Seen elsewhere



Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace

Pro-Lawson opinion

Ryan Bourne, head of public policy at the Institute of Economic Affairs, offers his support to Nigel Lawson in an article in Friday's City A.M.

Even if you believe global warming is happening and it’s a significant problem, it is lazy thinking to believe this scientific insight means “Case Closed” and that the policy response is obvious. You also have to tot up what the consequences of global warming might be, the costs and benefits of different policies, and work out who picks up the tab. This requires a much-needed economic and political debate – and it’s obvious the likes of Lawson and other public figures have much to contribute.


BBC and Nigel Lawson

There is a letter in the Spectator from the Deputy Director of BBC News and Current Affairs on the subject of the BBC's spat over Nigel Lawson's appearance in discussion with Brian Hoskins.

H/t Is the BBC Biased

No ban on Lawson

Sir: You write that the BBC ‘has effectively banned’ Lord Lawson from items on climate change unless introduced with ‘a statement discrediting his views’ (Leading article, 12 July). There’s a lot of muddled reporting of this story. Lord Lawson hasn’t been in any sense ‘banned’, and the Editorial Complaints Unit finding didn’t suggest that he shouldn’t take part in future items. It found fault with the way the Today item was handled in two respects: firstly that it presented Lord Lawson’s views on the science of global warning as if they stood on the same footing as those of Sir Brian Hoskins, and secondly that it didn’t make clear to listeners that Lord Lawson represented a minority view. There is also no ban on other non-scientists discussing climate change. The BBC is absolutely committed to impartial and balanced coverage on this complex issue. Our position remains exactly as it was — we accept that there is broad scientific agreement on climate change and we reflect this accordingly. We do, however, on occasion offer space to dissenting voices where appropriate as part of the BBC’s overall commitment to impartiality.
Fran Unsworth Deputy director, BBC News and Current Affairs
Happy valleys


Unminced words from Owen Paterson

It was not my job to do the bidding of two organisations that are little more than anti-capitalist agitprop groups most of whose leaders could not tell a snakeshead fritillary from a silver-washed fritillary. I saw my task as improving both the environment and the rural economy; many in the green movement believed in neither.

Link here- but I wonder why the Telegraph editors saw fit to place Paterson's words 9th down the list of "Political" articles, instead of putting it into the section on the environment?


Rewilding envisioning - Josh 283

Click for a bigger image

Rewilding the Highlands - I bet there will be space for more Wind Turbines.

Cartoons by Josh



Rewilding the Highlands

There was an interesting programme, which I tuned into by mistake at 6.30am this morning on BBC Radio Scotland (not currently available on iPLayer) on the benefits of progressing the “rewilding” of areas of the Highlands – one of George Monbiot’s favourite hobbyhorses.

A pro-weighted opinion on the benefits was put forward by Roy Dennis of the Highland Foundation for Wildlife while a briefer counter-argument came from a representative of the Ramblers’ Association. As this proposal would include the reintroduction of wolves it would probably involve fencing off at least 50,000 acres of countryside, reducing the “right to roam” which currently exists in Scotland and necessarily including the possibility of animal escapes through or over the electric fence. Dennis wanted government backing for the move, considering that reintroduction was more important than access. The more libertarian opinions of the Ramblers’ representative suggested that this should not happen without public consultation and that the promotion of such moves by the press and media risked putting private interests over the public rights. 

Butterflies, maybe…. wolves, no? TM


Hoorah for the GWPF

Following on from jamesp's suggestion in the comments yesterday on the GWPF-Roger Harrabin post that we should have an identifying badge supporting the GWPF, suggestions are welcome for the symbol - just for fun, while the Bishop is away. Surely one of Josh's cartoons would be ideal.

I'll weigh in as a start - how about  this one, with "Support the GWPF" included somewhere? TM.


Stiffen the sinews

Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone  reports some remarks by Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, who has recently joined the academic advisers to the GWPF. Let's hope that the good prof. is not meted out the same treatment from the opposition that Lennart Bengtsson received, which led to his stepping down from his appointment after a couple of weeks.

