Sunday
Dec192010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Plus ça change...
Dec 19, 2010 Bureaucrats 
...plus c'est la même chose.
This review of Benjamin Greene's Eisenhower, Science Advice, and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate is rather interesting. Take this excerpt for example:
Greene draws upon the private papers of the President and many of his key advisors and argues that, although Eisenhower sincerely wanted a test ban as early as 1954, he failed to obtain one primarily because he allowed policy to be captured by scientists and science advisors for much of his presidency.
...
Greene depicts Eisenhower as a well-intentioned leader overwhelmed by issues beyond his comprehension.
Reader Comments (44)
This is a book that I'd like to read, but at £62 at Amazon (with no Kindle version) is a bit steep. Priced for bureaucrats, I guess.
I sort of remember the era. The era certainly affected me personally in so many ways. Post war with global reconstruction. Science and Technology jumped to to forefront--the Bomb, Sputnik, nuclear bomb testing in the atmosphere, launch of the civilian nuclear power industry, interstate highways, ... no surprise there was growth of a scientific bureaucracy as science was respected, on the whole. Science and technology was a desired career path for many (unlike today). Engineers in USA don't fix home washing machines and boilers--they designed and built rockets!
And no surprise someone may conclude that the President was in a complex situation and perhaps overwhelmed. He probably was. He mentioned something about this in his "valedictory" address.
It worries me that in this day and age of easy fact-checking and instant communications a disinformational beast of the magnitude of the AGW critter could evolve and survive to the grandeur that this one did. Sure, I know that in this case there was a marvelous concatenation of lusts for greed and power and spirituality among those financing the corrupted scientists, but how are we to prevent the next such monster?
====================
kim. The internet probably will have saved us from the AGW critter, so it could help prevent the next monster. If they don't ban the internet, that is.
The Internet is great for instant fact checking and criticism. The problem is it is great for the fast dissemination of propaganda. I wonder if the two cancel each other out?
The worrying thing is the next one won't be "science" based. Nor pseudo-science, either.
Well, he correctly identified the dangers of the military-industrial complex - even if he was unable to do anything about it. And warned too of politicians getting their hands on science.
This is an interesting look back at Ike
http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal
Anyone pushing the meme that Ike was "overwhelmed by issues beyond his comprehension" is likely more about propaganda than intent upon presenting reality. I'm underwhelmed by the claim.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Farewell Address
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116869
http://sppiblog.org/news/un-global-governance-internet
This is the sort of action that seems to need a close eye kept on it. It could very well prove to be the foot in the door, leading in time to Internet surveillance and control of blogging.
Messenger,
You don't think there already is surveillance? My guess it isn't focussed on the sorts of things we do here, but???
"The overall commander of Operation Overlord was General Dwight Eisenhower". You don't get appointed to that sort of role simply by being "well-intentioned".
I'd like to read the book but I'd need to see some pretty convincing material to be persuaded that Ike was "overwhelmed by issues beyond his comprehension".
@Messenger - there's a slightly disturbing report in the Sunday Times today about the Government's intention to control internet porn, based on the frequently trotted out line of "protecting children" (parents aren't to be trusted it would seem). In future, it is speculated that users would have to explicitly opt-in to such content with their ISP otherwise it would be blocked. A new Communications Bill is promised.
It's the thin end of a very thick wedge in my opinion.
Can we really trust chief scientific officers?
The predictions for swine flu (and bird flu, Sars, vCJD) were embarrassingly inaccurate
I have an idea how officials could try to get rid of 60 million unwanted doses of swine flu vaccine: put them on eBay with the words “will exchange for a very large pile of grit”.
Snip
There was a time when, if you read a scientific scare story, you tended to put it down to the over-active imagination of a redtop journalist. No longer: nowadays it is outwardly sober government scientists who spin the biggest scares. They know they can get away with it because laymen have an irrational respect for words uttered by scientists.
