Wednesday
Jan252012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Off topic threads
Jan 25, 2012 Blogs The threads are getting out of hand again. I have imposed a timeout on BBD until Monday.
Jan 25, 2012 Blogs 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Dec 20 - julie
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing -
Dec 6 - sexdollpartner
on
Established Fiction Ghostwriters Contribution To Fiction Writing
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (50)
I check this site many times a day. I hadn't noticed BBD making (m)any posts recently and am puzzled as to why a timeout has been imposed. What have I missed?
I enjoy BBD's unicorn manoeuvres and excessive self-esteem.
Bishops site...Bishops call.. End of
I've removed comments about BBD since he is unable to respond.
RoyFOMR
It sounds as if you have not been checking the topics on the Discussion board, such as the current
thread on "Evidence, confidence and uncertainties"
That makes sense Cassio. I hadn't.
Bish, if BBD didn't exist we'd have to make him up else our threads would be echo chambers. Although he is at times forthright in his comments he seldom sinks to the levels I've seen from the GPWayne's and ElliottCB's in the Guardian threads. Don't know what he's done, but expect he deserved his ban, just saying we'd miss him if he left us. Daft as he is.
I am with geronimo on this one. Much as I love this site and the comments as they are...I would not want to deny people the opportunity to try and make a case for catastrophic man-made global warming here. I do not subscribe to it but it is not an impossible scenario.
If only for the pleasure of seeing them shot down in flames.....
Talking offtopic
Did anyone see Bruce Forsyth give a lifetime achievment award to Johnathon Ross on the NTA awards
last night and he couldnt get the microphone to work Emarrasing or what
And Hillary Duvane the strange woman ?
From Dragons Den What did she look like
And she mucked it as well
It would be much more efficient to do the opposite, and ban each and every one who feeds the troll.
Catastrophic man-made global warming :
I think most of the users on this blog subscribe to the above.
I also think most of the users on this blog could abide by the following:
BBD on the other hand subscribes to this view:
and gets riled up when his view is opposed.
If you are not prepared to be persuaded to a different point of view in even the slightest respect and you find it difficult to temper your responses - then time out is a good mechanism.
http://uk.omg.yahoo.com/gossip/the-juice/ntas-worst-dressed-hilary-devey-dresses-mermaid-tulisa-225440406.html
This is really really offtopic
I thought her name was Duvane its Devey
I got to buy The Sun today
I don't mind BBD or anybody else writing anything on any site...I do mind subscribing to a post about X and getting email-flooded with comments about Y. So I support the move, also in light of the fact that BBD is seldom seen commenting about any post's topic in the appropriate comments area.
BBD is passionate but blinkered to the extent that if you make a valid scientific point (s)he can throw a tantrum.
The CO2 scam is a religion with followers and it rots the brain.
It's a tribute to Andrew's patience that he was tolerated for so long. See the 'Evidence...' discussion and the recent thread about 'What the Greens spend their money on'.
***VERY INTERSTING SHUKMAN PIECE***
David Shukman has done a "First Report on UK Climate Impact" here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16730834
What is ASTONISHING is just how net positive MMGW might be for the UK (acknowledging of course massive uncertainities re modelling regional impacts decades out etc. etc.). For example, up to 24,000 fewer deaths in winter each year and crop yields increased by up to 140%.
But look at how Mr. Shukman chooses to report this. First, natch, he gives us the bad news - negative impacts - a few extra summer deaths, water shortages and flood damage. The benefits are relegated to second place. Then, look at how he ranks the benefits compared to the disbenefits. The first disbenefit listed is excess summer deaths (estimated between 580 - 5900). The first benefit listed? Arctic ice melting will lead to shorter shipping routes to Asia. Whoop-de-do. The reduction in winter deaths is relegated to second place; obviously the prospect of between 3,900 and 24,000 fewer people dying in winter is much less important than shorter shipping routes to Asia.....
But also, let's ponder how those death figures would have been reported had they been reversed. Let's suppose up to 24,000 more people might die in summer in future compared to up to 5,900 fewer in winter. We might imagine that we would be implored to ACT NOW on CO2 because man made climate change would kill nearly almost 20,000 UK citizens (net) a year! But that's not the case. As we have always known, winter kills far more people than summer, and here, in black and white are finally some projections which solidly support that. If it ever happens, MMGW is estimated to save thousands of lives in the UK.
