Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (135)
Thanks, Bish, for drawing attention to this.
You mean he's not the Messiah?
Lord Stern is Nick Stern, the expert economist who wrote the Stern Report, that disastrous Economic Policies have been based on, in order to prevent Climate Catastrophe
HE has found it all very profitable, and still is.
Now, his ability to do sums, appears questionable. Something does not add up very well, but all the mistakes seem to have favoured his finances.
Gosh.... Nick Stern's tractor stats don't add up like he said they did !
cue in 5, 4, 3, 2 fast fingers Ward will be on the case with "How dare you impugn the the motives and actions of The Great Lord" and other haughty pronouncements from the ivory tower battlements of The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy.
Credit where it's not due indeed....
What will happen I wonder?
Maybe the "BBC defence" - some minor errors were made by mistake but overall production values were top notch.
He is a man who knows how to rake in money.
Nearly the only time I ever got the late and well esteemed Pekka Pirila to back down was once when he invoked this dear Lord's analysis and I sneered.
================
Apropos of nothing, it's almost worth noting that currently the only comment against that piece is something immensely stupid and unfunny from the vacuous Seitz.
But is it fraud when he has the nod and the wink to scam it?
He's honoured with a peerage. He's in with the in crowd.
And he's bound to know who he has to pay back, under the table.
The only losers here are the taxpayers.
And if they mattered something would be done about them.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/26/crazy-litigious-climate-citizens-have-a-constitutional-right-to-a-stable-climate-system/
The Green Blob are very keen on instigating Legal Action, but Hockey Teamsters keep avoiding it.
From the article,
Henceforth known as Stern Factor Four.
Of course most of the actual intellectual output is really just a case of "Beam me up, Scotty".
I will make a complaint to the EPSRC about this.
Bitter&twisted
please do it....
I will.
"You mean he's the Messiah?"
No, The Messiah has been discovered in Perth by Eric Worrall's folks on the Oz Weat Coast, , and has already editorially outperformed the Bishop himself !
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/so-why-didnt-she-sign-oregon-petition.html
Complaint submitted
They are supposed to acknowledge within 5 working days and respond in 20.
I will post my complaint and their response to this site.
A couple of other Stern and related exposés by David Rose:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html#ixzz2nV84KSiQ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html#comments-2807849
Bish: Claiming credit under a grant for papers that didn't acknowledge receiving money from that grant is a huge problem. Nevertheless, there are some technical issues with the analysis that suggest handling the information with care:
A few authors may have forgotten to properly acknowledge their sources of funding. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy may not know how authors with multiple sources of funding account for costs.
In this analysis, 60 papers fell into a gap between the first grant and the second. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy should be able to take credit for them under one grant or the other. An application for the second grant needs to be filed before the first one expires. Accounting for "manuscripts in preparation", "manuscripts submitted", and "manuscripts in press" produces some ambiguity. It may take a year or more for a paper to be published.
Finally, in many areas of science, young researchers never receive a grant without having already obtained some preliminary evidence suggesting that their proposed project will be successful. By the time the grant has been reviewed (often revised and resubmitted) and approved, the initial studies the grant were meant to fund may already have been submitted for publication and the grant will actually be supporting vaguely outlined followed up studies, not the original proposal. Or the project could have failed despite promising initial results. It may sound stupid, but that is how the game is often played. Large grants given to organizations like the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy are supposed to allow funds to be quickly assigned to where they are most needed.
For this reason, it would make sense to focus on the big picture and not precise numbers.
For this reason, it would make sense to focus on the big picture and not precise numbers.
May 28, 2017 at 8:24 PM | Frank
Just how big is the fraud if the bigger picture is looked at?
Accountancy errors always seem to favour the person making the error.
As usual VV Russell gets it wrong. Everyone knows that "St Francis'" worships Goreblimyism and recently visited his 'leader' in the wilderness. No loaves or fishes - no cigars either.
Messiah in wilderness
May 29, 2017 at 12:34 AM | Kleinefeldmaus
Close associations between Climate Science and the Vatican are not benefitting either Faith. The Vatican has survived worse scandals
The core of the 'deep state' fight in the US. Bureaucrats should enforce the law, not BE the law.
Of course at the time of the first grant at least he was operating in what the military would call a permissive environment so claiming he could have claimed to have developed 'Thomas the Tank Engine' and still gotten the grant.
JEM
Yet more evidence that the garden of academia is chaotically overgrown - there seems to be hardly a subject untouched by the pervasive effect of AGW policy handed down by those riding the mania.