That much was proved by the 1963 Milgram experiment in which the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram persuaded volunteers to administer a — simulated — potentially fatal electric shock to another human being when instructed to do so by a man in a white lab coat.
http://tinyurl.com/y9kbzpj
Britain’s most expensive myth
http://www.warmwell.com/vcjd.html
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OUR INSTITUTIONS?
Roger Windsor's talk, read on his behalf, to the Central Veterinary Society.
The College and the profession should have refused to act when the direction of the campaign was taken over by politicians, and the Chief Scientist. The CVO stated that he was in control the whole time, but the public perception was that the Chief Scientist and his side-kicks Prof. Roy Anderson and Sir John Krebs had taken over. They decided that killing all animals on neighbouring farms and all animals within three kilometres of an outbreak was the only way to stop the disease, in time for a June General Election. Why anyone should listen to Anderson, a proven liar who was forced to resign his chair at Oxford is beyond me? (Ref for this statement is an article in Private Eye last year) Did he offer the politicians a quick fix ? His mathematical model indicated that a two km kill would be adequate. However, MAFF decided to follow EU advice and stuck to 3 km which more than doubled the number of animals that were killed. Roy Anderson should be called, not the Professor of Epidemiology, but the Professor of Extermination at Imperial College, London. I understand that he subsequently revised his model and came to the conclusion that the virus travelled no more than 500 metres. Too many animals (probably five million) were killed in the name of elections and mathematics. Alan Richardson considers that this was the largest animal experiment ever carried out, and that it was done without a Home Office licence !
http://www.warmwell.com/nov11windsor.html
Oxford scientist wins the battle for her reputation
http://www.warmwell.com/andersonstories.htm
Animal cull ‘based on incorrect assumption’
Prof King’s foot and mouth Science Advisory Group was dominated by the work of Prof Neil Ferguson, Dr Christl Donnelly and Prof Roy Anderson, all epidemiologists at Imperial College
http://www.warmwell.com/shannonfeb19.html
March 6 2006 Veterinary Times
Silence of the lambs, calves, sheep, cattle and mathematicians
Bob Michell, BVetMed, BSc, PhD, DSc, MRCVS
REMEMBER, and understand.
March; lambs leaping among the shining tussocks of young grass. But it was not so just five years ago.
In the name of veterinary disease control, we were about to embark on the greatest unnecessary slaughter of healthy animals in the history of our profession. It cost £10 – 12 billion and involved, to the European Parliament, the slaughter of 10 million animals.
http://www.warmwell.com/silencemichell.html
Predictive models and FMD: the emperor’s new clothes?
R.P. Kitching
National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease, 1015 Arlington Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3E 3M4
So how could the control policy for a major disease outbreak be based on models which had never been validated? If the predictions for the number of new variant Creutzfeld–Jacob disease (vCJD) cases in the UK made in the late 1990s had not been sufficient to undermine the credibility of the predictive modellers, surely the FMD experience should have made the modellers appreciate the limitations of their science and accept at least some responsibility for the misery and expense that their models initiated. Predictive modelling has become fashionable but, often without much evidence that it serves any useful purpose, is the science based too much on reputation?
http://www.warmwell.com/04feb17kitching.html
Carnage from a computer
WE ARE USED to politicians suppressing the truth. When scientists do it as well, we are in trouble. Not one of the Government’s senior advisers, from Sir David King, the chief scientist, downwards, has yet dared to confirm in public what most experts in private now accept, that the mass slaughter of farm animals in the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak was not only unnecessary and inhumane, but was also based on false statistics, bad science and wrong deductions.
http://tinyurl.com/28z67y
Use and abuse of mathematical models:
an illustration from the 2001 foot and mouth
disease epidemic in the United Kingdom
R.P. Kitching (1), M.V. Thrusfield (2) & N.M. Taylor
Summary
Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a major threat, not only to countries whose economies rely on agricultural exports, but also to industrialised countries that maintain a healthy domestic livestock industry by eliminating major infectious diseases from their livestock populations. Traditional methods of controlling diseases such as FMD require the rapid detection and slaughter of infected animals, and any susceptible animals with which they may have been in contact, either directly or indirectly. During the 2001 epidemic of FMD in the United Kingdom (UK), this approach was supplemented by a culling policy driven by unvalidated predictive models. The epidemic and its control resulted in the death of approximately ten million animals, public disgust with the magnitude of the slaughter, and political resolve to adopt alternative options, notably including vaccination, to control any future epidemics. The UK experience provides a salutary warning of how models can be abused in the interests of scientific opportunism.