Should we not pause to think that, IF we succesfully decarbonise (at massive expense, currently unaffordable) and IF that reduces atmospheric CO2 levels and IF that prevents warming then we are sigining the death warrants nearly 20,000 Britons a year?
Please, Mr. Shukman, BBC, Guardian journos and "Environment Correspondents" everywhere, stop and THINK about what you're advocating. Your policies will cost us untold billions of pounds and will, if they work, kill many thousands of people in the UK. Every. Single. Year. This crap has got to stop. Now.
I don't mind BBD being dogmatic — I can be that way myself which is probably why our run-ins occasionally attract our host's attention(!) — what I dislike in anybody is when being offensive to those who disagree is their default position.
It appears to be compulsory once you have drunk the Kool-Aid! BBD used to be reasonable when he was only a lukewarmist and I know we still agree on the total futility of wind as a reliable electricity generator.
I had intended to ask him this morning if he would tell us what it is that disturbs him so much about global warming that makes him react as he does. It's as if our position on the subject is affecting his personal well-being in some way.
Since this seem to be a sort of 'off-topic' thread may I be allowed to post something slightly relevant which I half-heard on ClassicFM this morning. It's probably elsewhere as well but I haven't had time to search for it.
http://www.classicfm.co.uk/on-air/news-and-weather/uk-and-world/brits-warned-flooding-set-to-affect-millions/
It seems to me that as long as civil servants are allowed or even encouraged to churn out this sort of scaremongering, the global warming meme will be alive and well.
It also seems to me that this is doing nobody any favours even if it turns out to be accurate.
I'm reminded of a piece of philosophy I heard a few years ago which sounds a bit odd till you sit down and think about it for a minute:
"The man who thinks he knows for certain the winner of this year's Derby is wrong — even if that horse wins".
Sorry if that's a bit much for a wet Thursday!
Mike,
that Classic FM report is referring to the same cliamte impacts report that Shukman reports on (see my comment above yours). The Classic FM report is even more twisted than David Shukman's. It screeches Floods! Property Damage! Summer Deaths! And then, much later on, almost in passing says "and oh, there'll be 24,000 fewer cold related deaths" as if somehow, because it's a positive, it doesn't matter.
It's the media to blame here. They are addcited to AGW scare stories. Global Warming! Horror! Oh No!! The real attention-grabiing headline is buried in plain view, right in front of them. It's that stopping AGW (if it (a) exists and (b) is possible) will kill many thousands of people in the UK.
Thanks, AP
I hadn't seen your posting when I wrote mine.
As an ex-journo (albeit fairly low down the pecking order) I can tell you that the media have always been and will always be into scare stories. "Small earthquake in Japan: not many dead" doesn't sell a lot of newspapers. Politicians and PR people know this and its converse that a good headline can sell a bad story.
Remember:
If more than one newspaper has it in its first edition and the 10pm TV news also has it — it's a press release.
If it includes the words "Mr Politician will say ...." — it's a press release.
If it makes any mention of science or scientists or 'latest research' or 'figures show' — it's a press release.
And if it's a press release it has been spun to suit the individual/organisation that released it, and not necessarily in the most obvious way.
So this story might be intended to soften us up for a duty increase on fuel or simply to keep us scared (see H L Mencken's famous dictum) or to raise Caroline Spellman's profile in the party/government/parliament, "or any other reason why".
One thing is for sure: the scientific basis for this story will be at best thin and at worst non-existent.
I think it was the Shukman thread that sin-binned BBD. It became a classic example of thread disruption and domination.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/21/an-open-door.html?currentPage=3#comments
Mike,
thanks for your interesting insider's view.
Taking your "reporting by press release" point on board, I looked at Defra's website. Sure enough, they have a press release concerning this report, and sure enough, it majors on the negatives and relegates the positives to the bottom of the pile. It even ranks opening the Arctic sea route above 24,000 fewer winter deaths, as per Shukman's "report":
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2012/01/26/climate-change-risk-assessment/
So what we have is Shukman and Classic FM and presumably every other Old Media outlet just doing a cut and paste job of Defra's press release. No independent thought, no scrutiny, no scepticism, nothing. Cut, paste, bish bosh bash, done. Nobody stopping to think: "this report says if we just let it get warmer, thousands of lives will be saved and crop yields will be much better (resulting, presumably, in cheaper food and better nutrition). So why I am swallowing Defra's line that this is a bad thing?".
It's pathetic.
