Bishop Hill The headless chickens
Feb 1, 2014 Prince Charles has been sounding off about us dissenters from the climate "consensus", describing us as being like "headless chickens". It's funny to be on the end of such criticism from a man who talks to his house plants, but nobody takes his views seriously anyway, so it's easy enough to shrug off.
I was invited onto the Stephen Nolan show last night to discuss the royal views, but mercifully the conversation was more about the nuts and bolts of the climate than any of the guff emerging from Clarence House. I was up against Paul Williams, a climatologist from Reading. I had taken a quick look at Dr Williams' web page before we went on air and he looked like a real scientist rather than one of the scientivists who normally get picked for these things. This impression was confirmed in the programme itself and, with the presenter letting us bounce things off each other, I think the we produced a pretty informative segment for the listeners.
The audio file is attached.
Reader Comments (156)
...nobody takes his views seriously anyway, so it's easy enough to shrug off....
Oh, what a dilemma for the Guardian! Do they run the piece and find themselves in agreement with the privileged hereditary elite head of the establishment?
I was very surprised how much Nolan was questioning the "science is all settled" notion - and challenging the value of the computer models ?
It would be nice to have a regular BBC radio talk-show presenter among the proud ranks of headless chickens. I understand that normally Nolan cleaves the typical leftie BBC line on most issues. So far Andrew Neil is the only BBC presenter who refuses to swallow all the Warmist twaddle - is Nolan feeling his way there too ?
Good job Andrew!
Scientists may know stuff but expecting you to fall back in awe and remain silent because they say "Navier-Stokes" or "viscosity" is not very convincing. I thought you nicely illustrated the facts and the necessary connections and thus illustrated that Dr Williams did not have a satisfactory reply to any of the points.
I thought the exchanges went OK. They can be very difficult to get right, especially if faced with a hostile interviewer. The talk host was not hostile to BH. For the audience the key issues will have been: do they understand what is being talked about (insiders jargon does not help) and are they convinced by the answers that are given?
Re Prince Charles and offshore wind farms, this article from Spiegel Online should put the wind up:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/wind-power-investments-in-germany-proving-riskier-than-thought-a-946367.html
If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
How many Chicken Little Brigades does it take to scare a Prince out of her pants?
=================
Feb 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commenter Dodgy Geezer
I've made the point before that CAGW is the only issue which unites rent-a-mob and The Establishment.
Chickens without a heads but with a voice.
Bish quite good performance but you umbed and arred a bit on that one.
Bish you just become the go to Climate Change contrary opinion for every Radio and TV Current Affairs producer.
Better practice refine your patter because you are going to find yourself speaking a lot more from now on.
I shall be writing to HRH to ask him whether he thinks it a good idea to insult some 40% of his future subjects. It's the warmers who are the headless Chicken Lickens. He really should shut up. It's a shame. His Mum's a good 'un and his kids too - but he's an idiot.
Radical Rodent
May I join your research team when the grant arrives?
My husband keeps telling me that boiling water is boiling water, when I complain that boiled eggs now take 4.5 mins instead of the previous 3.20.
Personally, I think they are tampering with the gas in order to save the planet.....: )
The beauty of the 'Headless' meme is that it is the alarmists who got everyone flying around like chickens in a tornado.
====================
JP beat me by 3 minutes. Hey, I was putting it over at Judy's.
==========
Commenters should consider when criticising the Bishop's performance that if and when he starts really beating up on those guys he will cease to be the go-to sceptic for the UK media.
Well done the Bishter.
In these broadcasts; the proponent is allowed to make the opening remarks so that the dissenter may react. There should be a considerable advantage in tempo - like playing white in chess - yet I cannot recall a climate debate where a proponent of IPCC was able to trounce a sceptic. Proponents lose that tempo when the exchange is held fast to the science so my congrats for holding him right there.
I do think it is high time for another Durkin movie that sets out the IPCC science and examines how compelling it really is. I think another movie might examine why this particular science has grown so attractive to our 'global leaders', our state scientists and our NGOs. Another might examine the costs of this great adventure and he likely impacts on our energy supply. I'd recommend showing these three in reverse order to ensure the happiest ending.