It would seem that the weeds over growing academia are anything but chaotic or random. As we say in the US, follow the money.
Well the so called elites have been taken in by this 'Agore-ism' and led into the wilderness - but - there are always 'wide boys' - our Nick qualifies on that score. So - my take.
Bad Boy Stern nicks the loot
Frank said:
This does not sound stupid. This sounds like a corrupting influence on science that promotes policy based evidence making, if it is not actual corruption as well. It would not be right to claim funding is for specific projects when it is in reality more like a general fund.
Gareth, Frank. Success breeds success. With limited research funds, money goes to individuals and organizations that have produced results. The reasoning is that previously successful applicants that have produced acceptable results before are more likely to do so again.
There is one possible advantage to block grants to institutions, monies can be directed toward blue-sky research done by individuals that otherwise would never be funded in today's policy of catering to stakeholders. Also new researchers of promise but no track record can be supported. The obvious disadvantage is that managers of institutions awarded block funds can become overly powerful, making the whole system subject to bias and abuse.
"Gareth, Frank. Success breeds success. With limited research funds, money goes to individuals and organizations that have produced results. The reasoning is that previously successful applicants that have produced acceptable results before are more likely to do so again."
May 30, 2017 at 11:57 AM | Supertroll
What are you defining as "acceptable results"? Surely the problem is that funding for results that support the 97% Consensus is available. Results that contradict the 97% Consensus are deemed undesirable by the 97% Consensus that decides on who gets funding.
This also requires that conclusions are drafted as part of the application for funding, before any research is actually done.
I therefore agree with your final sentence!.
golfCharlie. Results are judged acceptable by the granting bodies or rather by panels of experts. Thus climate science grants will be awarded by (largely) climate scientists or panel members will be influenced by evaluations of previous funded work with the evaluations done by climate scientists. Sceptical studies will only rarely be funded. Climategate exposed why and how.
Frank:
Note that, for the first grant, 185 papers explicitly acknowledge their funding source. Only 51 of these mention the ESRC or the CCCEP.
There are 259 papers for which I do not know, either because I could not access the paper (113 papers) or because the paper does not acknowledge any funding (146 papers).
Bitter&Twisted:
Please complain to the ESRC. The EPSRC has nothing to do with this.
May 31, 2017 at 5:26 AM | Supertroll
It would seem that 97% of Climate Scientists have caused many other academics to look stupid, compromise their professionalism, and bring shame upon their Universities and Professional Institutions.
Some form of "Truth and Reconciliation" Committees are going to be required, but how does one prevent the Committees from being loaded with 97% of people with their own ruined reputations to protect?
Would you be prepared to assist at UEA?
His new report is out, summarised over at WUWT.
$4 Trillion will do nicely, thanks.
GolfCharlie.
"It would seem that 97% of Climate Scientists have caused many other academics to look stupid, compromise their professionalism, and bring shame upon their Universities and Professional Institutions".
I'm sorry to say that this is only your view, and it is overwhelmingly a minority view. Most of the scientific community either agree and support the consensus view or are apathetic about it. In contrast to your view climate scientists remain respected and highly valued members of academia. I am now out of the loop, but I don't really see much change in the academic science establishment. Given statements from non USA politicians, any changes resulting from Trump's action will be bitterly opposed in the political and scientific establishment.
My complaint to the ESRC has been acknowledged (below).
My view is that each and every time a potential climate "scam" is exposed official complaints should be made.
I have had some success in the past....
But it shouldn't be just down to a few individuals- we need to deluge alleged climate scamsters with complaints.
"Thank you for your email dated 28th May 2017, regarding the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy - exaggerating outputs? . We acknowledge receipt of your email and can confirm that this has been passed to the appropriate Deputy Director , who will look into this matter further and will respond to your letter within 20 days of receipt of this email. Any future correspondence on this matter should be addressed to [complaints@esrc.ac.uk]"
May 31, 2017 at 4:49 PM | Supertroll
Would my "minority" view be representative of about 3% of the technical/scientific world?
Climate Science has always involved exaggeration of the scale of everything bad that definitely will happen.
Climate Science has always depended on rigging the Peer Review process.
Climate Science has always failed to self correct itself, relying on largely unthanked and unpaid outsiders, and non Climate Scientists.
IF Trump cuts off the money supply (details awaited) how is Science going to cleanse itself of bogus Climate Science, if Climate Scientists still defend everything they have ever Peer Reviewed and Approved? Who will be the honest broker?