It seems science by press release prevails, Louise Gray doesn't seem to notice her highlights of the (same) press release conflict, more floods, more droughts, Water shortages could increase, Farmers could experience crop losses due to flooding!
I wonder if funding for this "study" came from the insurance industry...
"issues including insurance industry exposure to UK flood risks, the availability of insurance and provision of mortgages to at-risk properties."
who will no doubt use these "facts" to give them wiggle room.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9041350/Pros-and-cons-of-climate-change-for-Britain.html
the WaPo is even worse "UK ranks top risks posed by climate change, including to nation’s beloved fish and chips"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-ranks-top-risks-posed-by-climate-change-including-to-nations-beloved-fish-and-chips/2012/01/26/gIQAnnoRSQ_story.html
"a panel of independent analysts predicted as many as 5,900 more people could die as a result of hotter summers "
who are these "independent analysts" and who decided they were "independent" anyway?
Fact missed by all these "journalists" include the fact that fish stocks have been diminished by overfishing, and the ridiculous policies brought down on us by the EU whereby perfectly good fish are thrown back dead due to the quota system. Also that flood risks have increased due to the planning department allowing much more building on flood plains.
Risks have increased, sure, but it's not due to GW.
AP
And I was taught never ever to take a press release at face value.You're learning!
I only ever worked at local paper level but my 'tutor' taught me well.
Let me quote from Paul Vallely's blog:
It's not hard. Even a quick read will usually identify what it is they would rather not go into any great depth about.
A quick call: "Got your press release about ... Thanks. Now when you say .... what actually are you getting at?"
Takes five minutes: almost certainly pushes the story up the page because either they'll flannel or refuse to answer or let something slip. Whichever.
It was mentioned before by someone, but BBD should consider starting his own blog.
Preaching to a ready audience is one thing, cultivating your own, very much another.
Walking into a pub occasionally and shouting at the regulars that they are dumb is easy, Standing behind the bar as owner is another thing entirely.
I only offer this advice if you are really interested in interacting equally with people. Whether you stay, go or change, I stopped paying any attention to the content value of your posts many months ago.
Not to say my posts are any better, but then I feel I am aware of my limitations.
This story has made it in to the Climate Change sceptic blog alerts, BBD now has some infamy perhaps.
is this "will be approved by an editor" thing so selective that others posts arrive after my missing entry?
or more software blips?
lol
Pharos:
Thanks for the tip-off, causing me to revert to Sunday and take a look at what's happened since.
I've believed for a while that there's method in the madness of our three-letter acronym 'companion'. There was something he wanted to disrupt on the Shukman 'open door' thread (domination just being another way to disrupt, by infuriating others). That doesn't mean I know what it was BBD was concerned about. But for me the intentionality is a racing certainty.
On the general issue of whether it is ever right to feed trolls, I thought James Delingpole presented the exception that proves the rule beautifully in the typically robust Can trolls give you crabs?, also on Sunday. Thank God for James.
Richard - the debate about the funding of GWPF did not help matters - for which I was partly to blame for actively seeking to annoy BBD
pressed [return] too early.
There is a pattern.
Any mention of Soon and Baliunas must be debunked instantly by the cry of "oil shills".
It is vital to the future of the planet to know who donated £500k to GWPF.
Polar bears are dying out.
Just spotted this interesting Richard Feynman quotation from Judith Curry's latest Research Integrity Thread
'Integrity: Richard Feynman Cargo Cult Science
“I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong”
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. . . the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
Integrity failures:
■deliberately mischaracterizing inconvenient arguments
■inappropriate generalization
■misuse of facts and uncertainties
■hidden value judgments
■selectively omitting inconvenient results'
Rehaps DEFRA could initiate a study on human mortality statistics, and species extinctions/threat statistics, as so freely bandied around in relation to climate change, with due regard to the above.
Richard Drake
I've never seen BBD as a troll. ZDB — now there's a troll! Pops up; makes some irrelevant comment (if it's from Peter Walsh it cannot resist something about the Oregon Petition) and then disappears. Contributes nothing constructive to any thread it appears on.
BBD on the other hand is evidently very worried about climate change, to the extent that having been converted to the warmist side he dare not tolerate dissent.
Inevitably he then exhibits troll-like behaviour (as in matters relating to Willie Soon or any other successful producer of research that contradicts the paradigm) because he must close that line of discussion down.
Unfortunately for him, as with all trolls it only draws attention to the thing he wants to distract us from.
