Bishop Hill Going down?
The highlight of the day looks as though it's going to be the sentencing of the Heathrow 13 - the gang from Plane Stupid who thought it would be amusing to shut down Heathrow airport for several hours. Expectations are that a jail sentence beckons.
The usual suspects are protesting outside the Magistrates Court and there will no doubt be lots of spurious claims that these were "peaceful protestors", as if preventing people from going about their daily business were anything other than thuggery.
Massive support for #Heathrow13 here Willesden for sentencing. A travesty and a disgrace if they are jailed. pic.twitter.com/HmamLzvV4x
— Sian Berry (@sianberry) February 24, 2016
It's about time these people were dealt with.
Bishop Hill
As always, it's good to look at the protests from a wider angle.
Bit late but im here to support the #Heathrow13 pic.twitter.com/1NyEVM2DTY
— Isabel Bottoms (@IBottoms) February 24, 2016
Bishop Hill
Six week sentences, suspended for 12 months, plus community service plus fines.
I wonder if this will put any of them off.
Reader Comments (264)
Hmm, no. It's just been more than 10 years since I last read them. It would seem that you still haven't, though.
In what sense is this a debate? This is you threatening to complain to my employers. I'm not trying to stop you, so why are you suggested this is some kind of debate? What are we debating?
@ATTP:
"This is you threatening to complain to my employers"
I thought you were trying to remain anonymous ATTP. Hasn't your latest comment rather given the game away?
David S has got you well and truly skewered!
Ken/Phil,
Please keep on, it's so amusing to see the pair of you digging yourselves deeper and deeper into a very muddy hole. A few complaints and FOI requests to your employers and professional bodies should see the pair of you brought to book.
David Smith, I am sure aTTP can demonstrate the purity of the physics in Lewandowsky's work, along with Cook's 97% Consensus paper, and Mann's Hockey Stick. He gets very protective about them, but doesn't lower himself to the level of mere mortals and explain why.
This must be the Outreach work he is contracted to provide, though whether it was during his contracted hours he told Richard Tol to eff orfe, is not entirely clear. University standards may have changed since I graduated, so this could be normal banter and jolly japes for Professors these days.
"This remark basically paints every major civil rights movement as nothing more than thuggery, with thousands of noted civil rights activists being labeled as nothing more than criminals. It's almost as obscene as it is absurd."
No, it's the naked and ugly truth. "Civil rights movements" have always been, and are likely to continue being, excuses to display very UN-civilised behavior, with the object to arbitrarily water down legislations that had been carefully devised as a frame for a civilised society. You need not go further than look at the most obvious features of how people dressed, behaved, wrote, made music, etc. in the 18th and 19th century as compared to what happens today, and you will see that all that fighting for "more rights" has largely if not inclusively consisted of "more rights to display your lack of style and intelligence", "more rights to make a fool of yourself and others", "more rights to consume and waste public money", and most disgustingly "more rights to meddle with things that are none of your business instead of concentrating your wits and energy on mastering your own life".
Ken
However much you try to belittle it, there is a serious point being made here, and now not just by me, but by others. But then I suspect you know that, hence your evasiveness and knee-jerk abuse. Your contempt for the taxpayer is disappointing to say the least. Your cast-iron certainty that people can complain to your employer and you'll be fine just shows how far the standards of academia have fallen since I was at University. Your behaviour would certainly not have been tolerated then.
The point is this. Although you originally tried to remain anonymous, we now know that you are Ken Rice, Professor of Computational Astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy, an institute within the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and holder of the Personal Chair of Computational Astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh. As such you hold positions of rare privilege. With privilege comes responsibility.
I would ask you to reflect on your behaviour on this discussion thread (and on other discussion threads on this website and on other websites come to that) and ask yourself if your behaviour is really consistent with the exalted positions you hold. Do you really believe you are setting a good example to your students? Do you really believe your behaviour reflects well on you? Do you really believe your behaviour reflects well on your employers? Do you really believe it is appropriate for you to spend so much of your work time indulging your personal grievances and beliefs on the internet?
So far as I can see, nobody here is trying to stifle your freedom of expression. As others have said, say what you like where you like, but not when you like. You shouldn't spend your time at work not working. And it might help if you could try to be a bit more polite, though that of course is up to you.
I fear I already know how you will respond, may I paraphrase your own words? Surprise me and turn out to be more thoughtful than I at first thought.
@Mark Hodgson
You've said it better than me Mark.
