In favour of teenage drinking

There's a small park, just over the road from the episcopal palace. We use it as a kind of extension to the garden whenever we can, since our own back yard is a bit small for the kids now.

Mostly it's fine, but on all too many weekends the ground around one or more of the pieces of play apparatus are a sea of broken glass, the result of some of the local yoof relieving their boredom. Strangely enough I sympathise with them in some ways. This is a rural village, and there's literally nothing for teenagers to do on a Saturday night. Even town, which is a half-hour walk away, has nothing. Living in the country is great for small children, but for disaffected teens it is probably a nightmare that they can't wait to end.

My own childhood was in suburbia, but in many ways we had the same problems; no money, and precious few facilities. It only got better at around the age of sixteen when I was taken aback when my father suggested, in response to my regular whine about being bored, that I get myself down to the pub for a drink.

And how right he was. Suddenly we were able to join the adult world, and once you knew which pubs wouldn't ask too many questions you could be pretty sure of a night's fun whenever you wanted it.  It's a way of doing things which just doesn't exist any longer, now that the police are in and out of the pubs checking for underage drinkers. Back in my day, teenagers went off to grown-up pubs and had a few pints and nobody batted an eyelid. The bars were full of adults, and if you were misbehaving you would be thrown out. Essentially you were an adult until you stepped out of line, at which point you suddenly became an child under adult supervision. It was a civil society way of dealing with the problem. You soon learned that keeping your head down and drinking quietly was the best way not to attract attention - you were taught to drink in a (relatively) civilised fashion, .

I don't mean to suggest that it was a perfect arrangement - some people are always going to step out of line - but I sometimes wonder if it was better than the current arrangement, where teenagers sup buckfast on the park benches and end the evening by smashing the bottles against the baby swings. 

Climbing trees

This weekend, Mrs Bishop escaped to England for a girly shopping weekend, leaving Mr Bishop with three baby bishops. Since Granny Bishop was on holiday too, this could have been a struggle, but the possibility of having to entertain the nippers single-handed was averted by dint of inviting lots of schoolfriends and their parents round.

Amazing fact though - both of the families invited were surprised, nay shocked, that Mr and Mrs Bishop allowed their children to climb trees, and freely admitted that they were far too fearful to allow such dangerous behaviour. I wasn't aware of any other uses for trees, myself. I didn't tempt fate by letting on that one of the baby Bishops rides his bicycle without a helmet, and once managed to ride at high speed into a brick wall in the process. I will probably be reported to social services any day now.

On a similar theme, Instapundit has been blogging regularly about the Dangerous Book for Boys, which looks set to be  a bestseller over on that side of the pond, and if Glenn Reynolds has it right, the start of a pardigm shift in the way boys are raised.

There is no consensus, anyway

There's a very interesting article here, which summarises and indexes a series of profiles of some global warming sceptics. These are not a few obscure eggheads in out of the way colleges - there are some big name scientists in there.

My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.

The consensus is a myth. 

Craig Murray on libertarianism

Craig Murray explains some basic principles of a libertarian.

Legislating on taste and personal morality is assumed. Authoritarianism is the default setting. The anti-foxhunters and anti-smokers have got the strength to impose their will, the anti-abortionists not, at least in the UK. But why do we have to seek to impose our will by force, not reason?

Why indeed? I have sometimes wondered at the kind of sick mind that would seek to criminalise the use of imperial measures, for example.

Marketing

A commenter on the posting on packaging informs me that environmentalists are protesting about "the large amount of packaging used for marketing purposes". This distinction had entirely passed my by, and was certainly not mentioned by Jeanette Winterson in her whinge on Question Time. It's also not clear to me just how large this alleged problem is - what proportion of packaging is used solely for marketing purposes. Still, let's examine the case.

We first need to ask what is the problem with packaging used for marketing purposes. It is clearly not the fact that it is packaging per se, since, according to my commenter, environmentalists have no problem with packaging used to protect goods. This can only mean that the objection is, in fact, to use of resources for marketing.

This being the case, we must ask why they are directing their fire against marketing through the medium of packaging. Why not other forms of advertising and promotion? Do billboards not use resources? Does a TV commercials not involve flying film crews to exotic locations with a vast and ugly carbon footprint to match? What is it about packaging which is so uniquely wicked?

We need to know. 

Direct action

I'm not sure if I've ever come across an example of a corporate bigwig engaging in direct action on behalf of their company. Richard Charkin, the CEO of Macmillan Nature, was understandably annoyed at Google's approach to digitisation of publishers' intellectual property.  Rather than engage some lawyers or write a letter of protest, Mr Charkin seized the bull by the horns and took a visit to Google's stand at Bookexpo America where he and a colleague half-inched a couple of laptops.

I confess that a colleague and I simply picked up two computers from the Google stand and waited in close proximity until someone noticed. This took more than an hour.

Our justification for this appalling piece of criminal behaviour? The owner of the computer had not specifically told us not to steal it. If s/he had, we would not have done so. When s/he asked for its return, we did so. It is exactly what Google expects publishers to expect and accept in respect to intellectual property.

'If you don't tell us we may not digitise something, we shall do so. But we do no evil. So if you tell us to desist we shall.'

I felt rather shabby playing this trick on Google. They should feel the same playing the same trick on authors and publishers.

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but one can't help but have a sneaking admiration for Mr Charkin. We might even quietly wish Macmillan well in its unlikely role as the David to Google's Goliath.

Packaging

I was listening to "Any Questions" the other day, and was trying to stop my toes curling  - an involuntary spasm caused by the foolish inanities of Jeanette Winterson who is apparently a famous writer. Ms Winterson was telling us about protests which various environmentalist bodies had organised in order to protest at what they saw as the excessive volume of packaging produced by supermarkets. However, it can't be true that the packaging is unnecessary. Here's why.

The green argument takes two premises:

1. The level of packaging found in supermarkets is unnecessary.
2. This is annoying to customers
   

They reason therefore that supermarkets should not use so much packaging in future.

Let us observe however that supermarkets are greedy capitalist organisations. I don't think that anyone, least of all Ms Winterson, would disagree with this. We should also observe that supermarkets spend huge sums of money on packaging - which has become a multi-billion pound industry on the back of supermarkets' custom.

The question we therefore need to ask (and which Ms Winterson and her ilk need to supply an answer to) is: "Why are these greedy capitalists spending such large sums of money on something which is (a) unnecessary and (b)pisses their customers off?" Could it be that the packaging is, in fact, necessary after all? Could it be that it is actually protecting valuable products from damage or decay? Could it be that the supermarkets are actually the good environmentalists, and the Wintersons are in fact pushing us down a road that will see us wasting huge amounts of food, as happens in the third world?

Perish the thought.

 

Another climate station

Following on from the previous post, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at a UK climate station on Google Earth. The idea was really just to see if I could find the "Stephenson Screen" - the small box of tricks used for recording climate data rather than to do any surveying as such. . My nearest stations are Edinburgh Airport and the Royal Observatory. Taking the view that the Observatory would be smaller I zoomed in on Blackford Hill, and was pretty astonished to find what appeared to be the climate station straight away.

As you can see, the station (marked) is surrounded by a circle of grass. By the miracles of Google Earth I was able to measure this as having a minimum radius of 9m which is the bare minimum permitted by the guidelines. The surrounding roads are a no-no though, and the buildings around the perimeter are too close to the station which should be at least a distance of four times the height of the buildings away. Since we can measure the distance to the nearest building as being 18m this implies a maximum height of the building of 4.5m. This seems implausible.

All in all, it looks as though there may be problems with data quality in the UK too - if it can't be got right at a major scientific institution it's unlikely that the stations in agricultural colleges and so on are going to be much better. It's a pity that the Google's hi-res images of the UK cover such a small fraction of the country.

Climate station spotting

Fancy becoming a climate station spotter? 

