Bishop Hill A cancer in our midst
Jan 11, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Greens From time time to time I have remarked on the tendency of those prominent in sci-policy circles to invent poisonous allegations about prominent global warming sceptics. Paul Nurse's inventions about Nigel Lawson are a case in point, the fulminations of the "we're being rude about sceptics so we don't need to tell the truth" types at the Guardian another.
You can point out as often as you like that these people are being dishonest and it will have little effect. In the circles in which they move telling the truth is no particular virtue and dishonesty is no particular sin.
I was reminded of this when reading the remarks of Lord Krebs, the chairman of the Adaptation Committee of the Committee on Climate Change in a speech he made to the Oxford Farming Conference recently:
There are still some people who, in the face of overwhelming evidence and analysis, think that climate change is either not happening, is not caused by humans, or is nothing to worry about, or some combination of all three. Perhaps they get confused between year to year variation in weather and long term effects of climate change. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, is one of these climate deniers.
They are not sceptics: that is what scientists are. I am a statutory advisor to Defra on adaptation to climate change, and the guidance I was given was not to mention the words climate change to him when offering advice!
And here are Owen Paterson's stated views on climate change:
Of course the climate is changing. There is a human element. What’s important for me and for Defra is to adapt and to make sure that we do have good coastal defences. And I’m very proud that although it was terrible for those who were flooded, families, lives and businesses, don’t forget that 1.4m properties were protected.
I fancy that the bit about Paterson not wanting to speak to advisers about climate change has more to do with the simple fact that climate change is DECC's remit rather than Defra's. The clue is in the title.
This feeling that one can fabricate allegations against one's political opponents is a revolting and increasingly common tendency in public life. Krebs and his ilk are a cancer.
Reader Comments (32)
Of course they are; Krebs is, after all, the german word for cancer.
Well, I think we got that message, Alexej!
I don't quite understand the bit about "political opponents", your Grace. Krebs is a scientific advisor to a government department. How can the minister be a "political opponent"?
The point about lying, however, is an excellent one, and I wonder of the Noble Lord would care to come in here and explain why he is accusing a Minister of the Crown of denying climate change when that (now, regrettably and to Cameron's shame, ex-)Minister is on record as doing nothing of the sort.
But I suppose if you're "saving the planet" anything goes, including lying through your teeth. So much for science!
In fact, if I can add a supplementary to that, it seems that in the current state of affairs you can usual tell when a scientist is lying because his lips are moving. My apologies to all those genuine scientists who still cling to the idea that science is something to be cherished and that research should be pursued to wherever it leads regardless. You are increasingly in a minority, it would appear.
Better to be a realist, than a false prophet.
Why is it that so many of the False Prophets, make Fat Profits out of their doom mongering?
"The former Secretary of State for the Environment, Owen Paterson, is one of these climate deniers.
They are not sceptics: that is what scientists are."
Lord Krebs, what a truely odious and dishonest little man
I used to think they resorted to lies because they weren't secure in arguing about the realities. Now I see that lies and ad homs are the first thing out of the holster. It is the preferred tactic to silence one's opponents so that they can't even present their claims. That's all about getting your way and nothing to do with any debate, scientific or otherwise.
My German dictionary agrees with Alexej Buergin when" Krebs" is used in a medical sense. When it is used in a botanical sense, it apparently also means "canker".
Quite appropriate I think.
Krebs PhD thesis was into the 'territorial behaviour of the Great Tit'. Quite so.
@Mike Jackson: "I don't quite understand the bit about "political opponents", your Grace. Krebs is a scientific advisor to a government department. How can the minister be a "political opponent"?"
Scientific advisors are appointed by politicians. They are not part of the Civil Service, or appointed by the Civil Service, and are not there to give impartial advice, but to give biased 'advice' that supports the party line. DECC is ruled by Ed Davey and the Lib-Dems, and it is to them that Krebs owes his loyalty (and I mean that in terms of money as much as ideology). Paterson is, of course, a Tory, therefore he is Krebs' political opponent.
The only plus that I can see from his speech is that he appears to have seriously pissed off the Soil Association, another profit-making part of the green blob:
http://www.soilassociation.org/news/newsstory/articleid/7617/comment-on-john-krebs-talk-at-the-oxford-farming-conference
Salopian
Presumably Krebs was speaking in his capacity of chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee which was a body set up under the Climate Change Act to advise the government on matters relating to climate change.
As such his function is to advise the government not to have "opponents" within it regardless of the political stripe of the Minister who heads the Department his Committee reports to.
He sits in the House of Lords as a cross-bencher and has contributed to a paper on badger culling produced by the Bow Group (a Tory organisation). He was appointed by Labour to head the Food Standards Agency and also (I think) by them to this current position.
He doesn't appear from this to have any political "opponents" at all, just the ones that oppose his views on global warming!
Perhaps (if he chooses to take up my invitation to explain what gives him the right to tell lies about ex-Ministers) he could also explain why an expert on the Great Tit is any more of an expert on climate than Paterson — or me, for that matter.
When your (Krebs) job is "chairman of the Adaptation Committee of the Committee on Climate Change" it completely buggers your bank balance if you so much as utter a word against what puts
breadbrioche on the table.Lord Krebs: Serious question; the climate is changing? So what?
@ Mike Jackson:" Presumably Krebs was speaking in his capacity of chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee....As such his function is to advise the government not to have "opponents" within it regardless of the political stripe of the Minister who heads the Department his Committee reports to."
I'm afraid you are being a bit naive here. As a former Scientific Secretary to two such committees, I can assure you that appointments as chairs are made at Ministerial level and are political. Also, having checked the OFC website, he was speaking in his role as Principal of Jesus College.
