Bishop Hill Toby's eyes have been opened
May 9, 2019 Media The journalist Toby Young has been looking at yesterday’s rather lurid story about biodiversity, and the claim that a million species are going to be lost if we don’t become communists. Or something like that.
Young appears to have done some brief research and has shown that the underlying estimates, sponsored by the UN, are bunk. The authors of the report have taken some data from official “Red List” of threatened species and extrapolated it in precisely the way that the Red List authors say should not be done. They have then published a somewhat hysterical press release, but not the underlying report.
This is a familiar story for anyone who is interested in environmentalism, but Young has been rather taken aback, both at the shoddiness of the research and the way the press have dealt with it. After all, if some brief research has revealed to Young (with a degree in PPE) that some scientific research is nonsense, surely the massed ranks of science journalists would have been expected to find the problems too? But of course, as eco-nerds know, science journalists see themselves as part of the green movement and asking questions is therefore frowned upon. The science-page news articles are declarations of faith, not inquiries, or debates. So with the extinctions story, just as with everything else, science journalists have reprinted the press release or, more daringly, rewritten it in their own words. Nobody, but nobody, asks any questions.
To some extent, the problem can be blamed on a lack of scientific literacy among the press corps. Most people on the science-environment beat are humanities graduates, and would struggle to question the press releases that cross their desks, although Young of course has shown that an inquiring mind can take you a long way. But inquiring minds are not common among science journalists, most of whom are comfortable in their faith.
Sensible people should discount all science headlines, particularly the lurid ones about “new research” (today’s one is about future increases in floods in the UK). Your best bet is to find some contrarians on social media and see what they have to say. The wild headlines are usually shot down on the same day by some awkward customer, but not before the mainstream media have done their damage.
With that in mind, let us return briefly to today’s impending crisis and note that climate models are really, really bad at simulating current rainfall patterns (the IPCC says their ability in this area is “modest”), and thus are no more useful for predicting future floods than tea-leaf gazing. No journalist will mention this awkward fact, but at least Toby Young will not be surprised this time.
Reader Comments (30)
Climate Alarmist always try to destroy Skeptic claims that extra made made CO2 is plant food and great for mother nature . In which case why is the government announcing it’s going to plant 17% more trees in the UK to achieve its Carbon Net Zero. Why plant more trees when OPEC the M25 Motorway and Heathrow Airport are doing its Alan Tichmarch gardening Forestry job for it already.
Are trees now growing quicker and bigger.We might have to change the name from Planet Earth to Planet Endor. .
It all points to the religious nature of environmental hysteria. As with your average religion, blind faith is an important part of adherence. To question the dogma is as big a sin as a 'real' sin. Being repentant is as valuable as not 'sinning' in the first place. Which, frankly, is weird. As a casual atheist (Dawkins and gang are upset by religion with a religious fervour I can't be bothered with) I can't understand the excuses that religions dress themselves in. To me there is right and wrong. You might argue what is right or wrong but you can't say one thing and do another and still claim the moral high ground.
I really don't mind those who say they believe in CAGW but then FFS GET ON WITH IT! Don't waste our time by trying to convince me before you do what you think is right. The climate (assuming CO2 affects it) won't respond favourably to good intentions. Climate heaven cannot be achieved by being repentant. You can't have a deathbed CO2 conversion.
Surely if you cared about CO2 and the environment, you'd want the best science, not the best religion to preserve it? Surely you'd do the most effective things, not those that are most pleasing to the clerics? How many creatures will become extinct because they have been hacked to death, while environmentalists fret about my CO2?
....
"No doubt our ‘way of life’ does pose a threat to some species, even if it’s not as many as the climate change alarmists say. But it’s a pity the BBC decided not to interrogate these claims and just regurgitated a press release."
....
No, Toby - it's not a "pity". It is the actual story - why is the the BBC unswervingly serving a propaganda machine? And why are no real journalists pursuing it?
The 1 million number did seem awfully big, frightfully round and conveniently simple to condense into scary headlines for the targeted audiences via the UN.
If there is no list of species, is there a list of expert compilers of the list, and sufficient detail to compile a Top Ten of dubious experts employed by the UN?
My own May7th Cliscep comment
\\ BBC making extraordinary claim
Yawn, I’m not even goy to waste my time reading their BS
..cos #1 Truth will out in time
Is it PR or is it news ?
Is their deception by omission ?
The title says “one million species”
.. it omits to say out of how many million s
Therefore it omits important context
and since species may run into millions and maybe a trillion
I’m not worried.
I suspect as usual it’s based on extrapolating , cherry picked data by putting it into dodgy computer models and throwing away half of it. //
The MO TY mentions is the same MO
that WWF to make its extraordinary claim
..that 40% of animals have been lost
They didn't count plentiful species coos they were only looking at species already on the endangered list
.. therefore they missed all the species where numbers had greatly increased.
Speccie comments should be here
but I don't see any yet
Not a great fan of soft hands Toby.
It's every day. It's every single bloody day. You tune into Classic FM, hoping for a nice sensible wake-up, and there's Moira. Stewart with . Her new. Newreading style which. Involves completely. Illogical pauses and. It's yet another ecodoom story.
Hi Charlie your name was invoked yesterday
After Look North allowed farmers to say neonics are not bee poison
@Tom pointed to your FW article on the topic
That link I gace to Speccie comments doesn't work
Maybe something to do with the way the article is dated May 11th
Say that again, Stewgreen - explain what happened?