Very well done. You represented the Headless Chicken Brigade with alacrity.
One could have wished for a more memorable jab, such as "models' sensitivity is around 60% higher than observations suggest". [Based on Otto et al.'s best estimate for ECS at 2.0 K, vs. mean ECS of the CMIP5 models at 3.2 K.] It is, naturally, more nuanced than that, but I think it a useful "one-liner", and better than the more vague "the models are running too hot."
Dr Williams also stated that the models all agree, with which you concurred (wanting to get to a comparison with observations) -- there is some room for further erosion in confidence in the "settled science" meme by pointing out that the sensitivities of the CMIP5 models vary by a factor of 2. Not sure if there's any way to get both points across in such a format, though.
Not the brightest jewel in the crown.
Charles is held in such low esteem by most people in the UK that I would imagine the doomsayers of "The Team" are mortified to think that this idiot has said what he has.
Because believe me, if Charles supports something, the thinking populace of the UK immediately question the soundness of the proposition.
Lord help us when he becomes King.
Schrodinger's Cat
Presumably you were talking about the man who talks to his plants ( or should that be out of his pants) and not our host:-)
Charles wasn't so environmentally concerned when it came to his growing of non-native oysters in a conservation area.
Very well done. Sensibly responding to questions might be polite, but it is very difficult. I have noticed that politicians usually have a prepared statement and deliver it whatever question is asked. Do as they do and take control of the conversation so that they hear our principal concerns before you are interrupted. Given the chance repeat them!
Good luck.
JP
My letter written for Monday's post. Have finished with " my consolation is the excellent health and dedication of HMQ, and that D of Cambridge and P Harry appear such staunch individuals well-fitted to Rule" - (hopefully "Ouch!")
How very typical of the royal wingnut, not to notice that it is the CAGW alarmists who are espousing the headless chicken panic response.
AN Wilson pointed out the problem with Charles. Phillip came from an unstable background but is physically and mentally tough and thoroughly enjoyed Gordonstoun. Charles is neither physically and mentally tough as his father. While at Gordonstoun he suffered from bullying and sycophancy from his middle class peers. Gordonstoun does not attract the scholars found at top public schools . In fact gordonstoun 's academic record is relatively poor and as consequence Charles ended up with an over exaggerated sense of his intellectual ability .
An Wilson said it would have been much better if Charles had gone to eton which is a large school of 1200 pupils which enables a wide range of interests to be pursued.Eton in the 60s had plenty of aristocrats who would have treated as an equal and he would have been able to find a few like minded friends. Eton has some very bright scholars and Charles would have realised he was not that bright.
Charles also demonstrates some of the unpleasant aspects of the Hanoverian character which he shares partly with Andrew and his late uncle, The Duke of Windsor which are:- sense of entitlement, arrogance, self -pity , inability to take decisions and an unwillingness to listen to contrary views. What Charles needs is someone who can tell him some painful truths.
I wonder if Dr Williams googled Andrew Montford before he entered the fray, and whether he had some excuse prepared if the "Hockey stick" had come up in the conversation.
John Lyon
Prince Charles is the man who has his eggs and firewood sent from Highgrove to Birkhall when he visits.
I do think it is high time for another Durkin movie that sets out the IPCC science and examines how compelling it really is.
I wrote to C4 a little after the climategate affair and suggested that it was a good time to do a second film. No answer came the stern reply.
Gummermustgo: Sorry, I hope you wrote D of Cambridge and Prince William to HRH and not Prince Harry.
Stephen Richards -
I seem to remember the suggestion of a Durkin follow up being discussed a few of years ago on BH, and someone in the know reported back that Durkin was not against the idea. The time is ripe for a follow up - climategate 1 and 2, the missing tropospheric hotspot, the flawed models, the cold NH winters in the last 6 years, the latest from Svensmark & CERN, the 17 year pause/plateau, the fraudulant UHI adjustments by NOAA and GISS, the expansion of the Antarctic sea ice etc. Does anyone know the C4 commissioning editor? The GWPF should be on this.