Krebs PhD thesis was into the 'territorial behaviour of the Great Tit'. Quite so.
Jan 11, 2015 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterBilly Liar
So no problem understanding the likes of preacher gummer and his lay Yeo;
I thought 'krebs', was a term referred to by extremely affected 'cut glass English' accented blokes from Oxford - after contracting a 'catching' STD, and like a taboo subject - no one ever wants to talk about nor indeed to, socialize with.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Along similar lines --the latest post by Jo Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/lewandowsky-peer-reviewed-study-includes-someone-32757-years-old/
What is abundantly clear is lying has become such normal behaviour that it no longer carries any implications for the person or organisation concerned. End justifies the means and all that.
When the official temperature data from decades past is being 'adjusted' in the US and Australia on a wholesale scale and the relevant government authorities do precisely nothing about it, you know that as far as integrity is concerned, the jig is up.
Peter Gleik also demonstrated the outright corruption of NGO's too. There's dozens of other examples. All this will continue for as long as it takes the next wave of politicians to come through - people who are not tainted by existing decisions and policies, who can then start to hold people to account without being already compromised by involvement themselves.
@cheshireded
> ... people who are not tainted by existing decisions and policies, who can then start to hold people to account without being already compromised by involvement themselves
Not a hope
Rationality may yet win a few more battles, but the war is lost
The majority of people simply want Guvmint to protect them - from everything
"Krebs" is, after all, the german word for cancer.
They are not sceptics: that is what scientists are."
- the proletariat should not be allowed to think for themselves.
The fact that Kreb used the denier word when discussing Paterson, says it all. I seem to remember that Miliband, whilst discussing Owen Paterson, some time ago, said "that he did not even believe in climate change", or words to that effect. Clearly, as has been said before, CAGW is a creed to these people.
Alexej Buergin, you are starting to get rather annoyingly repetitive.
A's comment's gone metastatic. Mebbe cyclic.
=============
0.4 degrees 1850-1960
and
0.4 degrees 1960-1998
and
0 degrees 1998-2014
the first 0.4 degrees are due to "natural variability" as CO2 could then not have played a role
The 2nd one are because of CO2
This is according to the Royal Society??
How does dunce Nurse know that the latter 0.4 is not ALSO because of natural variability?? How has he fleeced the 2 causes from each other. Please www/report/pear-reviewed report.
Sorry for the silly repetitions; I got just some error messages as an answer that said nothing got through. Maybe something with the rain disrupting the satellite internet-connection? We are in the boonies, here.
By the way: "Krebs" is lobster, too.
Cli-fi is an increasingly recognised and important feature of the CAGW argument, an MO condoned by all, particular those at the euphemistically named site, "The Conversation" where there is widespread agreement that their ends justify the means. 'Je suis science' springs to mind.
[snip]
Whoa Bish be careful of libel : " feeling that one can fabricate allegations against one's"
I think you are seeing fabrication where there is none.
As I see no inconsistancy between his words and your description of Paterson.
Maybe he's not lying ...this time.
- Krebs name calling "denier" is despicable BUT .. I am ashamed to see people here picking on his name.
..Normally we are above level... People might start to construe this page as a smear against Krebs.
Does anyone happen to know what "krebs" translates to in German?
The warmist talk is ugly but is vacuous. Its only objective is to intimidate. If the science was there, it would make no difference who "opposed" it. Since the science is not there, it does not matter how much anyone yelps to fill the void of its absence.
Krebs on Climate Change
Rod Keenan: What do you see as the challenges of adapting to climate change in the UK?
Lord Krebs: On the one hand, too much water: flooding events, coastal flooding, riverine flooding and heavy rain as we’ve seen over the past couple of months. At the other end of the spectrum, slightly oddly, the UK is is quite water-stressed, particularly in the south east where there is a combination of high population and relatively low rainfall. So in the long run we expect an increase in long periods of drought, and we expect periods of intense rainfall to become more common. Sea level rise is going to be an issue for low-lying areas, particularly the east coast.
Rod Keenan: How have some of the recent events, particularly extensive flooding, affected how people perceive climate change?
Lord Krebs: In the news coverage and public discourse, people were horrified by the events and the need for emergency action. But over days people began to ask the question “is this something unusual?” So it did then move into a discussion of ‘is this a consequence of climate change’? You can’t attribute any single event to climate change, but the likelihood is that these kind of extreme events will become more common in the future. So if we’re thinking about how we prepare ourselves to be a more resilient nation, we should be thinking about how we handle these events, and how we can invest to prevent damage. So I think the public perception is yes, these floods are a sign of things to come in the future.
//////////////////////////
Do we actually pay for this crap advice? Firstly he says we should prepare for typical British weather then he says that regardless of the lack of predictive science let's just pretend the public perception is to expect floods and so that becomes the scientific case and furthermore lets just pretend the public believe the same as the lefty media despite all evidence that the public think the main problem was a lack of dredging.
My main concern with these pseudo-scientific, anti-industry cretins is that they are more worried about reed warblers and knatterjack toads than about humans. Their only prescription for us is that we frankly shouldn't have built on that land in the first place so we deserve all we get.
Krebs has probably spent most of his life feeling somewhat inferior, due to the fame of his father, the inventor of the "Krebs Cycle", which was a kind of bicycle that could reuse much of the energy expended to drive it along, and is still very popular in Germany.
Actually his definition;
Is very good; it might be improved by altering 'year to year' to 'multidecadal ' but Krebs' version is simpler.
The value of "overwhelming analysis" is zero as Robert Boyle's discoveries illustrate. Which narrows the question down to evaluating the evidence.
Being a Krebs-style 'Denier' carries no shame. Indeed If I had a teeshirt I would have his definition printed on it.