Ken might think his employers will let him waste a lot of the day ranting on his blog, but if he spent all that time working on his real job instead, he might have published more papers and made a greater contribution to the field of Physics.
Right, it's almost 9am. I'll stop commenting now as I've got to start working at my day job.
Mark,
Serious question. Do you think you don't need to reflect on yours? Not only are you a regular on a site that largely promores science denial, which means I care little for your opinion, but both you and David appear to think you're in some kind of special place with respect to how you can judge others. The comments about taxpayers are ridiculous. Do you really believe that as a taxpayer you have some kind of right to insist on how another person does their job? That wouldn't be true even if you were referring to a public servant, which I am not. Neither you nor David appear to have a clue about how universities work in the UK, about the job conditions for an academic, or anything else. Based on this exchange, I think you've illustrated Brandon's point, that this site is full of people with authoritarian tendencies who think they can excuse their own poor behaviour, while finding any excuse to stiffle the views of those with whom they disagree. I find it utterly bizarre. Reflect on that.
No, I don't. I simply write a blog and sometimes comment on others. Simple. You can consider the possibility that the manner in which I engage here largely reflects my general opinion of the site and the commenters. You're welcome to behave in a manner that might change that opinion, but infantile exchanges like this, isn't going to do it.
Oh no, it's 9:05.
Ken
"You can consider the possibility that the manner in which I engage here largely reflects my general opinion of the site and the commenters." Very insightful as the way you "think". Thank you.
You're welcome to behave in a manner that might change that opinion, but infantile exchanges like this, isn't going to do it." Pot, kettle, black, anyone?
Oh well, you can't say I haven't tried.
Feel free to keep on digging that hole.
I'm not wasting any more of my time on you. I have better things to do, but at least I've made the point, so I'm happy, even if you aren't.
ATTP unintentionally describes himself
" while finding any excuse to stiffle the views of those with whom they disagree. I find it utterly bizarre. Reflect on that."
A huge brass neck with no sense of irony whatever!
Mark,
If you were serious, you could always encourage the site - and the commenters - to be less abusive and insulting towards academics who do comment here (and maybe to academics in general), or do you think that you get to somehow define how academics should behave while ignoring the poor behaviour of others? Try thinking about this for a moment. Just this once.
Bryan,
Me not posting your comment on my blog is not stiffling your views. You're free to write and moderate your own blog.
ATTP
"less abusive and insulting towards academics who do comment here (and maybe to academics in general)"
I assume your definition of an academic is one who gains a university qualification and then decides not to get a real job?
It might be fun to refer to aTTP with his full title, name and university every time we reply to him.
Get him up there is the google references stakes. Academics love that sort of thing.
So 'Professor Ken Rice, Edinburgh' from now on. All the time.
you could always encourage the site - and the commenters - to be less abusive and insulting towards academics who do comment here (and maybe to academics in general)
I assume your definition of an academic is one who gains a university qualification and then decides not to get a real job?
I have a mental image of ATTP sharing this with a colleague, Professor Peter Higgs, say.
Should raise a wry smile.
A bit disappointed to find ATTP is a Professor of Computational Astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy, an institute within the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and holder of the Personal Chair of Computational Astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh.
I was hoping it was Jeremy Kyle.
Phil Clarke, does Professor Higgs tell people to F off?
You seemed to have stirred up a bit of Non Violent Direct Action. Do you have a problem with Non Violent Direct Action all of a sudden?
Hey Ken (Professor of Computational Astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy, an institute within the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and holder of the Personal Chair of Computational Astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh.)
Do you take a spade to work every day? Because you're adept at repeatedly digging yourself into a very large hole. You mentioned that you were thinking of posting a piece on your blog about our exchange. Please do, I'd love to read it and add my comments. However, please make sure you only put the post together after you've left work.
Oh, a bit of advice Ken (Professor of Computational Astrophysics at the Institute for Astronomy, an institute within the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and holder of the Personal Chair of Computational Astrophysics at the University of Edinburgh.):
I'm posting this comment during my lunch break. I'll be back working hard at 2pm again - you should try it sometime.
It's good to see Phil C commenting again. Perhaps he's finished his socialist champers and wants to carry on telling everybody how 13 people getting criminal records is a cause for celebration.
David,
That you feel comfortable judging someone's work ethic on the basis of blog comments and blog posts is one reason why I find it hard to take the apparent skepticism here very seriously. It mostly seems consistent with just making stuff up.
