Buy the books

Click images for more details

 

The definitive history of Climategate.

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Twitter
Bishop Hill's Constitution for the UK
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
Saturday
Feb232008

Deborah Mattinson and the Green Alliance

Last year, the esteemed Guido Fawkes published a piece about Deborah Mattinson, the dodgy pollster used by Gordon Brown to tell him he's the greatest. It went like this:

According to the front page of the Guardian Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance are claiming that the government is using Deborah Mattinson's Opinion Leader Research to distort the evidence and get the required result on nuclear power from bogus public consultations.

 Which is strange, because Deborah Mattinson turns out to be a trustee of the Green Alliance. Isn't that odd?

Friday
Feb222008

Posh kids in rough schools

Earlier in the week, the Times carried an article about a report on the research findings of Professor David James of the University of the West of England.

Middle-class parents obsessed with getting their children into the best schools may be wasting their time and money, academics say today.

They found that children from privileged backgrounds excelled when they were deliberately sent to inner-city comprehensives by parents opposed to private schooling.

Most of the children “performed brilliantly” at GCSE and A level and 15 per cent of those who went on to university took places at Oxford or Cambridge.

My alarm bells were set ringing by the claim that 15 percent of those who went on to university took places at Oxbridge. Why was this good performance limited to Oxbridge? Were the results for other universities similarly impressive? A classic way of lying with statistics is to subdivide your sample population until you get the answer you're looking for.

Later in the article we read that the sample population was 124 families. This would suggest no more than a couple of hundred children were assessed, so concerns about the statistical significance of the results appear to be fully justified.

The article on which the Times piece is based hasn't been published yet, but in the style so typical of modern "academics" the UWE has chosen to issue a press release and a short report on the projects findings before official publication. It's here.

From this we discover that the families and children assessed covered a range of ages. This significance of this is that only a fraction of those assessed will have actually reached university entrance age. Let's say that this was forty children.  That would mean that six went on to Oxbridge. If it had have been five then it would only have been 12%.

The idea that one could make any claims based on results of this kind is a joke. That the Professor is issuing such a misleading report is really rather reprehensible. It looks more like a piece of political propaganda than real research. 


Tuesday
Feb192008

MPs online

Ellee Seymour notes a couple of MPs interacting online. The thoroughly "with it" representatives are John Redwood and Tom Watson, and Ellee reckons they may be the first to do so.

Ellee's commenters reckon that plaudits are due to the two technoMPs, although I can't help feeling that to congratulate Messrs Redwood and Watson for interacting using a technology which is at least ten years old now is a tad unnecessary. To misquote Chris Rock

MPs always want credit for some shit they're supposed to do....Whaddya want? A cookie? You're supposed to interact on blogs you low-expectation-having m*th*rf*ck*r!

Still, we can hope that this is the start of something beautiful. Maybe parliamentarians will actually start to debate the laws they are about to enact online. Who knows maybe some of them will even read the bills before they make their way to the lobbies.

Tuesday
Feb192008

Cabinet Office accounts

Dizzy wonders why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is avoiding answering the question of how much public money it paid to Capita plc (a major Labour party donor). The man in charge, Tom Watson says it's too expensive for his department to find out.

A cursory Googling reveals that the Cabinet Office's accounting system is Sun Accounts, and there seems to be an external procurement package running alongside it - from the linked document it's order processing only, which could mean that the invoice processing is done through Sun. 

It's possible that there are ancillary systems in, for example, Cabinet Office quangos which is probably how the justify the "too expensive" argument.

My suggestion would be to rephrase the question as: "how much was paid to Capita plc in each of year since 2001 via (a) the Cabinet Office's Sun Accounts system and, if different (b) the e-Pop system." This should pick up the bulk of the payments, but should be a trivial query for a semi-competent IT bod to do. Say 30 mins maximum each.

Anyone fancy giving an FoI a try? 

Sunday
Feb172008

Nepotism in the mainstream media

The Guardian appoints a new travel blogger. Max Gogarty's going to write about his gap year. Oh yes, and he's the son of a sometime Guardian staff member. Cue much ridicule in the comments.

