Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
I was out in the car early this morning and for some reason the radio cut the CD player and threw me into a BBC news program and right into the middle of a piece that was discussing why 85% of science papers (i.e. peer reviewed published science in a major published literature source) are rubbish not exactly quality items, often very wrong and published without verification or even replication at least once by the authors.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
LongQ said:
I was out in the car early this morning and for some reason the radio cut the CD player and threw me into a BBC news program and right into the middle of a piece that was discussing why 85% of science papers (i.e. peer reviewed published science in a major published literature source) are rubbish not exactly quality items, often very wrong and published without verification or even replication at least once by the authors.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
Yes, it was Radio 4 at about 08:45-ishI was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
The piece started with the presenter asking a panel of scientists "why are some scientists publishing results of experiments that other scientists cannot reproduce?"
I said out loud the word "Money".
The first respondent then said "Number 1: Funding"
They all admitted that they need headlines, as they will only get their continued grants if they get more publicity than the competition, which means they accept that they need to produce poor quality high impact papers, rather than high quality science, as readers can find ordinary research boring.
It's a very sad state of affairs.
It reminded me of the words of Feynman:
"So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCul...
Jacobyte said:
Yes, it was Radio 4 at about 08:45-ish
The piece started with the presenter asking a panel of scientists "why are some scientists publishing results of experiments that other scientists cannot reproduce?"
I said out loud the word "Money".
The first respondent then said "Number 1: Funding"
They all admitted that they need headlines, as they will only get their continued grants if they get more publicity than the competition, which means they accept that they need to produce poor quality high impact papers, rather than high quality science, as readers can find ordinary research boring.
It's a very sad state of affairs.
It reminded me of the words of Feynman:
"So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCul...
Climate is political science these days, hence the large volume of dreck rentapapers and surrounding spinspam from on-message tame media and activists lapping it up - the dreck and the spinspam go together and appear with monotonous regularity to support the faith of politicians and the grants that follow. This funding largesse appears to be changing dramatically stateside but I doubt we can expect something similar here as May shows sings of being lukewarm rather than cool on this issue. Trump is already in the White House but May is still preoccupied with the Brexit process.The piece started with the presenter asking a panel of scientists "why are some scientists publishing results of experiments that other scientists cannot reproduce?"
I said out loud the word "Money".
The first respondent then said "Number 1: Funding"
They all admitted that they need headlines, as they will only get their continued grants if they get more publicity than the competition, which means they accept that they need to produce poor quality high impact papers, rather than high quality science, as readers can find ordinary research boring.
It's a very sad state of affairs.
It reminded me of the words of Feynman:
"So I wish to you—I have no more time, so I have just one wish for you—the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom."
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCul...
LongQ said:
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
I heard it too; it's available on iplayer here.Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
Gandahar said:
three times lucky, for anyone wanting to talk climate politics
Would you like to comment on my last post about Scott Pruitt?
i would. i have my fingers crossed he rips the epa to pieces and rebuilds with genuine environmental protection at its heart. they have a piss poor track record in terms of cock ups when it comes to "clean ups" for a start . no more of this co2 is a pollutant bWould you like to comment on my last post about Scott Pruitt?
ks hopefully.Paddy_N_Murphy said:
I don't believe Turbines are this single Answer - never have.
But as part of a balanced portfolio and moreover the further they move offshore, and around the UK / Europe etc they will be achieving - between them - a more balanced power supply. rarely is there zero wind across a the entire Crown Estate for want of a better description to cover all areas.
As I have repeated many times - the older turbines of circa 2 - 3MW of ten years ago, are at closer range to shore, lower hub height to capture the wind : constraints imposed by progress and innovations ten years ago.
The newer ones out in EA field for example, or Hornsea etc will be 8MW +, out offshore with more consistent winds, at a higher hub height, with improvements in aerodynamic, mechanical and electrical efficiency from the blade tip through the interconnections, to the T/D onshore.
these shouldn't cloud the judgement of the naysayers though
i have mentioned before my biggest issue with wind farms is the absolute fact that no one seems to have a clue what the long term effects of removing huge amounts of energy from the atmosphere will be. localised warming is one already known effect.But as part of a balanced portfolio and moreover the further they move offshore, and around the UK / Europe etc they will be achieving - between them - a more balanced power supply. rarely is there zero wind across a the entire Crown Estate for want of a better description to cover all areas.