I moderate heavily, expect basic common decency and don't really put up with nonsense. I'm not convinced you'd be capable of satisfying the general requirements.
If you'd actually done some homework you might have discovered the concept of academic freedom and that academics tyically don't have fixed work hours. However, please feel free to complain to whoever you feel you should complain to. Make sure to include "I'm a taxpayer and demand..."
Sorry to interrupt this amusing spat
The judge's sentencing remarks are online (pdf) - h/t The Magistrate's Blog
apologies if this is a repost
The judge seems to feel that disrupting an airport is OK but disrupting the lives of the protesters is a no-no ^.^
Phil Clarke, does Professor Higgs tell people to F off?
Only when they deserve it.
Professor Ken Rice, Edinburgh
'I moderate heavily, expect basic common decency and don't really put up with nonsense. '
Fair enough, but on that basis I think the Bish should delete most of your posts (and probably all of PCs).
It's disappointing to see this level of behaviour from a senior academic.
As well as commenting prolifically here, Professor Sir Ken Rice FRS has been doing the same at cliscep.
He's also been sending his comments - accusing me of being "appalling" and "despicable" - directly to my university email address. I have posted them there, in the public interest.
Paul,
I appreciate that calling your behaviour appalling and despicable isn't very nice, but it's hard to know how else to describe it. You could always try behaving in a way that wasn't so appalling and despicable. Have you at least considered that?
Phil Clarke, so if you think Richard Tol deserved to be told to f off by Ken Rice, are people entitled to decide that perpetrators of Non Violent Direct Action should be jailed?
Double standards? Or do you judge and decide when something constitutes double standards and/or hypocrisy?
Paul,
Steady on: this guy isn't an FRS.
Capell
I've taken to referring to Rice as the Seer of Blackford Hill. Like the Oracle at Delphi his pronouncements are abstruse, gnomic, frequently irrelevant and often wrong. He adds his own gloss by being totally lacking in self-awareness (at least from where I'm sitting) and usually offensive.
Apart from that he's probably a great guy who no doubt loves his wife and kids and dog and might be worth buying a pint for after a rugby match. He's just hung up on this bizarre idea that people who don't fall down and adore his ideas about global warming are somehow ignorant or anti-science. When in the fullness of time the temperature downturn starts — and it will — he's going to get a very nasty shock and I hope we'll all be there for him.
Real pathos there Mike ^.^
Mike,
He seems to have the attitude that because he's got a physics Ph.D. he can get down and dirty in the climate change blogosphere and trounce everyone there because they don't have his scientific acumen. And then we'll all be amazed at his scientific wisdom and fall down in worship.
Trouble is, when he comes here he seems to be unaware that he's no longer the only physics/maths/chemistry Ph.D. on the scene.
Capekll
He's not even the only crazy man sitting in a rocking-chair in hisa attic while holding his grandma's skeleton.
You certainly do Ken. The research that I've informed you that I'm carrying out shows that you seem to spend a sizeable portion of your working day posting on your blog, holding long and protracted conversations with people who comment at your blog, and also commenting on other people's blogs. It's a wonder you get any physics research done at all.
I seriously doubt you take your work home with you, because your frequency of blog activity gets even heavier in the evenings and at the weekends.
Phil C, you've yet to tell me why people being given criminal records is a victory for them. Perhaps you're too busy glugging the vegan vino to be able to respond. Mind you, you might just be stuck in the queue at Waitrose with all the other champagne socialists as they whinge about how awful western consumerism is, whilst carrying a basket of parma ham, truffle oil, and manuka honey. I should know, I see enough of them when I'm in my local waitrose buying my pint of milk, box of frosties, and a copy of the Telegraph.
David Smith
Dr Rice certainly seems to be obsessed, which tends to make me suspicious that there is an underlying deep ecology viewpoint.
Perhaps it's simply this
"But he thinks the proto-planet in HL Tau formed relatively quickly when a region of the disc collapsed to form a self-contained structure. This could occur because of gravitational instability in the disc itself. Dr Rice said his COMPUTER SIMULATIONS were such a good fit for the observations that it seemed the mechanism might really operate in nature.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7326318.stm
Find out more from "Climate Change is Real and Important", by well know climate scientists, Josh Halpern, Greg Laden, Collin Maessen, Miriam O'Brian. Ken Rice and Michael Tobis. It even includes the wisdom of Stephan Lewandowsky, and John Cook.
The Big Green Blob Cheque book?
David,
But I do, which is kind of the key point.