I have previously suggested to EM and Phil Clarke that they might want to consider which bits of Climate Science ARE worth defending, in case it is ALL threatened with the shredder.
How many more proofs of Mann's Hockey Stick do we need?
Think on the bright side: all that fused carbon ink is Carbon Capture and Storage on an epic scale.
Jun 1, 2017 at 11:19 AM | AlecM
I would be pleased if the majority of the actual scientific research, carried out with Taxpayer funding, in the name of "Climate" can be recycled, however what percentage has been abused by Climate Scientists to support a predetermined conclusion? I do not know.
Nor does Trump. Trump may simply "bomb the hell" out of Climate Science, which, given the amount of abuse he has taken, and the costs US Taxpayers have endured, would seem reasonable.
What should he do if Climate Science cannot get honest about the bad bits? Disinvesting from the UN to reflect the amount of US money the UN has wasted on the IPCC?
Offensive post and follow up removed. PDNFTT
TM
I put this diagram on another post to provide some visual measurement of the (in)significance of the anthropogenic contribution of co2 to the atmosphere.
Perspective
To get a little perspective I have made this scale drawing that represents the volume of the atmosphere and the volume of co2 at 400ppm.
The volume of the atmosphere is the grey square while the volume of co2 in it is the red square where the arrow points.
Then you need to appreciate that all of the human contribution to the co2 volume is as stated in the diagram 3.75% of the total co2..
Sheesh! All that huffing and puffing over so very little.
CO2 in atmosphere diagram
Kleinefeldmaus. I do hope that diagram of the atmosphere and its CO2 content didn't take you too long after BH banned your earlier effort as an "offensive post" (and one having nothing to do with your nemesis Russell.
Jun 6, 2017 at 2:51 PM | Supertroll
I expect it took about as long as it took Mann to iron out, all but one of the Inconvenient creases in his Hockey Stick.
Made-to-measure Climate Science results are very lucrative and fashionable, cutting out all that profit wasted on genuine research.
@Jun 6, 2017 at 2:51 PM Supertroll
Nope - it was done for another blog and copied here - so no time at all. But I was not disturbed by the 'banning' of my post as I believe it was done as a consequence to response to a particularly offensive missiff from ZedsDeadBed. This (I assume) was the cause of this little flurry of activity by the moderator.
We have been prevented from seeing a message from ZedsDeadBed? Oh what a shame, the moderators are acting far too quickly. Their precipitous action has removed the joy we feel from a ZedsDeadBed visitation (it's been so long), the storm of outrage it engenders from the good folks here, followed by our righteous indignation when the offending post is finally plucked out. All this we have lost from the overzealousness of our moral guardians.
@ supertroll
With apologies to Kevin Kline and G&S Zed has been 'orphaned but given a wonderful send off ......what could be better. So Supertroll lament not!
https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html
@ Golf Charlie May 31st
You say 'Nor does Trump. Trump may simply "bomb the hell" out of Climate Science, which, given the amount of abuse he has taken, and the costs US Taxpayers have endured, would seem reasonable.'
It seems that Trump has more urgent issues on his mind with the Comey affair while May is in disarray with Brexit to focus upon climate or energy matters. As the saying goes - it's on the back burner now and will be for some time.
Suck it in mouse - can't you count molecules?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/06/004-is-lot-of-molecules.html
An infrared photon trying to get from the ground to the top of the atmosphere bangs into hundreds of vibrationally active CO2 molecules per wavelength traveled-- do the calculus for Newton's sake - they even teach it in Dunedin nowadays.
Oh dear poor old VV can't help trying to demonstrate his intellectual prowess - sadly got a gobful of swamp weed.- kinda mangled stuff a bit.
Nevermind - Trumpy will soon drain it.
VV Troll emerges from swamp”
Jun 10, 2017 at 12:54 AM | Geoff
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/10/french-president-offers-us-climate-scientists-e1-5-million-each-to-move-to-france/
It seems that Trump does not need to bomb the hell out of US Climate Science. France is making them an offer, that they should not refuse. Claiming to be refugees would give them the opportunity of French and effectively EU Citizenship.
@ Golf
Maybe Macron is attempting to redress the imbalance of refugees taken in by France since it is almost bottom of the European 'league table'.
Then again - maybe not. Perhaps he would make the Americans take notice if he demanded the return of the statue of liberty. Now that would grab the attention of POTUS
Here
Congratulations to the mouse on his mass media debut.