An excellent performance by the Bishop, measured and controlled, and far from Headless Chicken status.
I expect this essentially scientific discussion would not chime with the Five Live audience who thrive on leftist hype, but I was also surprised how balanced Nolan was --- could he be the BBC's second denier after Andrew Neil? ( or perhaps Paul Hudson).
The Bish needs to minimise his numbers of Ah's and Um's, akin to Beckham's "Ye Naaw" to improve digestion by the listeners. Of course this is dead easy to say if you are not live on alBeeb.
Overall a positive result.
Radical Rodent,
Charles really rings my bell, "headless chicken" is an apt description and which suits HRH very nicely.
As to a constitutional Monarch, so long as Elizabeth II reigns, a very fine lady who I do respect - until she decides to hand over the reins or the Almighty removes that responsibility from her - I shall be a supporter of the constitutional monarchy - until such time and then I will change my mind.
Having said that, the idea of someone like Blair or Brown, Cameron or heaven forbid it - someone like Clegg being installed into a presidential role - that idea is probably more unpalatable.
Ultimately, power corrupts. There seems to be no answer - a constitutional monarch might be preferable but then - should they have any say so? I believe that they should.
The way of the Blair and later the Brown government, Britain was ruled by the whim of a few and not many in the Labour party had any say so - still less the legislature, which supposedly is there to curb the power of the executive but does no such thing. In the light of that - in the fairly recent past particularly with the Lisbon Treaty - I believe 'our' Queen should have spoken up for her subjects - because power was ceded by Brown to Brussels without any democratic plebiscite - the Queen should have reminded Brown of his responsibilities - REMEMBER - nobody voted for Brown other than a few twisted brothers and sisters in Fife [where 50% voted for him but 50% didn't].
I drift towards an elected President and only a four year term. Further and a break up of all the political parties candidates really should only go up to Parliament to hold the executive to account - representing the feelings, needs and desires of their locale and its regional electorate. Most important, is the absolute separation of the powers of the executive and the chamber of the legislature. All Presidential candidates to be independent, or to have sundered all previous ties to any political affiliation - because: a President represents all of the people.
To those who say that James Delingpole is a consummate radio performer - I recall a very nervous first go - beginning circa 2009 about the time of the Copenhagen climate jamboree - on a BBC "Any questions" programme and going up against Porritt I think. Oh and Dimbleby the' younger but no less biased' and the audience; of SWP, Trotskyite, greenpeace, council paper pusher, social services on a day paid off doing some social engineering moonlighting, student Labour party activists, natch! It was a Baptism of fire, poor lad.
Wherein, JD didn't do so well but he's now got it and is very good, very. very good in fact These things can be practiced and learnt - have your facts prepared and learn the counter suppositions off to a T, sound clear, keep it to a minimum - simple and make your points forcefully - Morano is excellent but the best, is still Monckton - and lets face it bar the shouting ranty alarmist student mob, on the 'science' there isn't much to beat, a slam dunk as our colonial cousins say.
His Mum's a good 'un and his kids too - but he's an idiot.
His mum's none too clever either, she just keeps her mouth shut. It's not a job that requires brilliance, to be honest.
Charles's dad's is an idiot who shoots his gob off repeatedly. Diana was not an idiot, but was profoundly nonintellectual ("thicky" Spenser she was called). So the odds William is clever are low. But again, he keeps his mouth shut, so it doesn't matter.
Harry has the ability to find his mouth with his foot even at long range, which is about the only thing that makes me suspect that Philip is his grandfather. Have you not noticed his regular gaffes, even when insulated from the world by the army?
Well done, Bish
Calm and rational, you stayed nicely cool.
Well done. That enormous mountain of evidence disappeared quite rapidly into a few computer models that might agree with each other but not with reality. So then he pulled out the bare-faced untruth about this being the warmest in human existence and the irrelevance of it being the hottest decade in 100 years. Firstly 0.6 degrees is hardly something to worry about and secondly the temperature did the opposite of what was expected by every single climate scientist. So they are 90 odd percent in agreement that funding should increase but 100% wrong in everything they predicted. In no other field could models be used as evidence of anything if they didn't agree with reality.
Those of us who have actually programmed Navier-Stokes equations recognised the sheer idiotic blather there. It's not the physics that are in the models that is the problem, it is the huge amount of physics that are missing and the guesses made to cover that fact up. We cannot even determine the movement of a minor part of a mere water course by N-S without tiny mesh sizes, tiny timesteps and a lot of fudges based on checks with reality, and skipping out or simplifying N-S to reduce the number of independent variables to something that has a chance of solving. Modeling the entire atmosphere is just not possible to any degree of accuracy and faster computers won't help. It may help if someone figures out what natural variation actually consists of, starting with a proper theory for what causes cooling events but they need to lose the minset that CO2 is the driver of temperature because it is blindingly clear that it isn't.
What a difference a competent interviewer makes. Others should take note; it is not the evidence of warming but the evidence of manmade warming. Pin them down to telling us what evidence there is of that!
Athelstan (Feb 1, 2014 at 8:19 PM): a monarch also represents ALL the people; politicians are in office as a whim of the people, the monarch is there as the will of the people. Your idea that a president will not pander to those whom he/she thinks have the most chance of getting him/her re-elected is rather quaint. One of the greatest powers of the monarchy is that it withholds absolute power from the government, though you are right – the Queen did sign us (and herself) over to control from Brussels, and there are many who hold that she stand against charges of treason, and to stand in the dock along with the many political advisors from her governments.
The Prince's use of the "D" word is a surprise. Maybe he does not understand the connotations?
IMO he has probably done the sceptic cause a favour. His remarks suggest there is a major issue here, raising the profile of the climate debate. He has probably added to the ranks of potential sceptics because of all the folk who automatically take a dissenting view from his opinions.
On a lighter note, this looks like prime material for JOSH....
Maybe a "Seal of Royal Disapproval" comprising a headless chicken with a radiant, globe-style egg in a nest of hockey-sticks and with the motto: "By Royal Disappointment".
"Have you not noticed his regular gaffes, even when insulated from the world by the army?" Mooloo Feb 1, 2014 at 9:12 PM
No, I haven't: but I don't read the celebrity pages.
I certainly wouldn't want to be in the position occupied by any of these people: and I don't imagine that any but the very dullest of us could avoid "gaffes" in the face of such attention from the press. IMHO theirs is a position in which (like almost all others of any significance - government minister, to name just one) character is of considerably greater importance than intellect.
Which is where Charles' problems lie, of course. He (as his first wife did too) uses the press to ride his hobby-horses. If he wants his son to succeed, he really should shut up.
And here's the transcript:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20140131_r5
The William's argument for anthropogenic is a complete non-sequitir.
More or less, "Nobody denies that CO2 is a GHG ... in the atmosphere ... it traps heat going to space .. that has a warming effect..."
In essence, OK up to traps heat. After that, if it re-releases heat immediately and that release finds its way to space, then the warming effect is zero to negligible.
It's not about CO2 and GHG physics. It's about what happens AFTER CO2 has done its trapping.
I've not seen an agreed description of the immediate post-trapping events.
That's what the headless chickens are talking about, Charlie.
I've posted the latest stats for January from uClimate.com on my blog Scottish Sceptic. These give the top clicked sites as:
1 Stephen Goddard
2 Climate Depot
3 Watts Up With That?
4 The GWPF
5 Bishop Hill
The top clicked articles were:
(1 joint) Stephen Goddard: Understanding Climate Feedback
(1 joint) Stephen Goddard: Why Are People Always Complaining About SkS?
(3) Judith Curry: The Big Question
(4 joint) The Next Grand Minimum: Should We Be Worried?
(4 joint) Watts Up With That?: Picture of the week – great moments in climate protests
The story is titled: Hot Air To The Throne: in The Sun, accompanied by a picture of Charles looking like an upper class twit with a brolly. Oh,he is an upper class twit with a brolly? Tell me it ain't so .
I would have expected the prince to say that in a democracy everybody have the right to make or have their own opinion. As a monarch to label people that are not conform to the monarch opinion as being headless chicken is strange?
As a critic to the political established UNFCCC and the policy based "science" it is feeding us I find it strange to be labeld "headless chicken"?
What kind of normal democratic rights for his people is this future king promoting?
Feb 1, 2014 at 9:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG
But Navier Stokes equations are wonderful for gaining the upper hand in a debate about control by authority.
Maybe you, too, have been threatened with an NS moment. (Some people think this is synonymous with Nick Stokes, but it ain't).
I completely agree with what you wrote here.
.....................
For vague reasons connected with reasoning processes, I'm reminded about this.
A truck collided with a car on an unsealed country lane. The car driver was thrown out and ended up beneath the truck
Experienced rescue services were soon on site and they quickly dialled up the largest nearby heavy lift crane, at best an hour away, and started planning the complicated logistics to get it working in the small space available. Things were looking slow and bleak.
A farmed arrived, took a shovel from his ute, dug out the soil under the man and slid him out in a couple of minutes.
.....................
Sometimes complicated solutions like NS need to stand back while simple logic is allowed to work.
In this case, it seems known that the most powerful computers around cannot get adequate resolution to model NS on events like a thunderstorm, let alone put it in regional or national weather context. Why try, he said, logically?
"it seems known that the most powerful computers around cannot get adequate resolution to model NS on events like a thunderstorm, let alone put it in regional or national weather context. Why try, he said, logically?"
Two dimensional thinking in a fourth dimensional Universe.
In the north of England just recently, mainly unpredicted we had a mini series of [for our tiny island] a line of extremely violent storms - now we are in the depths of winter and it's been wet and very wet but not that cold. From small tornadoes, hail and savagely gusting winds knocking over chimney pots etc - something to behold and I watched some of it from my lounge window - marvellous as it was awesome. A demonstration of the power of mama Gaia and the forces of the atmosphere were on show, from latent heat, enthalpy - heat transfers 'on show' was simply magnificent and I had to ponder in the depths of winter with not much solar input at 50º± in winter - where does it [energy] all come from?
After the free show, it led me to pondering, as is my wont........
We are many [light] years away from making sound analysis and thus quantifying - of such primal forces - how can a computer model a chaotic system when we are not really sure about how and why the system works? But then, in our astoundingly human condition of an arrogance of ignorance - to then go and make predictions about what will happen 100 years hence - it's barmy beyond belief.
OT
So Micheal Gove slung out Sally Morgan
Any chance of chucking out more political luvies out of these Quangos.
Start with Suzy Leather.
De politicise the civil service bring in more maveric thought.
I have just read Alex's transcript (https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20140131_r5) - superb resource that this initiative of his is!
I think this little conversation made many useful points, and had a civil tone that is vital for reaching through to many of those people whose minds have been made up by exposure to the relentless propaganda they will have seen on the BBC or even in their classrooms when at school. The bluster of asserting enormous piles of evidence, of running the names of Navier and Stokes up a flagpole, and even of the new canard of condescension regarding 'sceptics' supposed late and reluctant concession of the radiative properties of the CO2 molecule and the phenomenon still unfortunately labeled as the greenhouse effect, gives way on the first hint of highly-informed resistance. Even the interviewer, not a profession noted in general for their acuity on climate matters, was able to note that evidence of climate variation is not automatically evidence of human impact. Quack science got some comeuppance in that broadcast. See the book called 'Quack Policy' for reasons to be grateful for each and every setback it gets.
I was impressed by this one. Well done to all three involved!
Last decade the "hottest in Human history"? What a lot of nonsense that man was talking.
Williams: "We don't have a vast enough supercomputer so instead we formulate approximations..."
Reminds me of the tale of a computer programmer who was asked by his wife to go to the shop. She said to buy a loaf of bread and if they had any fresh eggs, to buy a dozen. He returned home with 12 loaves.
Let's face it, the model outputs are all-over-the-shop and all wrong. Their only 'validation' is that they broadly support the premise on which they were written.
Athelstan
The mention by Williams of the inadequacy of the computer sounded very similar to the Met Office pleas- it would all be OK if only we had more money to get a bigger and better computer (to produce our mistakes faster).