Okay, now you're starting to sound like a stalker.
Esmiff:
Now we know, Ken uses computer models. We've established he doesn't really do empirical evidence.
Ken Rice:
No Ken, the key point is that you could be doing more research if you weren't faffing around with your unhinged thoughts on your blog.I'm not stalking you, I'm just doing my research. That's something you should be doing more of when you're at work.
Anyway, this getting too easy Ken. You're far too much of a walkover when it comes to having a debate with you. As I say, expect to get an email from me to you and your employer in a month's time.
Yours, cranking up the heating, and guzzling the gas,
David
Capell
Ken Rice (AKA aTTP) may be a highly specialised expert in a branch of astronomy but may have very hazy memories of the fundamentals of hid undergraduate science.
The branch of science most required for understanding the climate is called thermodynamics and will be covered in the first two years of a degree level course in physics.
I have witnessed many highly specialised experts making very elementary blunders when they make impromptu remarks on basic science outside their speciality.
I think that this explains KR's "heavy moderation" and his refusal to display my post.
My post simply gave a link to a paper showing that desk top experiments to illustrate the atmospheric greenhouse effect will fail because the radiative effects are too small for small dimensions.
The paper then repeated a popular mistaken version of the experiment with the added control of using Argon.
To complete the analysis the authors did a radiative effect calculation.
The authors make it clear that they believe in the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
So then to stay within his 'comfort zone' KR will only allow allow 'verified posters' on his site who echo his views.
Perhaps this is the best course of action for Ken unless he is really up to speed on fundamental thermodynamics.
If a Professor makes elementary blunders in a blog it can impact his career adversely.
In other words KR and Professor Stephan Lewandowsky might know less than the average blogger about climate science.
David,
I wasn't exactly expecting you to admit it.
I don't think you really understand how unversities work, or what is typical for an acacemic. You could always read this if you wanted to try and understand it a bit better. Don't let it stop you from your crusade against zealotry (for which you should read - views with which you disagree).
Blocking a major airport for several hours is damaging, and a form of thuggery. Non-violent protest carries moral authority only under restricted conditions, which is why it is a hard act to follow. If there is any form of 'release', the purpose of the protest is lost, the energy is dissipated.
Brandon's politics fall in the Occuy/Bernie Sanders camp so it is little surprise he does not think much of blocking airports and troubling innocents.
Ken, superb - I've just got myself a post on ATTP! Surely I am blessed.
Anyway, down to business. From your post, I quote:
So we're in agreement Ken - you spend too much time on your blog when you could be doing other things: your job.
A further quote from your post:
Well, here's a suggestion Ken: only spend time commenting on blogs outside of office hours. It'll save you all the embarrassment at work.
Ken,
I've popped by your blog and posted a comment underneath your post all about me.
Please, please, please let my comment through moderation. I can't wait to deal with the spittle-flecked outrage from your alarmist gang!
David, congratulations for getting under the skin of ATTP. However, I don't think people should get into trouble for blogging in office hours, or freely expressing their views.
ATTP contradicts himself several times over: he says he should be "free to question established ideas and express controversial views" when all he does is repeat 'established ideas' and express orthodox views on the climate, and actively prevents those who question established ideas and express controversial views.
In other words he doesn't allow others exactly the thing he says he should be allowed to do.
Worth remembering at this point is how ATTP got into the climate debate. He directly transitioned from reading Lewandowsky 'free marketers are conspiracists' Moon Hoax paper, which he admitted, meshed well with his dismal view of free markets. This is a gigantic political clash by proxy for him, and little to do with science communication or science.
David, congratulations for getting under the skin of ATTP. However, I don't think people should get into trouble for blogging in office hours, or freely expressing their views.
Shub,
if you go over to look at the post attp has done about me on his blog and keep following the comment thread, you'll eventually be pleased.
shub & David Smith, worth also remembering there isn't much free extra money in modelling planets in outer space, but there is a lot available supporting failed earth climate models.
Most Universities encourage free enterprise if they get a slice and favourable publicity in the politically correct circles
Right, I've finished over at Attp, as it's my dinner time.
It started to descend into the surreal, with attp and commenters claiming that statements such as "the arctic will be ice free by 2012" or "UK winters will be drier and colder" weren't predictions. If they aren't predictions I'd love to know what they are!