As I have repeated many times - the older turbines of circa 2 - 3MW of ten years ago, are at closer range to shore, lower hub height to capture the wind : constraints imposed by progress and innovations ten years ago.
The newer ones out in EA field for example, or Hornsea etc will be 8MW +, out offshore with more consistent winds, at a higher hub height, with improvements in aerodynamic, mechanical and electrical efficiency from the blade tip through the interconnections, to the T/D onshore.
these shouldn't cloud the judgement of the naysayers though
LongQ said:
I was out in the car early this morning and for some reason the radio cut the CD player and threw me into a BBC news program and right into the middle of a piece that was discussing why 85% of science papers (i.e. peer reviewed published science in a major published literature source) are rubbish not exactly quality items, often very wrong and published without verification or even replication at least once by the authors.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
i tend to pay attention to everything you write on here longq , i am surprised you were unaware of the replication crisis in science today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisisI was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
medicine and psychology appear to be the main culprits at the moment. if anyone ever looks at climate science outside of pal review i suspect it will jump straight to the number one spot.
wc98 said:
LongQ said:
I was out in the car early this morning and for some reason the radio cut the CD player and threw me into a BBC news program and right into the middle of a piece that was discussing why 85% of science papers (i.e. peer reviewed published science in a major published literature source) are rubbish not exactly quality items, often very wrong and published without verification or even replication at least once by the authors.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
i tend to pay attention to everything you write on here longq , i am surprised you were unaware of the replication crisis in science today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisisI was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
medicine and psychology appear to be the main culprits at the moment. if anyone ever looks at climate science outside of pal review i suspect it will jump straight to the number one spot.
TBH I am neither utterly amazed nor astounded by this. As I have noted on this topic previously, in my experience the hallowed peer review process never ever involves the reviewer(s) visiting the author's facility to inspect their raw data and procedures, including formal method validation.
I'm not suggesting it happens, but in theory one could fabricate an entire set of results and no-one would be any the wiser. Similarly, any contradictory results could be easily binned. If you think this sounds far fetched, it was just such a scenario in the pharma industry (data purporting to be obtained from a rat study after the rats had already died) that was instrumental in bringing into being the rigorous and now universally applied FDA inspection regimes.
In almost all academic research it's taken on trust that 'gentlemen' do not concoct or fudge data, quite charmingly quaint really when you think that the funding of entire departments or institutions may depend upon producing 'interesting' results (aka 'more research is needed' = granttastic ££££'s)
"If anyone ever looks at climate science outside of pal review ......... " oh yes please, bring it on!
V8 Fettler said:
Murdoch press in its various forms is running an article on "Britain squandered £450million by subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that are as bad for the environment as the coal they used before, a damning report found on Wednesday."
Yes I was shocked 
to see another green blob fail while in a traffic queue opposite a newsagent on the early shift this morning, and was going to post something on my return to base, here it is in The Times:
Mystic Met handbags NOAA.
Imagine how appallingly blatant NOAA jiggery-pokery must be these days to get Mystic calling them out
"What you see is that the slowdown just goes away."
Thomas Karl (NOAA), Science Magazine, 4 June 2015.
"The slowdown hasn’t gone away."
Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times, 12 February 2017
Tommy Cooper writ large in junkscience 'it goes away just like that' followed by Brian Rix style detailing of the farce 'oh no it doesn't'.
Imagine how appallingly blatant NOAA jiggery-pokery must be these days to get Mystic calling them out
"What you see is that the slowdown just goes away."
Thomas Karl (NOAA), Science Magazine, 4 June 2015.
"The slowdown hasn’t gone away."
Peter Stott (Met Office), The Sunday Times, 12 February 2017
Tommy Cooper writ large in junkscience 'it goes away just like that' followed by Brian Rix style detailing of the farce 'oh no it doesn't'.
Vizsla said:
I'm not suggesting it happens, but in theory one could fabricate an entire set of results and no-one would be any the wiser. Similarly, any contradictory results could be easily binned.
GWPF reveals Beegate, another green blob fiasco.BeeGate
How Green Campaigners Subverted Science
"This is the story of BeeGate – how activist scientists and seasoned campaigners used Age of Stupid tactics to trick policymakers, seduce the media and terrify the public – litigious liars and lamentable fear-mongers have caused incomprehensible damage to the public trust in dialogue, science and policy"...The third part of the BeeGate exposé showed how certain activist scientists had worked their way onto the EFSA Bee Risk Assessment Working Group to create the Bee Guidance Document. This document was never accepted into law since its guidelines for field trials were impossible to comply with. But that did not matter.
More @ GWPF.
turbobloke said:
V8 Fettler said:
Murdoch press in its various forms is running an article on "Britain squandered £450million by subsidising power stations to burn American wood pellets that are as bad for the environment as the coal they used before, a damning report found on Wednesday."
Yes I was shocked to see another green blob fail while in a traffic queue opposite a newsagent on the early shift this morning, and was going to post something on my return to base, here it is in The Times:the excellent paul homewood of not a lot of people know that highlighted this issue last year.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
i had to laugh at this .
"With the right conditions, we can do even more, converting further units at Drax to use sustainable biomass in place of coal," Drax Chief Executive Dorothy Thompson said in a statement.
The company said it could convert its remaining three coal-burning units to biomass in the next two to three years if the government sets the right conditions.
i assume the right conditions being give us taxpayer money to buy more biomass pellets to then sell the energy to the taxpayer.
i am not laughing at this though. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2933619/britain-blew...
Green subsidies for wood pellets were championed by Chris Huhne when he was Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary in the coalition government.
Mr Huhne, 62, who was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice, is now European chairman of Zilkha Biomass, a US supplier of wood pellets.
that is mr huhne now on my list . i sincerely hope this is looked into and the slimy lying b
d is jailed again. i have a feeling if this had happened in the states that is exactly what would be happening now. lib dums not so dumb when it comes to scamming the public for their own benefit by the looks of things.wc98 said:
i think i can remember quite a few people on here lambasting this nonsense from the time it was first mooted. another follow the money scheme (they ain't half mounting up). who would have thought cutting down carbon sinks and burning them would be good for reducing co2 levels.
the excellent paul homewood of not a lot of people know that highlighted this issue last year.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
i had to laugh at this .
"With the right conditions, we can do even more, converting further units at Drax to use sustainable biomass in place of coal," Drax Chief Executive Dorothy Thompson said in a statement.
The company said it could convert its remaining three coal-burning units to biomass in the next two to three years if the government sets the right conditions.
i assume the right conditions being give us taxpayer money to buy more biomass pellets to then sell the energy to the taxpayer.
i am not laughing at this though. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2933619/britain-blew...
Green subsidies for wood pellets were championed by Chris Huhne when he was Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary in the coalition government.
Mr Huhne, 62, who was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice, is now European chairman of Zilkha Biomass, a US supplier of wood pellets.
that is mr huhne now on my list . i sincerely hope this is looked into and the slimy lying bd is jailed again. i have a feeling if this had happened in the states that is exactly what would be happening now. lib dums not so dumb when it comes to scamming the public for their own benefit by the looks of things.
Zilkha Biomass was set up by one of Huhne's school buddies from Westminster school. I do believe a spot of swamp draining is in order in the UK.the excellent paul homewood of not a lot of people know that highlighted this issue last year.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
i had to laugh at this .
"With the right conditions, we can do even more, converting further units at Drax to use sustainable biomass in place of coal," Drax Chief Executive Dorothy Thompson said in a statement.
The company said it could convert its remaining three coal-burning units to biomass in the next two to three years if the government sets the right conditions.
i assume the right conditions being give us taxpayer money to buy more biomass pellets to then sell the energy to the taxpayer.
i am not laughing at this though. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2933619/britain-blew...
Green subsidies for wood pellets were championed by Chris Huhne when he was Liberal Democrat energy and climate change secretary in the coalition government.
Mr Huhne, 62, who was jailed in 2013 for perverting the course of justice, is now European chairman of Zilkha Biomass, a US supplier of wood pellets.
that is mr huhne now on my list . i sincerely hope this is looked into and the slimy lying b
d is jailed again. i have a feeling if this had happened in the states that is exactly what would be happening now. lib dums not so dumb when it comes to scamming the public for their own benefit by the looks of things.The Beeb has got it!
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this fk up though !!
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this f
k up though !!robinessex said:
The Beeb has got it!
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this fk up though !!
Even Greenpiss were against bio ages agoMost wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this f
k up though !!wc98 said:
LongQ said:
I was out in the car early this morning and for some reason the radio cut the CD player and threw me into a BBC news program and right into the middle of a piece that was discussing why 85% of science papers (i.e. peer reviewed published science in a major published literature source) are rubbish not exactly quality items, often very wrong and published without verification or even replication at least once by the authors.
I was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
i tend to pay attention to everything you write on here longq , i am surprised you were unaware of the replication crisis in science today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisisI was utterly amazed.
It ended on an interview Prof. Sir Mark Walport the UK's current Chief Scientific Advisor who did not actually directly confirm what was being suggested but neither did he robustly defend them in a way that would have suggested they were completely erroneous and misleading opinions.
I was astounded.
The comments made earlier in the piece (before the Walport concluding section) could have been lifted from comments made as point of concern on this thread or the Science thread over the past few years.
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
medicine and psychology appear to be the main culprits at the moment. if anyone ever looks at climate science outside of pal review i suspect it will jump straight to the number one spot.
I friend of mine in scientific academia, fairly recently retired from the day to day politics and pressure of running a University department, indicated to me 20 years ago the problems he and his department faced on a regular basis. Over the years things seemed to get less and less satisfactory from anyone's point of view.
In the end, despite his absolute commitment to his research and students, he was glad to arrive at a point that gave him the opportunity to retire. Absent the dross that went with the position I'm sure he would have been, like his colleagues in previous generations, very happy to continue his work for some years into the future.
All of his work related to "hard" science activity where attempts at replication are both highly possible and very much required. Much of his work was in pharmacology - nothing much was going to get through without a lot more research being deployed. In fact anything that was marginal would be rejected early in order to reduce costs. Some of the rejections might have been missed opportunities but we may never know. Pharma suffers later in the process after millions have been spent and a problem arises that might turn a blockbuster money spinner into a loss making damp squib but early in the research the selections are made cautiously.
Against that background there was no way a fluid and experiment lite subject like CC could be accepted at face value as unequivocally correct science and greater the claim of unanimity amongst the researchers as the research budgets grew the greater should have been the concerns for scientific vs. political influences on the reported results.
A form of religious fervour and a pot of money put up as a type of indulgence payment to Gaia is not, in my opinion, a good supportive structure for analysis that involves enormous amounts of public expenditure yet can prove absolutely nothing for a potentially problematic result far enough into the future that no one will be around to see it even if, somehow, someone can claim to link the result to decision made a century previously.
dickymint said:
robinessex said:
The Beeb has got it!
Most wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this fk up though !!
Even Greenpiss were against bio ages agoMost wood energy schemes are a 'disaster' for climate change
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3905...
No mention of heads rolling for this f
k up though !!This must have been a rapid episode of enlightenment for the beeb; while they've blown hot and cold on the matter online for some time, they forgot about any problems last year when extolling job 'creation' from, as they quaintly put it, a power plant that "will process waste wood to create power". Creation needs to be in single quotes as synthetic greenblobjobs destroy between 2 and 4 real jobs as per independent studies from Verso Economics and King Juan Carlos University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wale...
Paul Homewood follows the money and the generous taxpayer subsidies on NALOPKT here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016...
"Assuming the same strike price awarded to Drax, £105/MWh @ 2012 prices, annual subsidies at today’s prices would amount to something in the region of £80 million a year, a very handy rate of return on capital investment of £1 billion."
It looks as though China also have a hand in it, possibly as a thank you for our taxpayer help with so many of their coal-fired power stations...a subsidy farming type of thanks
hidetheelephants said:
LongQ said:
Did anyone else hear it?
Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
I heard it too; it's available on iplayer here.Are the early morning BBC news programs available for replay anywhere? It would have been about 07:45 is I suppose - or maybe a tad later.
Seems like I heard all of it bar the first few seconds.
Quite why the "interviewer" decided to harp on about Brexit at the end was a puzzle. I got the impression that Walport was not impressed with that approach and wanted to stick with science based questions rather than drift into the political trap.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff