Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Questions to suggest to Lord Donoughue

She does now!
But really it is usually the department which drafts the answers. Most ministers merely sign them.
B D

Jul 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernard Donoughue

There is always a danger on blogs, despite some fine minds being applied to the subject in hand, that we fasten our ire on one person, whether it's Verma or Betts, without understanding "it is usually the department which drafts the answers" or the equivalent.

But in Bernard Donoughue we have a true and candid friend to guide us. The team is more powerful than any of its parts.

Jul 26, 2013 at 3:29 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Yes, Richard. This is a debate, and a discussion, although a somewhat overdue one. There are no personalities and picking on anyone.

Jul 26, 2013 at 4:29 PM | Registered Commentershub

Shub: I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Bob Ward's aggressive and irrational style has rightly led to some strong reactions. And what of Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky, Gleick, Mann? These are personalities, not to say egos, and some we are justified in taking a strong line against. But on Baroness Verma I'm sure we would be wise to listen to Lord Donoughue.

Jul 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard Drake

Baroness Verma stood up in the House of Lords and was not willing to answer a question of huge significance to the nation. Lord Donoughue says she is a nice old dear and has been put in an impossible situation. Apparently she is told what to say, surely this should be "advised what to say" leaving her free to make a decision?
One is hard put to find any explanation other than she said what she was told to say in order to preserve her position and to hell with the country.
You can listen to dear old Lord Donoughue if it suits you Richard but to me it stinks.

Jul 26, 2013 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterDung

I for one certainly appreciated Lord Donoughe's candid:

The real problem lies elsewhere and higher up, with the likes of Cameron, Clegg, Davey, Miliband, and the fanatics at the Met Office and the mediocre jobsworths at DECC.

Fancy that, eh ... "fanatics" at this "jewel in the crown of British science, and global science" who fancy themselves as being "trusted" providers of "objective" scientific knowledge (and/or some facsimile thereof).

And I hope he won't mind if I quote him on this :-)

Jul 27, 2013 at 1:09 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Baroness Verma stood up in the House of Lords and was not willing to answer a question of huge significance to the nation.

Whose question?

I hope he won't mind if I quote him on this :-)

Striking if one rereads them that these last two posts weren't addressed to Bernard Donoughue himself.

The first could only achieve its desired effect of starting to marginalise 'dear old Lord Donoughue' - in this of all threads - by pretending that he hadn't just contributed here.

The second is much better, except for not asking Bernard the question direct. The phrase 'fanatics at the Met Office' is well earned. It's why Betts has a tough job and why his "Thanks for sharing your opinion so frankly" to Steve McIntyre four days ago keeps him ahead for me of any previous communicator from the hallowed halls of the global warming fraternity.

We each have a right not to suspend disbelief but if Bernard Donoughue began this process by asking questions of the government 'of huge significance to the nation' in our second chamber I accept his evaluation of the person answering, whom he knows personally. I have more problem trusting someone whose latest 'senior moment' led to casual defamation of another staunch fighter for climate freedom even this month. And that's not all, not even 1%. In this small subset of the network of relationships the verdicts, though always provisional, are easy.

Jul 29, 2013 at 8:51 AM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Richard Drake

I do not know what planet you are on but I am glad it is not the one I am on. You attempt to make the case that because Lord Donoughue asks an important question in the House of Lords he can then do no wrong. We observe politicians in both houses "playing with words" and thinking it is clever (you are just as guilty Richard). The noble Lord asks a question, is presented with meaningless verbiage and then sympathises with the noble Lady who gave it to him. They are both playing the game, the game which costs time and money, our money.
If the question had been of any importance to Lord Donoughue I think he might have reacted somewhat differently.
I suggest you think carefully before accusing me of defaming people Richard.

Colin Brooks

Jul 30, 2013 at 12:00 AM | Registered CommenterDung

Jul 29, 2013 at 8:51 AM | Registered Commenter Richard Drake

Richard, I know you find it quite challenging to refrain from your bandwidth-wasting opinions on how others should be posting here (and elsewhere); but perhaps you could put a little more effort into keeping Richard's Rules of Order™ confined to yourself.

Even if you are not, I'm quite confident that Lord Donoughue would not have posted his candid remarks here if he did not wish to be quoted on them. And I'm equally confident (even if you are not) that in all likelihood if he continues to monitor this particular discussion, he will see my post and he'll let me know if he objects.

The phrase 'fanatics at the Met Office' is well earned. It's why Betts has a tough job and why his "Thanks for sharing your opinion so frankly" to Steve McIntyre four days ago keeps him ahead for me of any previous communicator from the hallowed halls of the global warming fraternity.

Yes, that was almost as impressive as his one-week delay prior to posting his second "comment [that was] not responsive to the main points" (the first being his tweet). Wasn't it?! As Steve had described this second effort:

in a distinction that seems to me to be Nick Stokesian, purported to justify his assertion that my graphical comparison of initialized HadGEM3 and uninitialized HadGEM2 was “wrong” while the apparently similar comparison of Smith et al 2012 shown in this post was not.

And let us not forget Betts' oh-so-graceful (but equally non-responsive or obtuse, you may take your pick) exit, immediately following that which you found to be so commendable:

Why is the older information “more advantageous”?

Jul 30, 2013 at 1:10 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Sorry to make you so angry by suggesting that Bernard D should be listened to when he says some of us at BH should dial down the criticism of Baroness V. That's far and away the most central point for me here. I already allowed for the fact that we had a different evaluation of Richard B Hilary. His final question on CA was interesting I thought and I also thought it interesting that Steve didn't bother to reply to it. Either touchingly naive or something else that's not as good but is rather inept. I don't claim to be able to read every secret of every person's heart on any blog, hence the 'always provisional' in my previous post. The anger or irritation seems way too much though. Up, up and away :)

Jul 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake