Apparently - and I kid you not - there are two Grantham Institutes on Climate Change. One is the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial - website here - I am vaguely familiar with the work of some people there and they seem to be a sound bunch (then again I'm not in climate science, so caveat lector). On the other hand, there is the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at *snicker* the LSE. This is a very different bunch indeed. It's run by Lord Stern, who is an economics/government professor. The whole bunch is basically people with economics and policy degrees - the only two scientists they have is a physicist and a statistician. The whole thing feels to me like a major passing-off operation, the policy Grantham institute feeding off the scientific reputation of the real scientists at the scientific Grantham institute, although I may well be wrong on this one. These people, let's make no mistake, are hardcore policy makers and advocates, not scientists and fact-finders. They have sweet nothing to do with science - they are riding on the wave of scientific findings they themselves do not understand, and pretend to be the scientifically enlightened side when all they are doing is using misunderstood science to promote misguided policies - in many ways, they are the 'cargo cults' of the modern science-oriented world. They are NOT scientists, and judging from some of the stuff they produce, their grasp of the scientific methodologies their policies rest on is very sparse indeed. These people are pretending to have their arguments grounded in hard facts and science, which is not the case. This is absolutely misleading, and they deserve to be called on it.
Labels: Eric Pickles, John Prescott
Labels: Gordon Brown
Sunnhy Hundal has shown his nasty side again. Take this from his latest rant on climate change.
Look at the people who push global warming denialism: Fox News (enough said), The Telegraph (enough said), The Spectator (recently promoting AIDS denialism), Melanie Phillips (enough said), Christopher Booker (has anyone read his Wikipedia entry recently?), James Delingpole (enough said).
These are the kind of fuckwits (Delingpole, Richard North) who think there’s a conspiracy when their article doesn’t appear on Google News or use Google search hits as example of how big the story is.
Calling them ‘denialists’ is being too kind: they should be abused at every instance for the stupidity they churn out. They should be ridiculed, parodied, cussed, and constantly called out for the idiots they are because they deserve it.
Let the scientists do the science. But outside that world is a media full of bullshit artists who have vested interests in promoting ’scepticism’. The Spectator magazine’s hosting of the AIDS denialism film is just one small example. If we retreat on this war between ideologies by trying to be nice, while all they do is throw vitriol and propaganda, then we’ve already lost... There is no reason to take these people seriously or even off them an ounce of respect. If that means the political debate is charged – so be it.
I used to like Sunny. I always regarded him as someone you could do business with. Not any longer. His site, and his Twitter feed have become full of the bile and sheer nastiness that he pretends to deprecate. I've given up looking at either. The use of the word 'liberal' in the title is so full of irony it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.The only reason I read this article was because someone emailed me and asked if Sunny was feeling all right.
Why is the Left so afraid of a proper, calm debate on this subject? All they can do is shout "denier", hope that the mud sticks and that anyone who questions the consensus is viewed as a nutter. Job done, eh? Except that the last couple of weeks have rather punctured that particular tyre.
Hattip for graphic to Plato Says.
Labels: Sunny Hundal
Consultation is a difficult thing to get right - especially for public bodies. The public is rightly sceptical about what they see as sham consultation exercises. They usually imagine that the outcome of whatever is being consulted upon has already been predetermined, and most of the time they are probably right. How have we allowed the public to become so cynical about democratic exercises which they ought to be able to have confidence in? This book seeks to explore why consultations are important, what can go wrong, and what can be done to improve them. It's not a 'how to' book, but everyone involved in the conduct of consultation exercises ought read it.You can buy the book HERE.The Art of Consultation was a book waiting to be written! Over ten thousand public servants in the UK - and many others in the private and voluntary sectors - engage in formal consultations, and it's time their efforts were celebrated, and their challenges properly addressed.
There's a multi-million pound industry out there, currently asking us what we think. Lots of this is public money, and we believe much of it is wasted. Whilst a great deal of consultation is seriously effective, some of it is downright dishonest; decision-makers have already made up their minds. If they then consult, it's a waste of everyone's time; they are just going through the motions. That's all!
In The Art of Consultation, we've tried hard to describe the consultation culture that has engulfed us all. We're honest about what goes wrong, but we're also enthusiastic in seeing so much that goes right. There is a positive future for the best in consultation, and we finish our analysis in optimistic mode, for only by engaging with people - as customers or citizens, can some of our most intractable social and political problems be fixed. That makes it important for everyone involved in these decisions. This book is for them ... and for all of us who wish to influence them.
The Government remains committed to taking appropriate steps to implement the judgment in Hirst (No.2) v. United Kingdom. We have now carried out a second, more detailed public consultation that takes account of the findings of the first stage consultation on how voting rights might be granted to serving prisoners, and the extent to which those rights might be limited in accordance with the judgment. The second consultation ran from 8 April - 29 September 2009. The consultation document proposed four options for enfranchisement based primarily on sentence length, invited views on those options, and also sought information from respondents on some of the practical issues raised by implementation. Over 100 responses have been received from individuals and organisations with an interest in the issue of prisoner voting rights. We now need to undertake detailed analysis of those responses, and to reach a view on the Government’s approach to implementing the judgment. The Government will keep the Committee of Ministers informed as it progresses this work.The CoM stated that the government was simply repeating what its position was prior to and throughout the Court proceedings in this case. And agreed with the stated JCHR that any further delay may result in the next election taking place in a way that fails to comply with the Convention (the election must be held in June 2010 at the latest).
October 2009
Well, they're falling like ninepins. Salisbury MP Robert Key has announced today that he will not be standing at the next election due to health reasons. Read his letter HERE. I spent a few months working as Robert's researcher back in 1986 and he has been a great servant to the Party over the years.To date, too many discussions on this matter have degenerated into infantile mud-slinging and virulent name-calling. It is simply unacceptable for one side to describe the other as deniers, with its deliberate holocaust connotations, and the other side to essentially call their opponents liars. This issue is too important for the argument to be reduced to the level of an adolescent political spat, and it is time we engaged in this debate on a properly adult level.
Now that I have picked myself up off the floor and recovered from a laughing fit, let me point you to THIS mini scoop for Paul Waugh, in which he reveals that Health Secretary Andy Burnham is considering running for the Labour leadership after the election.
Sir Patrick Cormack is the latest senior Conservative MP to announce he will not fight the next election. He has issued this statement.I have informed the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and the Chairman of South Staffordshire Conservative Association that, after a great deal of careful thought, and family discussions, I have most reluctantly decided not to offer myself for re-election at the next General Election. I have been immensely proud to have been a Staffordshire Member in the world’s greatest Parliament for close on forty years, much more than half my life. I regard membership of the House of Commons as the highest honour to which any British subject can aspire and I shall always be grateful to have had the opportunity, and the great privilege, of serving my country and my constituency at Westminster.
I am most anxious to continue to work for some of the causes I have campaigned for over the years but I have recently had my third severe attack of bronchitis in two years and my doctor tells me I really ought to cut down on my normal ‘term time’ working week of 70 to 80 hours. The unhappy events of recent months in Parliament have made those hours much more of a burden than they used to be and it is also becoming increasingly clear that the new House of Commons will be very different from the old. Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is right that I should hand the torch to a younger man or woman, someone who will, as I have done, be able to offer many years of service to the people of South Staffordshire.
RSS Feed