http://www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/23kitching293311.pdf
How Vaccination was used for Foot and Mouth Disease in Uruguay in April 2001 and subsequently
http://www.warmwell.com/oct11jamesuru.html
VACCINATION FOR FOOT AND MOUTH
A Personal View by Dr James Irvine,
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, PERTHSHIRE PH6 2HX
The Scottish Farmer,
27 October 2001, pp. 18-19
Does Prof King not understand even the fundamentals of any vaccination programme, be it for measles, smallpox, poliomyelitis etc?
Snip
It sounds much more like a disingenuous justification for advising against vaccinating. Where has intellectual scientific honesty gone?
Snip
You cannot fight a viral epidemic while playing silly political games or acquiescing to bureaucratic constipation.
Snip
One thing I do agree with the government's chief adviser is that there is no room for complacency. Unfortunately, he and his advisory body appear to have it in mega-tonnes. If ever there was a need for a full public enquiry this is it.
However, before such an august body can report, there should be an urgent shake-up of the present scientific structure. For a biological problem let's have biologists and some input from the medical field with their vast experience of handling viral epidemics throughout the world, rather than esoteric physical chemists, epidemiological statistical wizards and Government vets who are brought up to apply endless regulations but not to think.
http://www.warmwell.com/vaccoct27.htm
Seven pillars of piffle
The Science and Technology Committee (which now must be termed the “Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee” for reasons hard to fathom) has been taking evidence on the role of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser from Sir David King, today. The parallel universe that he inhabits is rather an odd one.
Here are some of the royal gems:
Ignorance is best.
http://warmwell.blogspot.com/2007/12/seven-pillars-of-piffle.html
Following the outbreak of SARS, one thing was certain: Professor Roy Anderson of Imperial College would soon be hitting the headines.
http://www.warmwell.com/2may1pe.html
Government virus expert paid £116k by swine flu vaccine manufacturers
Professor Sir Roy Anderson sits on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), a 20-strong task force drawing up the action plan for the virus.
Yet he also holds a £116,000-a-year post on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, the company selling swine flu vaccines and anti-virals to the NHS.
http://tinyurl.com/lhnk22
Latest flu outbreak is shaping up as fourth pandemic dud in the past six years
Jul 22, 2009 04:30 AM
DR. RICHARD SCHABAS
MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH IN HASTINGS AND PRINCE EDWARD COUNTIES
H1N1's oink is proving to be far worse than its bite
I'll end with a challenge to the media. The media love this story and accept the pundits' gloomy predictions uncritically. If this turns out to be the fourth pandemic false alarm in six years, as I think it will, it will be time to start asking some probing questions.Dr. Richard Schabas was Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health from 1987-97
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/669727
How scared should we be?
So how scared should we be of this looming storm?
Really not very much, say some experts like former Ontario chief medical officer of health Dr. Richard Schabas. Despite spreading to more than 160 countries on all continents, the virus has only caused mild flu from which most people have recovered, Schabas says .
Relatively few have died. Indeed, since the novel virus erupted in Mexico in April, it has killed about 1,300 people worldwide, and nearly 200,000 confirmed cases in 168 countries and territories have been reported. The World Health Organization believes about one million people have been infected. In Canada, swine flu has killed 72 people and hospitalized more than 1,300 so far — all in all not the kind of numbers that presage Armageddon, says Schabas.
More significantly, in southern hemisphere countries such as Australia and New Zealand, which are in the middle of their flu seasons, H1N1 has so far been relatively mild, suggesting there might not be a virulent second wave in Canada. Schabas says the WHO and most of the public health officials in Canada have handled the H1N1 outbreak badly, using harsh rhetoric and projections that often fly in the face of the evidence. He says the constant drumbeat of impending calamity only helps to fan public hysteria.
“They’ve consistently exaggerated the impact of H1N1, they’ve consistently exaggerated the potential impact of H1N1, and they’ve been intent on presenting this as some sort of impending public health disaster when the evidence has been very strong from earlier on that this is nowhere near as serious as they’ve been presenting it,” says Schabas, now medical officer of health for Hastings and Prince Edward Counties.
As experts go, Schabas is in the minority. To bolster his argument, he points to several false alarms the WHO and others have sounded on the “next big pandemic.”
Indeed, from the avian flu to SARS, experts have called it wrong time and again. In 1976, a huge scare swept through the U.S. after a young soldier died of what later turned out to be swine flu. Fearing a new “killer epidemic,” government officials rushed through a massive vaccination program against the supposedly deadly flu that ended up claiming only the life of the soldier. More people actually died of complications from the vaccination than the swine flu that never was. In 2003, when SARS burst out from China, predictions of another global catastrophe filled the headlines and the airwaves. Millions could die, experts said. In the event, SARS fizzled. About 800 people died.
The predictions were equally dire in 2005 when the H5N1 avian flu fear gripped the world. The H5N1 virus decimated poultry around the world and there were fears that it could spread to humans. At the time, the WHO said it was only a pandemic threat, and projected that if it developed into the real thing, a low-level pandemic would claim the lives of two to seven million people. Up to 100 million could perish in a worst-case scenario. Until now, fewer than 300 have died, but H5N1 avian flu is still considered a potential pandemic threat by the WHO.
“We were told SARS was going to be a pandemic. It didn’t happen,” says Schabas. “We were told bird flu was going to be a terrible pandemic. It didn’t happen. And then in April we were told to brace ourselves for the terrible wave of swine flu. It didn’t happen.
“Now, they are saying ‘brace yourselves for the terrible second wave of swine flu.’ It is not going to happen. They are exaggerating the danger, basically scaring people.”
John Herbert, executive director of the Ottawa Homebuilders Association, reflected Schabas’s skepticism when he told the Citizen that his members are not making any contingency plans to deal with swine flu. They think the danger is manufactured.
“People think the health authorities and the media are crying wolf, and they don’t see it as a legitimate threat,” he says.
http://tinyurl.com/kpz39k
Science Suffers From an Excess of Significance
Want to win a political argument? Want to get your spouse to change a health habit? Want to get your story on page one? Flash a scientific study
http://johnstodderinexile.wordpress.com/2007/09/15/science-suffers-from-an-excess-of-significance/
Most Science Studies
Appear to Be Tainted
By Sloppy Analysis
Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. “People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual,” Dr. Ioannidis said
snip
He has done systematic looks at the published literature and empirically shown us what we know deep inside our hearts,” said Muin Khoury, director of the National Office of Public Health Genomics at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We need to pay more attention to the replication of published scientific results.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://tinyurl.com/c94hl6
Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science
http://tinyurl.com/yf28w9g
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
From Brent's last reference:"an obsession with winning funding has gone a long way toward weakening the reliability of medical research. "
Our text for the day, "plus ça change...", applies not only to comparisons between then and now, but also to different fields of study.
Apologies O/T (Bishop, remove if desired)
Now the snow has arrived, the yearly ritual over at RealClimate has begun with a post entitled "Cold Winter in a World of Warming", preaching to the converted, lest the current conditions vs a vs their faith leave them 'Temporarily' 'Confused'.
The post discusses an article by a James Overland that suggests that arctic sea loss ( of course due to CO2) will result in a period of 10-20yrs of cold winters in Europe. I knew global warming would be bad ;)
The post is by rasmus and curiously, in one of his responses he says denialists wont like it " But the publication of this study is a fact!", how did that ever get thru peer revi...., sorry I forgot, being a bit naive aren't I.
Some entertaining comments from the 'educated' apparently when the arctice freezes it releases heat into the atmosphere ( I know what he means, but what a curious way to phrase it). The odd 'denier' is allowed thru, only to recieve a truely biblical stoning. Well, the boys have to let of steam every now and then don't they.
Seriously, Its a hoot! ;)
Seven pillars of piffle
http://warmwell.blogspot.com/2007/12/seven-pillars-of-piffle.html
UK science head backs ethics code
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6990868.stm
David King admits to speculation over source of climate science emails
Former government adviser backs away from sensational claims over involvement of foreign intelligence or wealthy lobbyists
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/david-king-climate-emails-speculation
Hippocratic Oath for scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for_scientists
At last: expert Sir David King expertly reveals true identity of Climategate 'hackers'
Illarianov was appalled by the behaviour of Sir David and his delegation, he wrote afterwards:
“It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government and the reputation of the title “Sir” has sustained heavy damage.”
I’m touched that the Independent continues to do the charitable work of making Sir David feel better about himself by still taking him seriously. But I’m not sure I can promise to carry on this tradition when I take over as Environment Editor.
Problem is, I’m with Illarionov. I believe, as he does, that the eco-fascist ideology and warped science underpinning the AGW scam are like something out of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
As Illarionov wrote:
That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the twentieth century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkovism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda.
http://tinyurl.com/yk2mb5k
"Greene depicts Eisenhower as a well-intentioned leader overwhelmed by issues beyond his comprehension."
As another poster suggested, this is typical of the misinformation about Eisenhower. The man kept his thoughts to himself at meetings, so the underlings thought he had nothing to say. This vision of the man has been thoroughly debunked.
This slander came out of the Kennedy White House. That's the same team that lied about the non-existent 'missile gap.' As a Senator, Kennedy had been told in secret meetings with national security officers that there was no missile gap, but he went on with the accusation to attack Ike from the right. Ike ran our entire war effort - do you really think he was some kind of boob?
MarkB
Without demeaning Ike one iota, there were some others, George Marshall for example. I think there were some admirals, too. A few Brits, The French guy with the incredible nose.
Say what you will about Eisenhower but there is a great quote of his in his farewell address that reminds me of what we are experiencing right here and right now. The quote is often forgotton by the other often quoted phrase where he warns of the growing military/industrial complex. But if you read just a little further you will see some forward thinking: " Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite". Merry Xmas to all from the US. I always love visiting your country and hope to return soon.
Another pseudoliberal attempt to rewrite history to match their fervent wish. If they can't tell the truth about the past, what else are they lying about?
The annoying take that Eisenhower was a nice dufus is just the starting point of the disgusting habit of lefties in America to denigrate everyone on the other side.
Meanwhile they give us LBJ, Carter and our present Chief Executive without any apparent sense of irony.
Eisenhower was able to run this country very well for eight years and still work on his golf game. Our present leader can only do half of that.
O/T
The man who repeatedly beats the Met Office at its own game
Piers Corbyn not only predicted the current weather, but he believes things are going to get much worse, says Boris Johnson.
This I think is interesting, Boris has to include a reference to "consensus" (he is a politician), but everything else he writes actually gives airing to a possibly heretic view. By implication he also gives the Met a bit of a kicking...
Our Boris might be one to watch...
Ps. Boris Johnson is Mayor of Metropolitan London, and a very bright guy (for a politician)...
re revisionist/statist elite calling itself ´liberal:´
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/where-do-leftists-come-from/2/
¨... an order of quasi-human life as the confederacy of the left,..¨ &
¨Extra-terrestrial life has always been here / a pervasive and anthropocidal psychosphere,..¨
¿Should we expect change?
-----From Costa Rica, Socialist paradise and home of C. Figueres, Exec. Sec´y, UNFCCC, and long-time carbon trading ´senior level advisor,´--- wishing you all a thoughtful Advent, John
O/T
I do not that often go over to WUWT, but I noticed that they had posted the Boris story I linked above. A commenter, Shane Muir, posted these youtube links. A British C4 documentary from 1990. Well worth a look. Some xmas cheer for you all...
Video1
Video2
Video3
Video4
Video5
Video6
Plus ça change...
j ferguson
Not to mention a Russian or two.
Dreadnought,
thank you. I woke up in the middle of the night having realized this important omission and it was too cold to get out the notebook and fix it. Thank you again.
Dreadnought
"Not to mention a Russian or two."
Would that be Generals Zhukov and Konev?
As one of the several closet liberals who frequent this interesting blog, I have to constantly re-examine my core beliefs to see if, in fact, I really am a liberal. Having high regard for Ike, and Reagan for that matter, not buying the CAGW madness, preferring to be left alone rather than managed by the politicians may be disqualifying.
There must be a middle somewhere. It does seem to have disappeared here in the US.
@j ferguson
There is no penalty attached to just being 'J Ferguson'.
A unique individual who has thought about things and come to his own conclusions. Whether they agree with what others call 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' in each and every respect should not be a worry to you.
Be Yourself
In many economic matters I am drier than dry, a bit wetter on social policy. But on governance issues I am often Bennite. How should I be categorised..as an evil fascist downtreading the working classes or as a dangerous Red plotting to overthrow our class system?
A uni-dimensional categorisation is far too simplistic. I think I feel string theory coming upon me..................
Latimer Alder,
I tend to run on the theory that "if it's obvious, then you don't understand it."
A bit like "I'm not afraid to live in fear."
Well, I immediately thought of Kutuzov, then thought better of it. Then thought again.
============================
Ike is an interesting person who had no idea about what he was doing, usually. My favorite story about him is when he was president -- of Columbia University. He was universally disrespected by all.
The story was one day the faculty were upset about something -- probably pay -- and he was very upset, saying: "Just who do these professors think they are telling me what to do, after all they are just employees of this university."
The dean looked him in the eye, and said, "Sir, the faculty ARE the university."
Then there are the stories about how he spent hours at the university's bowling lanes.
Soon after he moved on to President of the United States, much to the relief of Columbia.
jferguson
Spare a thought for us British “lefties” (“liberal” means centrist in Britain, and right-wing pro-American here in France). At least you have two parties spelling out different policies, and a fair number of independent-minded elected representatives. There is nothing a sceptic or right can do to influence the insane policies of all three main parties in Britain, since there is no other mainstream party he can threaten to vote for.
Latimer Adler’s dilemma is typical, though I think string theory as a solution lacks popular appeal. “String ’em Up” theory, perhaps..
geoffchambers, liberal is not centrist here. It's left and usually the people who are characterized liberal by non-liberals tend toward the socialist - prefer big government, would like government to protect them from all manner of things, want tiny fish to be protected and so forth.
I should point out that US liberals themselves seem to think they are centrist. They are not. Our public television.public radio system imagines it is unbiased, but as I'm certain Don Pablo will be happy to point out - they are definitely quite left of center and it shows in most things they do.
Among us, I suppose, my disbelief in the possibility of a real free-market, suspicion that all financial activities of the government may not be bad, likely brand me as a liberal here in the US.
But then I actually read Adam Smith - few of his conservative followers here in the sates seem to have.
Maybe I'm a recovering libertarian.
Whatever the case might be, Bishop's is for me, one of the most comfortable and consistently interesting blogs I've found.
E O'Connor
I was indeed thinking of Zhukov.
jferguson
Yes, I know that liberal is left in the US, and therefore tends to be pro-strong central government. The confusion arises in part because, in a time of crisis like the present, almost everyone is crying out for strong government, while the dominant intellectual tendency of the past 30 years has been in the opposite direction.
What makes the situation piquant in Britain (and explains the disarray of people like Latimer Alder and myself) is the fact that the AGW consensus is only questioned on the far right. People will only become aware of the energy disaster caused by AGW belief when the lights go out. The suffering will be felt by the poorest, who have nowhere to turn politically, given the left’s blind obedience to Green orthodoxy. This bothers me.
geoffchambers,
I had thought that the conservative right here in the states ALWAYS cries out for less government. And the far right continues to be the only sector of the polity, here, that is reliably skeptical of the AGW consensus. They tend to dis-believe everything they hear from the "government." Not a bad approach but also a bit imperfect.
I'm coming to feel that the way our political systems work are very very different across the water. I cannot vote for anyone I'm completely comfortable, but my response is to imagine that 85% of the issues which come the way of our top politicians are non-partisan so i vote proven intelligence without discoverable evil agenda.
what else can one do?
brent: It is worth noting that both Richard North and Christopher Booker were all over the FMD cull (and some of the other government 'science' scandals that you list) at the time it was happening. Their BS-detection record is unmatched.
@Jane Coles
Hi Jane,
Most of the links were from this website
www.warmwell.com
The lady running this website has done an outstanding job , and is still doing so following (and documenting) the vagaries in the animal health world. (there is much more to tell than the short list I've posted above) Her knowledge is encyclopedic.
She started her website about the time of FMD2001.
I followed the FMD2001 epidemic as well in real time, and was able to quickly see that the modeling was not above board.
cheers
brent
Pity the poor government with a deranged science advisor. Common sense may indicate that the advice is cobblers, but imagine the outcry against the politician-who-knew-better when lives are lost subsequently. They're pretty much hostage to the science advice, be it good or bad.
And so, I wonder, what is the process by which a Professor Beddington reaches one of the pinnacles of his profession? Is he a top scientist or first and foremost a talented communicator, organizer and schmoozer? Was it his bright idea to invest in a zillion quids worth of vaccines before the Great Swine Plague? Is the Prof the Real McCoy or a latter-day Lysenkoist?
@Brent Hargreaves
Hi Brent H,
The chief scientist in the UK is IMO really a political appointment to do some dirty work for the government under the guise of science. The chief scientist is in reality a "political actor", a politician.
Note David King got his knuckles rapped by No10 for his CO2 is worse than terrorism
comment
http://warmwell.blogspot.com/2007/12/seven-pillars-of-piffle.html
I assume than David's "timing" was politically inopportune in the particular instance, because the general theme is fully in line with government desired propaganda
Here's another miscreant, Hans Blix (a lawyer I believe) and longtime head of IAEA spouting the same nonsense
Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government?
Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.
http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
So I understand the argument advanced but don't agree. Any political appointee can be fired and if the government appoints a rogue they are responsible for that as well. To say that we just have to do what the guy in a "white coat" says is the Nuremberg defense.
http://tinyurl.com/37czuv2
What people have a hard time understanding is that for example the IPCC was always a political project in search of a (supposedly) scientific justification. The scientists are only there as a new "priesthood" (and I do mean that literally) to bless the political desires.
Exactly the same would apply in the case of the WHO (world hoax organization?), another corrupt UN institution.
cheers
little brent : )
P.S. I'm very scientifically oriented. My education is in an Applied Science discipline. However science is only an investigative tool for me. Nothing more. It is not a belief system or religion to me.
brent: I'm familiar with Mary Critchley's site and, like you, I followed the FMD scandal "in real time". I was not seeking to diminish her work at all. Indeed, both North and Booker used her as a majpr resource, as I recall. In the context of a climate blog, my implicit point was simply that North and Booker were BS-detecting then, just as they have been with AGW. Booker is important because, uniquely among sceptics, he has a regular perch in the print version of a popular newspaper. He reaches all kinds of people who, to this day, wouldn't think of researching a topic by looking at blogs or specialist websites.
@Jane Coles
Hi Jane,
I agree that Booker is one of the very few in the mainstream media to consistently run counter to mainstream dogma. Also Richard N his sometime collaborator in media print.
Richard N has also made a big contribution via his blog, and has often commented acidly (and in my view appropriately) about mainstream media dogma and drivel.
Climate is the "post normal scientist's" ( I call it sceance ) main poster child, but it's not by any means the only example.
Unfortunately we've a severe infestation of "post normal" advocates in leadership positions in many (most?) fields
As far as what Mary C has contributed, I consider it fully on a par (wrt subjects she's covered ), with what Steve McI has done wrt the Hokey Team :)
all the best
brent