Meanwhile commenters at Tim W's place wonder how India Knight's writing justifies a Sunday Times column. The answer's in Wikipedia:

The media magnate, journalist, former editor of The Economist and News Corporation Director Andrew Knight is her stepfather..

Sunday
Feb172008

Back to the seventies

Inflation, strikes, flared trousers and now they're nationalising the banks.

 

Sunday
Feb172008

The answer to global warming

...is central planning and management by target. According to this LibDem, anyway.

Sunday
Feb172008

Different worldviews

Via Instapundit comes the this Reuters story that Danish "youths" have been rioting for the seventh night in a row.

Bands of youths set fire to cars, buses and schools in Denmark on Saturday, the seventh night of rioting and vandalism in the capital Copenhagen and other Danish cities, police said on Sunday.

Four youths were arrested in the capital for suspected arson and at least 24 fires were reported across the country. Several youths were detained in Denmark's second city Aarhus in Jutland, and in Odense on Funen island.

I wonder what these "youths" were rioting about? There's a clue later in the article...

Authorities have arrested dozens of youths, predominantly with immigrant backgrounds.

And if you read nearly to the end of the article. 

Social workers said an alleged plot to kill a Danish cartoonist for his drawing two years ago of the Prophet Mohammad might have fuelled the riots. Danish newspapers reprinted the cartoon on Wednesday in protest against the plot.

Yes, I suppose it "might have" done.

Good to see that after seven nights of rioting, Reuters felt the story was newsworthy. What about the Beeb, though? Their take on the story is here:

Hundreds of Danish Muslims have been demonstrating in Copenhagen against the reprinting of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad they consider offensive.

"Demonstrating" eh?  I wonder if someone objecting to the licence fee burnt TV centre to the ground, the BBC would call it a "demonstration"? Perhaps not.

Does anyone find it slightly disturbing that these appear to be the only two UK-based references to this story on Google news? 

 

Saturday
Feb162008

The political class and its enemies

Having recently read and enjoyed (if that's the right word) Peter Oborne's rather depressing "The Triumph of the Political Class", I've wondered, from time to time, which MPs aren't in fact fully paid-up members of the self-perpetuating oligarchy - which ones shouldn't be lined up and shot.

A few thoughts:

Conservatives

  • Richard Shepherd (ignores the whip, I believe)
  • David Davis perhaps? He had a real job once?
Labour
  • Frank Field
  • Kate Hoey
  • Bob Marshall Andrews

Updated:

Independent

  • Richard Taylor

And what about LibDems? I suppose it's possible that they might all be non-political-class. After all you don't become a LibDem if you've a great desire to wield power, do you?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any others at all, so it's going to be a bit of a bloodbath. There must be some more. Any suggestions? 

 

Saturday
Feb162008

Market share

There is much glee at the BBC over the Competition Commission's plans for supermarkets. Apparently the big four have too much market power and they're going to have to sell land to their competitors. Who won't be able to get planning permission anyway.

But hey ho, a few more bureaucrats will be kept in gainful (if not useful) employment.

The Beeb has a graph up on their website showing the sheer dominance of the big four supermarkets:

_44427224_grocery_market_pies416.gif 

It's instructive to compare Tesco's paltry 31% of the grocery market with the BBC's 54% of the radio market.  If the BBC was privately owned, the competition authorities would have had it broken up long ago.

Why do we have to tolerate it just because it raises its financing coercively? 

Saturday
Feb162008

Scraping the barrel

Do I hear the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped?

The educational authorities have excelled themselves today. For sheer fatuousness, it's hard to beat the initiatives they've come up with today.

First up is the idea of retraining ex-soldiers as teachers. Now don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with soliders per se, but you can't help feeling that the mindset of the military man and the pedagogue may be ever so slightly different. I mean, aren't soldiers meant to, you know, kill people who disagree with them? Or at the very least punch their lights out.

Mind you, unarmed combat skills could be useful in some schools.

Secondly is the bizarre idea to make children sit "creativity tests". Needless to say, a whole bunch of quangos (QCA, Ofsted, Creative Partnerships etc, if you must ask) have been running amok in schools throughout the land, and are now breathlessly reciting all the ways they have dreamt up to further pad their already grossly enlarged budgets. The latest wheeze, worthy of a PhD in creativity at least, is that somebody needs to measure children's creativity. Because creativity, like motherhood, is a good thing. So if you're in school, there's a whole lot more testing coming your way soon.

Just remember folks, if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist.

I do just wonder though whether they think (a) this will make any difference to anything and (b) whether anyone is paying any attention anyway. 

 

 

Tuesday
Feb122008

Airbrushing and biofuels

In an a wonderfully brass-necked piece on the always lamentable Comment is Free, an enviro-loon called Mark Lynas claims, astoundingly, that environmentalists were right all along. Biofuels are a disaster!

Yes, you read that correctly. The environmentalists are going to start claiming that they've always been against biofuels.

When you've stopped killing yourselves laughing here's the "proof". Lynas says:

When the prospect of large-scale use of biofuels as a response to climate change was first mooted, many green campaigners and writers - including Greenpeace and the Guardian's George Monbiot - raised concerns about the impacts on land-use, food supply and biodiversity.

To his credit, Moonbat has written against biofuels in the past. But as one commenter on the CiF thread points out, Friends of the Earth have been welcoming pretty much every move towards biofuel for years: 

Here's what Friends of the Earth had to say in 2004:

Climate Change and the Budget, Nov 2004, page 19
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/pre_budget_nov_2004.pdf

"The Government should introduce a Biofuels Obligation, to stimulate a UK biofuels industry - as a lower carbon alternative to conventional transport fuels. The obligation would require that a proportion of all road transport fuels in the UK should be sourced from accredited renewable sources."

and here's what Friends of the Earth had to say in 2005:

Cautious welcome for biofuels obligation, Nov 10, 2005
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/cautious_welcome_for_biofu_10112005.html

"Friends of the Earth welcomed the Government's promise today (Thursday 10th November) that biofuels will form five per cent of transport fuel sales by 2010, helping to tackle transport's contribution to climate change."

Friends of the Earth eventually reversed their position in 2007:

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/oecd_warning_over_biofuels_11092007.html

"Friends of the Earth called on the EU to scrap its ten per cent target for using plant-based bio-fuels for transport, after a leaked paper revealed that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD's has grave concerns about their social and environmental effects."

Friends of the Earth spent several years campaigning in support of biofuels with total vigour and certainty. They're now campaigning against them with equal vigour and certainty.

And what about Greenpeace, who Lynas claims have been in the forefront of the green perspicacity on biofuels. In fact they've been screaming in favour of them for simply years - this from 1993. They were still welcoming biofuels targets in 2005.

Airbrushing history is just so much more difficult when your opponents have got Google.

Wednesday
Feb062008

More on MPs' expenses

The inimitable Guido Fawkes has pointed out that of the three MPs appointed by Gordon Broon to investigate MPs' expenses

  • David MacLean (Con) was the architect of the recent attempt to exempt aforementioned MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information Act
  • Stuart Bell (Lab) employed his son as a researcher (and the little brat used his access to the palace of Westminster to do some thieving to supplement his income)
  • Nick Harvey (LibDem) is a part-time lobbyist

For the record it's also worth noting that Stuart Bell was one of those who voted in favour of David MacLean's bill making MPs' expenses secret. Nick Harvey didn't vote.

So, of the three people appointed, two are against any sort of transparency, and all three are compromised.

Eminently predicatable. 

Saturday
Feb022008

Is oil a fossil fuel

I've been dimly aware of an argument that oil is not in fact made by a biological process for a couple of years now, but I've never really given it much thought - it all seemed a bit hare-brained to me.

But now, via the Englishman, comes an article in Science which seems to support the theory.

Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

If this is right, then oil is not a fossil fuel at all, and another prop has been kicked out from under the global warmers' feet. Interesting times. 

Friday
Feb012008

More on Climate Feedback

The greenies at Nature Climate Feedback are still at it. A little while back a warm snap in the Chinese City of Harbin elicited a breathless article entitled

Ice festival wilts in global warming heat.[We're all doomed!!!!]

Today the news carries reports of major snowfalls in China, large enough to damage crops and affect the food supply. 

And Nature Climate Feedback has a report entitled....

"Largest teach-in ever" focuses US on climate change

Ho hum.