hopes were high.
Jeremy Grantham's 2Q 2010 letter
Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money
around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving fi eld rife with treacherous politics, there
will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it.
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf
Everytime Ward or Stern or any of the other faux climate scientists get on the air now, raise the same objections that the cliamte obsessed twits use to silence skeptics.
Mailman
As this Blog operates in the UK, the word is "defence" not "defense"
Regards :)
Mailman
Pedants are fewer interesting
God damn pedants!!!! :)
Regards
Mailman
Shiny pedants. ;^)
"non-mainstream or non-expert views"
The more important question is who gets to decide what views are mainstream or otherwise, and what qualifications are required. Although from my observations, qualifications and expertise have never been very important so long as the point of view is perceived as the 'correct' one.
Perhaps the question that should always be asked when 'experts' are wheeled on (both in interviews and witness boxes) is "how do we know you're an expert?". It would narrow the field down a bit, I imagine.
(It doesn't have to be academic expertise. Practical experience will do, as exemplified by my Grandfather's medical partner who, when cross-examined by a lawyer anxious to pick holes in the doctor's diagnosis of drunkenness in his client, explained that he recognised the condition quite clearly, as he had been that way so often himself.)
You know it never works the other way around , where any 'pop start ' or failed politician etc can be consider an unquestionable 'expert' if what they spout supports 'the cause '
To give the warmest credit they are very good at such industrial scale hypocrisy , along with enough projection to keep the psychoanalysts profession in business for the next thousand years.
Subjectivity plays a large part in who is regarded as an 'expert', not only in climate science. For many years the gentleman referred to above as that nice madman, Gordon Brown, was regarded by many, if not most, as an economic genius, on the basis of nothing much more than him and his mates insisting he was. Then, quite suddenly, equally subjectively, most came to regard him as a blustering buffoon who knew not much about anything. Perhaps climate sci's hangers on, the Sterns and Wards of this world, will suffer a similar sudden reversal of their reputations? All the more likely, once the penny drops among the general public, that the warming 'predicted' by infallible models has not been delivered by beastly old nature, and that Trenberthian pronouncements about it hiding in the vasty depths are not oracular statements, merely the smoke and mirrors strategies of desperate, clueless men.
L Ron Hubbard would have got on with Grantham, I feel. Two of his sayings fit so well:
"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."
"The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."
Scientology and climatology are two sides of the same coin.
Bill wrote: "Gordon Brown, was regarded by many, if not most, as an economic genius, on the basis of nothing much more than him and his mates insisting he was. Then, quite suddenly, equally subjectively, most came to regard him as a blustering buffoon who knew not much about anything."
If he was regarded as an economic genius on the basis of nothing more than him and his mates insisting that he was, then obviously regarding him as a blustering buffoon because he wasn't is far less subjective! The Brown era presided over events leading up to the 2008 crash, and rather than do anything about spiralling borrowing and house prices, he cashed in on it.
"Stability is necessary for our future economic success. The British economy of the future must be built not on the shifting sands of boom and bust, but on the bedrock of prudent and wise economic management for the long term. It is only these firm foundations that we can raise Britain's underlying economic performance."
A shame he couldn't take his own advice.
I think it goes further. Offer them a lie they want to believe. AGW works so well because it allows many to blame their pet hates. Nazi Germany probably worked a while for the same reasons.
I suspect there is a science to be found in such a study, alas every grant-seeking academic is looking the other way. Look who is handing out the grants? Big Hedge-fund, Big Oil, Big EU, Big UN, Big Bureaucracy. So the gravy train trundles on, unimpeded by reality.
Alas, those two pedantic pretenders to my throne are revealing themselves to be sadly lacking, merely picking up on reliance others have upon the two-bladed sword of “Spellchecker”, and utterly missing the insistence of at least one (KnR) of inserting a space between the last letter of a word and a punctuation (“…around ,” and “…‘pop start ’…”). Who knows – perhaps we will soon be subjected to one who thinks that there should be no space after a full stop? Will this madness never end!?
Pedantic Rodent
On the matter of being qualified to comment -- the observations are more important than the quallifications.
Simple hypothetical. There is a new disease discovered. Deabte if it is infectious. An accountant comes forward and notes that she and 5 oof the family came down while on holiday in a remote place devoid of others.
Do you dismiss the report because she is not a medico, but an accountant? Of course, you should not.
BBC falls for another Hoax.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/10962660/Did-a-Labour-council-and-the-BBC-fall-for-one-of-the-worlds-great-art-hoaxes.html
Report and check facts later
Today I submitted a complaint to the BBC about their report on the lack of snow in Australian ski resorts, they failed to mention that low snow falls were expected this year because of El Nino
Why not take up the cudgels and lodge your complaint.
The BBC once again showed its bias to the reporting of climate change, preferring speculation to fact. The reporter failed to mention that, as reported by the Australian BOM, the low snowfalls are typical of El Niño and were only to be expected in 2014.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps
"What is El Niño and what might it mean for Australia?
.......................
Current ENSO forecasts indicate the likelihood that an El Niño will occur in 2014. Potential effects of El Niño on Australia include:
Reduced rainfall
Warmer temperatures
Shift in temperature extremes
Increased frost risk
Reduced tropical cyclone numbers
Later monsoon onset
Increased fire danger in southeast Australia
Decreased alpine snow depths
Addtionally the BBC used quotes from Al Gore who is not a climate scientist and whose environmental documentary, An Inconvenient Truth was ruled by a UK High Court judge to contain nine key scientific errors. As such he is not a creditable source of comment on climate change.
And in case you missed it on the BBC news
Brisbane has recorded its coldest morning in 103 years, with low temperatures also being felt across the rest of Queensland.
The weather bureau says the state's capital dropped to 2.6 degrees Celsius just before 7:00am (AEST).
Bureau spokeswoman Michelle Berry said it has been exceptionally cold and temperatures are still dropping.
"[It's been] the coldest morning since 1911, so it's quite a record there," she said.
Clermont in central Queensland had record-low temperatures yesterday, but broke records again this morning with the temperature dropping down to -4.5C.
Five coldest cities in Queensland
Oakey: -6.1
Warwick: -5.9
Kingaroy: -5.7
Applethorpe: -5.4
Dalby: -5.0
Blackall recorded lows of -2.0C, Roma saw temperatures of -6.6C, and Oakey was down to -6.1C.
Further south in the state, Kingaroy reached -5.7C, Dalby dropped to -5.0C, Applethorpe was -5.4C, and Warwick recorded -5.9C.
Jul 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdrian Kerton
With respect Adrian, I disagree with your complaining.
My take is that every time Gore spouts his overwrought alarmist claptrap, somebody somewhere is going to be moved to actually check the facts and realise how vacuous it all is. That's how this particular skeptic was born.
We need more Gore, not less.