Charlie Flindt
It's like the telephone.... a useful part of life has been re-purposed to become an instrument of torment. My latest car has a top of the range aftermarket radio thingy - but the "live broadcast" messages relayed via the device are so uniformly effing awful that I've had to resort to streaming internet content (via a mildly hacked "all you can eat" data phone) to swerve the blizzard of propaganda that suffuses the legacy channels....
Charlie Flindt
It's like the telephone.... a useful part of life has been re-purposed to become an instrument of torment. My latest car has a top of the range aftermarket radio thingy - but the "live broadcast" messages relayed via the device are so uniformly effing awful that I've had to resort to streaming internet content (via a mildly hacked "all you can eat" data phone) to swerve the blizzard of propaganda that suffuses the legacy channels....
@Charlie see Jono's twitter thread
and his ones after
.. this thread has a link to the BBC video
Hmmmm. Young says that
I checked and quelle suprise, he's wrong. There are five possible criteria for a 'vulnerable' declaration, a species is added to the list if it meets any of the five, which cover geographic range and population reduction, absolute numbers and finally, estimated probability of extinction. Young has not done the most basic of journalistic homework. (His arithmetic is also wrong, 25% of 8.7 million is not 1 million, the actual SPM is more nuanced and considers other lines of evidence.)
Your best bet is to find some contrarians on social media and see what they have to say.
Your best bet is to stop getting your 'science' from The Spectator.
Can't view it, Stewgreen. I do hope no-one said that neonics aren't bee poison - they are insecticdes after all, hence the enthusiasm for using them as seed dressing, where they target specifically the CSFB and nothing else.
"Your best bet is to stop getting your 'science' from The Spectator."
May 10, 2019 at 5:02 PM | Phil Clarke
As you believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, can you explain why?
As you believe in Mann's Hockey Stick, can you explain why?
As these twenty year old studies are now canonical, long accepted, and muliply-confirmed, I would suggest the onus is on you to explain why you do not.
I know you guys are not wikipedia's greatest fans, and yet...
I am just curious, at what point exactly does the conspiracy/hoax theory break down?
May 12, 2019 at 2:38 AM | Phil Clarke
So much fails with Mann's Stick. Now it is splitting US Democrats as the brighter ones realise that Trump is right.
For many years now I have questioned why the BBC needs to have a "Science and Environment" page.
They could just as legitimately call it the "Science and Business" page. Or, better still, just the "Science" page. That might of course mean downgrading the job descriptions of most of the authors (not"journalists") appearing on the page. Unfortunately, I suspect most of their superiors don't actually understand why it might matter, and are in any case too invested into the politics and economics of global warming hysteria.
Our host writes: "Sensible people should discount all science headlines, particularly the lurid ones about “new research” (today’s one is about future increases in floods in the UK). Your best bet is to find some contrarians on social media and see what they have to say. The wild headlines are usually shot down on the same day by some awkward customer, but not before the mainstream media have done their damage."
One can find contrarians on social media attempting to challenge any "new research" or almost any factual published information. Humans are extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias, remembering only what they read that agrees with their preconceptions and failing to assimilate anything that disagrees with their strong beliefs. PEOPLE FOLLOWING OUT HOST'S ADVICE WILL NEVER LEARN ANYTHING NEW THAT CONFLICTS WITH AN EXISTING BELIEF.
According to experts on human cognition, the only way an average human can learn something that contradicts important beliefs is to hear a vigorous debate where both sides are allowed to present their most persuasive data and best counterarguments. Often such debates are slowly carried out over the years in the scientific literature. Mann's sensational claims that the 1990's were the warmest decade in the last millennium were never unambiguously endorsed by the IPCC, they judged it merely "likely" and IIRC "more likely than not" in AR5.
The take-home lesson is that one should not rush to a personal judgment about a subject based on a single scientific publication or even a string of publications from a single group. Due to fear of a disease we don't understand, many people now believe that vaccines cause autism. Due to re-inforcement from social media, they are completely incapable of assimilating the fact that the original research on this subject was proven fraudulent.
If you are not willing to personally review and evaluate the experiments in a paper that made the headline, withhold judgment. Don't become personally invested in any conclusion based on limited evidence. If anything really important has been discovered, it will be followed up by others. If the results remain controversial and personally important to you, wait until some kind of debate is available.
One of three sets of photographs of the 1919 eclipse failed to agree with the general theory of relativity. Waiting for the 1922 eclipse to reach a personal conclusion would have been prudent. Cold fusion was a bust. The talk linked below discusses false "discoveries" in particle physics.
http://physics.rockefeller.edu/luc/talks/HEPDiscoveries.pdf
Phil, Wikipedia, faulty as it is, particularly in anything controversial, is far better than the stoat. Connelley, I'm sollyly, fails.
=====================
Paleo has a clear lesson, but nevermind warming always increases biodiversity, and cooling always decreases it.
====================================
This is the BEST video anywhere relating to the correct atmospheric physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT1iFhGKOI8&feature=youtu.be
Joe Postmas response to Roy Spencer .
The most important consequence of this oversimplified mathematical construct is the reversal of input output dynamics with a devastating cascade of errors as a result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y9wV4cciXA
Nature needs help. We need to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it away. The oceans are turning more acidic due to too much CO2 and we want to put more CO2 in there? It’s a controversial idea, but there are some who think that it makes logical sense. To be clear, this is not a solution to climate change, but perhaps a way to avoid the worst of it. occupied home staging las vegas
Good Story.............thanks for sharing this story.
Wasn't Toby young the chap who said there would categorically not be a second wave of Covid in the UK.
And the one who supports Eugenics?