And which, as you say, Richard, can totally ruin a thread.
Mike Jackson -
I agree with your summation and would focus on one point. The trolling characteristics only appeared when BBD became an alarmist.. But this obscures that what really happened is that the trolling only appeared when BBD became dogmatic and closed-minded. I think it is just one aspect of being a true 'believer' - the AGW thing is just coincidental.
Mike, I used the word troll not because I thought it the best descriptor for BBD but because John Silver had used it, giving again the ancient admonition "Do no feed the trolls," as if that was the answer to everything. One of the big problems with DNFTT is that we often disagree who or what is a troll. Is it OK to feed a 'dogmatic and closed-minded believer' as long as he's not a troll? The moment we try to attain precision with DNFTT it falls to pieces.
My favourite expression of the dilemma is from the book of Proverbs.
That's clear isn't it. Problem solved. But here's the very next verse:
And there you have it. The Good Book itself faces both ways on the issue.
Quite right too. It can't be boiled down to simplistic rules. Be wise - or, failing that, at least be unpredictable!
looking back to the GWPF thread, I see that BH continued exactly the lines of argument that I had already used (admittedly without getting as provocative as i did)....and BBD continued his rant. He had the cool-off period coming.
Richard, You had it right the first time - it is the intent to disrupt and divert from the subject of the thread, rather than the intent to engage, that is the issue, and which defines the troll behaviour.
Chuckles, I agree that "intent to disrupt" is the defining characteristic of a troll. It's just difficult to prove. I've started to use the expression "Deep Troll" recently, for those pseudonymous characters where the intent is far from clear to everyone and deliberately so. Trying to attain consensus on such matters - that way madness lies. Better to let the Bishop decide, which indeed he has.
ooking back to the GWPF thread, I see that BH continued exactly the lines of argument that I had already used (admittedly without getting as provocative as i did)....and BBD continued his rant. He had the cool-off period coming.
Jan 26, 2012 at 7:07 PM | diogenes
I can't seem to find a current link to that thread.
Richard, I think that the issue of trolling or not trolling is indeed for the Bishop to decide, and I would certainly not wish to change places. :)
That said, I find that trolling is fairly easy to detect as it invariably starts with a provocative and often near ad-hom post only peripherally related to the actual topic of the thread, and often responding to an aside or passing reference in an earlier comment rather than the thread topic, which is always avoided
Hmmmm . . . an entire thread about why it was right to suspend a believer in CMMGW. Now I remember why I rarely bother visiting this precious hothouse.
Well Scots, he is our believer in CAGW (whatever it was that you wrote), so there is an entire thread going.
Scots Renewables immediately provides us with a copybook example of what a troll is?
Thanks, numpty.
scots is not a troll...but he is a useful idiot....the thought of never having to listen to his brand of idiocy again does not dismay me. perhaps he can make amends to all the people who die while implenting and maintaining windmills offshore
Bishop
up to you of course & as mainly a lurker can see your POV.
but i do think BBD input is valuable, we need all sides to give perspective (but he is going over the top lately).
wonder why?
BBD: It wouldn't be the same without you.
Congregation: Imagine being the only au courant sceptic on a warmist blog. You might get irascible too.
;-)
As much as BBD both frustrates and sometimes baffles me (Bul**hit Baffles Deniers :-), I do think it's important to give him/her the chance to argue the case for CAGW as he/she does seem to have researched the subject, even though his/her conclusions may be arguable and certainly different than my own. I would, therefore, not support a ban on this particular individual.
RKS...this thread
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/23/what-the-greens-spend-their-money-on.html
RKS...this thread
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/1/23/what-the-greens-spend-their-money-on.html
Jan 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM | diogenes
Thanks, now I remember.
A laugh a minute!
Apropos the DNFTT dilemma I rediscovered this great comment from Chief Hydrologist on my wiki today. The Chief, who everybody knows is Robert Ellison in real life but loves the Simpsons too much to forego the running gag, is talking to someone calling themselves Numbnut on Climate Etc last August:
He's Australian by the way. Depending on the culture of moderation (and Judy Curry has one of the most liberal or slackest that I know) rudeness may be appropriate and necessary. But, like Robert, nobody knows what the solution is.
Thank you that is very helpful for me, as a new site has been inundated with comments that seem OK at first glance but then get repeated with a slight change of wording. I have something concrete to go on now and will delete quite a lot of them.