Anyway, to finish up, I'l copy my last comment I made at attp for everyone here to read:
"I've started to keep a log of all the posts and comments you make over at ATTP. It's amazing how much of the working day you spend blogging about eco-junk. In about a month's time your Uni is going to be receiving an email detailing how much time you waste on your blog. Don't worry, I'll copy you in to the email."
"Sorry Ken, we all know who you are. Anyway, as I say, I'll hand over my info to your Uni. It's up to them what they do with it. Even if they tell me to shove it I know I haven't sat idly by. "
"I'm not stalking you, I'm just doing my research. That's something you should be doing more of when you're at work."
"I had no intention of reporting attp to his employers. "
What will your intention be tomorrow?
David Smith,
I think you're being extraordinary generous. Science is completely dependent on humble curiosity, where being proved wrong can be as exciting as having your pet theory confirmed, backed by absolutely scrupulous honesty.
Aggressively smug know-alls never contribute much to the pursuit of knowledge.
Thankfully Rice's chosen area of 'study', in those fleeting moments when he's not making a pompous arse of himself on both his own and other peoples' blogs, will make negligible impact on the welfare of humanity whether he makes it all up as he goes along or otherwise. Accretion discs? Not that many of us actually give one, quite frankly.
To keep laughing at alarmists like you Phil. You really are comedy gold.
As soon as I told Ken that I'd be telling his employers about how much time he wastes he went nuts and even put a post together about it. It was all great fun watching Ken try and justify the time he wastes.
It was also great fun watching his gang scream ,"that's not a predicition, you idiot!!!" when I reminded them of a few busted predictions that people from the warmunist world had made.
A Moncktonian threat then.
"Let’s discuss all those failed predictions that got everyone in such a lather that goverments went and spent trillions on a non-problem:
"– children in the UK still “knowing what snow is”, despite what Dr Viner predicted"
You guys love this one don't you? A filler piece in a newspaper from 15 years ago written by a business journalist. A woeful piece of science journalism. You might want to revisit it and look at what was said by Viner - those would be the words in quotes - and what was added by the journalist. You might like to compare it to what the primary sources (IPCC, the Met Office, the literature) were saying at the same time.
"– the multitude of predictions telling us that Arctic sea ice would be completely gone by now, "
Mainstream predictions are for an ice free summer Arctic sometime around 2030-2050, a lot earlier than was predicted just a few years ago. Are you seriously suggesting that the observed decrease is not a cause for concern?
"– Flannery convincing the Aussie Govt to blow money on desalination plants because of his predictions about permanent drought, only for it to promptly rain."
Don't know much background on this - link?
"– The Antarctic actually gaining sea ice, rather than losing it as the models predicted. There was then an unashamed volte-face, with all the climate scientists announcing that in fact, a warming world meant MORE ice, not less."
IPCC : "Most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with large inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations. {9.4}"
Personally, I think observations will align themselves with projections in 5-10 years or so, in the meantime, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"– The Met Office’s Julia Slingo telling us in 2012 that UK winters would be drier and colder because of global warming. However, when the last couple of winters were warm and wet she claimed it was linked to global warming."
Again, a link would be good, I am fairly sure Professor Dame Sligo knows the difference between weather and climate.
"I suppose Hansen’s ABC stuff shouldn’t be called scenarios, but predictions. I presume he used a model to come up with his ABC predictions, or did he just pull them out of thin air? Those alarmist predictions are what caused a load of people to panic – pity it didn’t come true."
Hansen's 1988 predictions, (projections, whatever) were made with a climate model that had a sensitivity around 4C, the modern best estimate is nearer 3C. His mid-range scenario B had a value of 0.99C for the global anomaly in 2015. NASA just posted a value of 1.04C for January 2016. Not too shabby.
"Phil told everyone over at BH that he was opening a bottle of vegan champagne to celebrate the fact that 13 rather mis-guided young people had got themselves criminal records for breaking into an airport and causing no end of trouble."
Pure distortion. I was marking the fact that the protestors had gained a lot of publicity without acquiring jailtime, contrary to gleeful predictions by the likes of BH and Delingpole.
PC, 8:07: Stop digging, you're just making a fool of yourself.
Phil,
Please, don't make excuses for David Viner. He said something really foolish and we won't ever let him forget it :)
However, our CO2 emissions have been following the scenario A numbers, and our temp anomaly is nowhere near that, even if you use the ridiculously adjusted NASA 'data'. I've seen all sorts of warmists try to make excuses for the failure of Hansen's predictions. Fact is, he was wrong.
Goog god, it's almost too easy to wind you up