Big questions

Climate change is a big question. No, make that a huge question. A multi-trillion dollar question. The biggest question of our times and probably of any other times too. We are being asked to make devastating changes to our economies and to the way we live. Lives will be disrupted and ruined,  but we are told that this we have to grit our teeth and deal with it. It's a necessary cost to bear in order to save the planet and a still worse fate.

This being the case, here are a couple of questions:

1. Shouldn't all the scientific research be replicated? I don't mean peer-reviewed - that's just a way of trying to cut out non-original work and any scientific "howlers". What I mean is take the raw data and turn it into the same results as were published in the original papers. This isn't done now because the climate scientists often don't archive their data, and don't release it when asked.

2. We should be able to see all the comments made by IPCC the reviewers of the IPCC reports so that the public can assess the firmness of the consensus. Complete agreement between 2500 scientists is simply not credible.

That's not too much to ask, is it? (Actually I'm sure it is).

Rampant

Guido points us to the comments of LibDem peer Lord Oakshott who has discovered that one in ten Labour peers have jobs on quangos, but only one in 25 LibDems and one in 100 Conservatives. Lord O calls it "creeping corruption".

I don't know. Perhaps he's become desensitised to sleaze by spending all that time in Westminster. From where I stand it doesn't look as if it's creeping any longer.

At the same time as this story breaks, Dizzy reports that a PR company with a Labour insider on its board has received £1.5m of public money. We might also care to remember the story about Labour supporters being put into positions of power at the University of Dundee which I blogged on yesterday, not to mention cash for peerages.

No, the word is "rampant". 

Unfortunately it's only going to get worse, as Labour insiders line their pockets as far as they can before they are removed from power. 

Craig Murray, NuLab and the University of Dundee

Craig Murray is apparently now the rector of Dundee University. Excellent. Couldn't have picked a better man. Someone who knows right from wrong and isn't afraid to say so.

His first meeting of the University Court seems to have been lots of fun. The whole thing seems to be run by NuLab cronies who are trying to run it for the benefit of Jack McConnell. Craig is, quite naturally, on the warpath. This is going to be fun.

Read the whole thing. 

Fewer hurricanes now, lower temperatures to come

Leading expert on hurricanes, Bill Gray, points out that a warmer earth makes it more difficult for hurricanes to form. He is too polite to point out that Al Gore is talking a load of testicles when he says the opposite. I'm not though.

Gray also says that he expects global temperatures to start falling soon. 

How to create global warming

Climate Audit takes a look at some of the Australian weather station data that has been used by several authors to support the case for anthropogenic global warming.

He shows, rather successfully, that if you adjust the data at the start of the series - the 19th century- downwards, you can create a warming trend out of nothing! A set of data with no clear trend....

 

is magically transformed into this....

 

And if this isn't to your taste, it's possible to produce the same effect by careful choice of your start and end point.

Mind you, the authors have excellent reasons for tweaking the numbers:

For example, cows and goats have been known to mill around the instruments at country stations, and in one case an eagle destroyed a Stevenson screen by flying into the side of it. A dingo once stole a thermometer which had been read following the slaughter of farm animals (the observer was advised to wash his hands in future), and crows also like to make off with these shiny objects. An irate wife, tired of being woken every morning as her husband made the 3am observations, took to the valuable screen with an axe, turning it into a pile of firewood. 

Amazing. 

It is startling to think that we are making multi-trillion dollar decisions on the back of science of this "quality". Do you think anyone will notice?

Carbon trading

The man from Whitehall, we have been told, really does know better - not a conjecture that's borne out by this story in the FT.

The government department spearheading Britain's effort to reduce carbon output is driving companies and individuals towards paying for emissions cuts that do not take place.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is also about to publish final details of a trading scheme that was set up to encourage companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions which led to only four taking £111m of taxpayers' money between them.

And this isn't the half of it. The FT is mistaken when they say:

Defra is also set to publish soon details of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which was set up with £215m government funding to encourage 34 participating companies to cut their emissions.

This is not actually true. At the time the grant was made from the Treasury, DEFRA were telling them that they expected the financial benefits of the scheme to outweigh the costs for between 420 and 3100 firms. The clear implication was that this was the number of participants they expected. So the £215m was to encourage between 420 and 3100 companies to take part, not 34.

When DEFRA got round to actually asking companies if they wanted to be involved they got the grand total of 30 (!) responses from the 5000 questionnaires they sent. Now, confronted by this problem, you or I would scale back our demands for cash from the Treasury proportionately. A memo would have been sent saying that we now only needed £215m x 34/3100 = £2.3m, a saving of some £212m.