There's a very interesting new climate research site being set up by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? He's been investigating the quality of the land-based temperature records used by climate scientists and is setting up the new site to encourage others to help him out. The idea is that people will go to an automated weather stations, take a few photographs so as to document its exact siting and surroundings, and make a few other observations of the procedures used.

He's already done a few stations around his California base himself with some pretty jaw-dropping results. One of these was Forest Grove, and Anthony's photo of the station is shown below. He has helpfully marked the distance between the temperature gauge and the exhaust outlet of the airconditioning unit which is installed in the adjacent window. It's possible that some UK readers may be unfamiliar with these strange contraptions which are used in foreign climes to make rooms cooler. You may also not be aware that these outlets give off a lot of heat. A lot of heat!

 

Anthony also shows the historic temperature plot for the Forest Grove station, which I've inset in the corner of the picture. It's no surprise that this shows things warming up quite remarkably in recent decades. I wonder if attentive readers can work out why this is?  A clue - it's nothing to do with global warming.

Now this is an single instance of a problem and could easily be written off as a one-off. But fear not! Anthony has also documented Marysville, which comes equipped with an asphalt carpark, an aircon outlet, a barbeque and a sharply rising temperature plot.....

 

---and Redding which comes equipped with a lightbulb!!

 

Even if you have no scientific background whatsoever this is clearly wrong. Any observed increase in temperature at these stations must surely be due to the local, man-made heat sources rather than any purported change in the climate. It is extraordinary that these stations have found their way into the IPCC's temperature records without being noticed corrected.

Now this sample represents only a small percentage of the stations in the global network, but it does look as if there is a possibility of a serious data quality problem. As in any good audit, if you find errors the first thing to do is to extend your sample.

So if you have a camera (and an anorak, no doubt) you might well like to get involved with surveying stations in your locale. Just think of how you could annoy every greenie and leftie you know.  Details of how to sign up here.

Comment from a climate scientist

I've just had a very interesting comment from someone signing themselves "Climate researcher" in response to my piece on the witholding of research data. I reproduce it here in full:

The data used by the overwhelming number of studies is freely available online from government sources. Same with model outputs. I always try to reproduce the results of previous studies to test my algorithms and have yet to find a problem. Climate science is not junk, as you say. The climate system is difficult to model, to observe and to predict. Most climate scientists are trying to understand the system in order to make season ahead predictions so that we may optimize agriculture or water resources systems to support a growing population or to make better flood predictions. Most researchers aren't involved with IPCC. I invite all people who are hostile to climate science to go back to school. You'll find out how fascinating and challenging the field really is. Thanks.

My response was this (again in full)

From the general tone of your comment I'm guessing that you accept the examples I've given, but you are saying that they are not representative of climate science as a whole. That seems credible and it would be hard for anyone to claim otherwise.

I don't mean to be hostile to climate scientists as a whole - only those guilty of withholding data and code and manipulating their results. But you as (presumably) one of the good guys needs to recognise that your professional reputation is being put on the line by the bad guys in your midst.

A professional body can't risk its brand being damaged by allowing miscreants to  get away with unprofessional behaviour. The honest majority are going to have to stand up and condemn the bad guys in no uncertain terms. If they don't, then they risk some of the mud which is being flung around sticking to them instead of its intended target.

(I should add that this article might be misconstrued as some kind of threat. It isn't, and I will be trying to ensure that I make clear who I am criticising in future). 

Leadership

Chris Dillow writes an incisive piece on why centralised heirarchies don't work over at the Times. Just a few pages further on (not online) and with a beautiful sense of timing, Nicola Sturgeon, the new health minister in Scotland, is reported as having

ordered the NHS to deliver cancer treatment targets by the end of the year.

Dillow quotes Kenneth Boulding:

The larger and more authoritarian the organisation, the better the chance that its top decision-makers will be operating in purely imaginary worlds

Ms Sturgeon seems to have got into the swing of leading a large, authoritarian organisation in no time at all. Quite what difference she thinks that shouting at clinicians from the sidelines is going to make is anyone's guess. It didn't work for the last lot, did it? 