Updated 9.20am 18.7.2014. TM

John Christie points out

“There’s a climate establishment, and I’m not in it

More divisions reported here. 

H/T Paul Homewood.



GWPF- Harrabin late with the news

I missed this yesterday. As someone pointed out in the Breitbart comments, why are campaigns from Greenpeace WWF and FoE not similarly targeted for spending charitable money on political causes? 

H/T Biased BBC.


[Link fixed]


Ill wind

Updated 3.15pm 17.7.14.

Here's some encouraging news (except for the installers and the subsidy farmers). TM.

[Two posts amalgamated in error. Last paragraph of this one now deleted. TM.] 



"A paltry $250"

Is this justice? Who can explain why Mann's emails need not be released by the University of Virginia, but those of Pat Michaels could be? Does the size of the award make any difference to the principle?


Renewable optimism

Hope springs eternal in Bloomberg's breast over the future of renewables, but how accurate is their forecast? Ten years to stop "global Co2 emissions? And what cost reductions might there be- removing the extravagant subsidies?

Click to read more ...


Doom-laden Deben

The latest report of the actions of the Committee on Climate Change has been published today. This is how it finishes....

Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, said: “Climate Change demands urgent action. We have started on the road and we are being joined by much of the rest of the world. However, despite our success, the UK is still not on track to meet our statutory commitment to cut emissions by 80 per cent. The longer we leave it, the costlier it becomes. This report shows the best and most cost-effective ways to ensure we meet our targets. There is no time to lose.”

It is all going really well, except for the parts that aren't.

Today's Moderator.


BH favourites in the Lords

BH regular Ed Hawkins and commenters' favourite Chris Rapley are appearing in the House of Lords today, addressing the Arctic Committee. Also appearing is oceanographer Ed Bacon.

The session starts at 10:30 if anyone fancies adding a comment telling us if it's worth a look (no video link at time of writing, but it should be easy enough to find on the day). Given Rapley's deep green credentials, it could be fun.


Should we take the Grantham Institutes seriously?

Steve McIntyre has dipped his toe into the murky waters of the ongoing furore about the Lawson/Hoskins interview and the BBC's decision that Lawson's position on last winter's floods was not (allegedly) supported by the scientific evidence. Amusingly, McIntyre finds that Lawson's views on the UK floods is entirely supported by Hoskins' prior statements on the subject.

In respect to the linkage between the floods and global warming, [BBC editorial complaints guy] Fraser Steel’s views are unequivocally wrong. Even IPCC – surely the most fervent advocate of climate models imaginable – stated that GCMs did not provide useful information on precipitation extremes (and, a fortiori, floods)...

The conclusion is clear:

If Hoskins and the Grantham institutes want to persuade more people of the seriousness of the issues, Hoskins’ obligation is to do a better job, rather than have Lawson silenced by a Grantham apparatchik. I think that Hoskins should write to the BBC Complaints Unit, separating himself from Ward’s complaint and, at a minimum, conceding that Lawson’s position on the (lack of) linkage of floods and global warming is either correct or one that can be reasonably argued.

It is, of course, vanishingly unlikely that Hoskins would do anything so gracious. Hoskins was the go-to person for the University of East Anglia when the Royal Society laundered the list of articles for the Oxburgh inquiry: although Hoskins himself had no informed knowledge of the literature, he immediately endorsed the UEA. Later, he acted as a supporting authority for refusing FOI requests.


Soft on greens, soft on greenery

Paul Homewood points us to this incredibly soft BBC interview with Al Gore, who is in Australia promoting his pet climate project. The powers that be at the corporation seem to have decided that they want to put their considerable weight behind Mr Gore's campaign and interviewer Paul Donnison is right on message, apparently viewing his role as providing the maximum PR opportunity for Mr Gore:  most questions are along the lines of "are your opponents dishonest or irresponsible" and there is litte by way of challenge to the great man.

Click to read more ...

Page 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 388 Next 15 entries »