But in the crazy world of Whitehall, this isn't the way things happen.  The money was simply divided between those who bothered to apply, with the amazing payouts to the favoured four outlined above as the result.

And, as is traditional in the mandarinate, Brian Bender, the civil servant in charge of the DEFRA, came out of it all with a knighthood and the top job at the DTI. It's not clear if this reward was for the £212m he wasted on the carbon trading scheme or for his great triumph, the farm payments fiasco, which clocked in at an impressive £500m. If it takes the best part of a billion to get a K, it makes you wonder how much Robin Butler threw away to get his P.

The man from Whitehall really does know bugger all about anything. Except perhaps blowing money and building personal empires.

Disguises

The Pub Philosopher notes that new guidelines will permit moslem women to appear in court in disguise.

Update:

A little research throws up this judgement from the Court of Appeal, wherein we note that, in the UK, there is no right to confront ones accusers face to face. This is true both under national law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the ECHR, however, the accused has the right

to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.

This appears to mean that all defence witnesses could appear in disguise too. While this would even up the playing field, I'm not sure that having all the lawyers and witnesses wearing tatty sacks over their heads is going to add a great deal either to the dignity or the efficacy of the trial.

Sheryl Crow

Sheryl Crow is going to save the planet on our behalf.

I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

"Maybe it was a two sheet day after all". 

A question for Liberal Democrats

If, when faced with an oppressive law introduced by the UK government, the correct response is to get rid of said government, why is the correct response to oppressive EU directives to try to persuade them to become more liberal?

Better off out, surely? 

Must-read post of the day...

...is this one by Peter Risdon, on the subject of the racism and xenophobia directive.

The only honourable course must be to pledge not to be bound by this legislation, should it come into effect, whatever the consequences might be.

I make that pledge. My freedom of speech is not negotiable.

He can count me in too. 

From the comments, this listing of the reasons given for the American Declaration of Independence is also instructive.

"HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance."

And...

"HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws..."

And...

"FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent..."

And...

"FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury..."

And...

"FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments..."

It's a pretty damning indictment of us as a people that we seem to be willing to tolerate what proved so utterly intolerable for the Americans. Some might argue that the difference is that we have the democratic process to rid ourselves of a government which treats us in this way, but it's not an argument that can be sustained for very long. We might get rid of Blair, or Labour, or any other government that enacted this kind of legislation, but this will not stop the legislation being imposed on us by the EU.  That's why it is impossible to be a liberal and to support the EU. That's why we need to get out.

Another Virginia shooting

Via Outside Story, another sad tale of a lone gunman shooting innocents at a Virginia campus. This time, the slaughter took place at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002. A disgruntled student called Peter Odighizuwa opened fire, killing two members of faculty and a student, and injuring three others. So far, so much like massacre at Virginia Tech. But from then on, the stories unwind to entirely different outcomes.

The ending Virginia Tech is well documented. At Appalachian Law, however, two students called Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross heard the gunshots and rushed to their cars to arm themselves. They then returned to the scene of the shooting and challenged Odighizuwa as he left the building where he had just murdered three people. He was quickly disarmed and subdued by other students.

The BBC article about the Appalachian Law shootings is here. It slipped the minds of the Beeboids to mention the fact that the successful disarming of the gunman and the prevention of further murders was only brought about by the fact that two of the students were able to arm themselves. According to the Beeb, the gunman was "wrestled to the ground by fellow students".  I would characterise this omission by the BBC as lying.

You can't trust the BBC. Pass it on. 

Update:

The BBC has recently published a list of campus shootings in America. They've forgotten to put in Appalachian Law at all. 

Offline for a few days

I'm going to be offline, probably until the end of the week. Isn't work a bore?

More on educational conscription

Fabian Tassano has provided the convincing that I needed to support his campaign against extension of the school leaving age. His point is that this is not, as I had erroneously thought, a string attached to an offer of public financial support, but applies to anyone whether they are self-supporting or not.

This is clearly wrong. I'm convinced.

On a similar subject, Instapundit does a podcast today with Dr Robert Epstein who advocates letting teenagers leave school when they want to - providing they can pass the exams. This strikes me as a much more sensible idea for the twenty first century.

Michael Yon praises British Troops

There's a fascinating posting here by Michael Yon, the American blogger who is embedded with troops in Iraq. He has managed to get himself embedded with British forces in Basra and gives a gripping account of one of their combat operations. He is very diplomatic about their levels of equipment and lack of air support, and is suitably impressed by the courage they display in attacking Sadr forces despite this.

Quote of the day