I like this

House of Dumb has coined (I think) a lovely expression for right-wing blogs - the "dextrosphere". The beauty of it is, of course, that places like this are now "the sinistersphere".

Good education due around 2050...perhaps

David Willett's speech to the CBI on the subject of education is set out in full in the Telegraph today. It's a good source for a more detailed discussion of some of the issues I raised in my post on the self-flagellation over grammar schools which is besotting and consuming the Conservatives at the moment.

A few stand-out points:

We already have more per capita funding than in the past and we officially have a system of school choice. But it hasn't transformed educational standards as we hoped. This is because there are no mechanisms in place to enable successful schools to expand, to take over failing schools or for new schools to be created.

So why don't you privatise them, you silly billy?

It is the failure to open up the supply side which is the reason why, despite years of ambitious attempts at education reform, Britain now lags behind many other advanced western countries.

Correct. So what have your two brains decided to do about it?

We must make it easier for people, including parents themselves, to set up new schools. New school providers must be able to enter the maintained sector, responding to what parents want. This is not how the system works at the moment.

Why do you want a maintained sector? You are trying to set schools free, aren't you? If they are in the maintained sector then governments can tie them up in red tape. You are playing into the hands of Whitehall and the teaching unions, Mr Two Brains.

[Blair] proposed, for example, that no new schools should be created by local authorities - a powerful device for bringing new providers incrementally into the maintained sector.

And you support this why, exactly? Do you think I want incremental change? What you are saying is that, for the majority of people, you are offering a good education to their grandchildren. And then only if a future Labour government doesn't reverse it all and hand the schools back to the teaching unions. It will be Railtrack all over again. 

At the heart of our education reforms is creating, in Tony Blair's words, 'self-governing independent state schools'. 

Oxymoron. Moron. Two brains, and both demented.

Bloody hell.

Cherry picking

Right now there's quite a few readers being referred here from Devil's Kitchen (thanks for the link!) and also a comment I left at Iain Dale's place. Everyone's very welcome.

I hope you find the articles linked interesting. You might also want to refer to the article I wrote about cherry-picking of data. If anything this is even more scandalous than the others.

As ever, the full story is at Climate Audit. I'm just pointing you to the guy who's actually doing the work and breaking the stories.

A bunch of monkeys

Having found myself in the odd position of praising Labour Home for its response to David McLean's Freedom of Information Act, I was almost relieved to read a real howler of an article up there today.

The author of the piece, who goes under the nom-de-blog of Howlermonkey (you couldn't make this up, could you?), writes about the antics of an evangelical christian called Richard Turnbull, who has apparently been telling us that we're all going to hell. This doesn't actually strike me as very interesting in itself - I thought this was what evangelical christians did - but there you are. However, Mr Howlermonkey goes on to make a gobsmackingly pathetic attempt to link Mr Turnbull to the Conservative Party. The article is called "The Tory Taliban in Oxford" and includes this little nugget:

[Turnbull] Also suggested that Torie party donate 10% of it’s income to conservative evangelical Collages such as Wycliffe.

If you refer back to some of the original sources for Mr Monkey's article - the Guardian and the Indy as far as I can tell - the facts were reported thus:

In [his speech], Dr Turnbull also warns against the danger of liberalism in the church, talks of ‘the strategic nature’ of evangelical control of training colleges and calls on conservatives to siphon off 10% of their financial contributions to the Church of England to help pay the costs of like-minded colleges.

So in fact Mr Monkey is, either dishonestly or foolishly, conflating "conservatives" with "The Conservative Party". To judge from his writing, I am relieved to say that it appears to be the latter.

Labour Home is much improved since its relaunch, to the extent that I'm now a regular reader. But I do wonder if they are just going to get themselves into trouble with their relatively open editorial policy. If they allow writers of this quality to infest their site, they will end up looking like, well, a bunch of monkeys.