We tend not to make statements - by Richard... Tuesday, July 13, 2010

We tend not to make statements - by Richard... Tuesday, July 13, 2010

The Toronto Sun has picked up on the "Amazongate" story with journalist Brian Lilley reporting the response of the WWF, which says "it cannot be held responsible for how the UN climate change group used its data."

Privately, Brian tells me that the WWF was extremely reluctant to make any statement at all. He says that it "essentially tried to tell me that this is all too complex for my pretty little head", then declaring (on the record): "We tend not to make statements in contexts where there seems to be limited interest in a balanced appraisal of an issue." 

How different that is from last January when Keith Allott, the WWF's climate change campaigner was affirming his pride on the "accuracy" of his organisation's reports.

He pledged to carry out an "internal investigation" into how its Global Review of Forest Firescame to miss out a reference to what it claimed was the source of its material, Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute). "We have a team of people looking at this internationally," Allott said.

In an official statement on 31 January, the WWF then noted that some commentators had concluded that potential climate impacts on the Amazon "are overstated and unsupported." It thus declared, "WWF refutes this conclusion and stands by the credibility of its report."

Then on 7 February, its UK chief executive, David Nussbaum, told The Sunday Times that the WWF report was "fully supported by peer-reviewed literature". Author Andy Rowell claimed that the key figure in the report "had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication."

This was backed by another statement from WWF on 10 February, announcing the outcome of its inquiry promised at the end of January. The reference (Fire in the Amazon), it said, "was drawn from an authoritative source, was factually correct and is supported by the peer-reviewed literature."

Last week, though, UK head of media Benjamin Ward was only prepared to argue that Fire in the Amazon was "quite appropriate" for use in their report, A global overview of forest fires., while admitting the source was a Brazilian advocacy group website. Asked whether it was peer reviewed, he could only say stiffly, "We have never claimed it was peer-reviewed." 

Just a day earlier, though, the WWF was signatory to a duplicitous statement in a press release urging news outlets that reported on the original "Climategate" controversy to set the record straight. 

These outlets were urged to highlight recent developments "that completely disprove" much of the evidence that supported the alleged "Climategate" scandal with the same forcefulness and frequency that they reported the original charges.

Citing The Sunday Times article alleging that the IPCC had issued an unsubstantiated report claiming 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest was endangered due to changing rainfall patterns, it happily lifted chunks of text from the retraction, even though by then it knew the retraction to make false assertions: 

... the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF [World Wildlife Fund] report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change.

"Failure to publicly correct the record undermines the very heart of journalism - to report the truth," declared the WWF. 

Now, when given the opportunity to set the record straight, all it can manage, is: "We tend not to make statements in contexts where there seems to be limited interest in a balanced appraisal of an issue." How interesting.

Comment: Amazongate thread

Print ready

The dregs of the dregs - by Richard...

One is aware occasionally of rather unpleasant deposits on the footpath, despite the prevalence of dog-fouling laws – but that does not mean that we rush home to write about them.

In like manner, one becomes aware of the performance of certain MPs. The immediate impulse is very much the same – to ignore the unpleasantness and hope the rain washes it away ... except that it doesn't.

Thus, for our own record – late into the day – we must note The Daily Mail recording how "dozens of MPs took part in a six-hour drinking session on the House of Commons terrace shortly before a crucial vote" last Tuesday.

Many were said to be under the influence when they finally made their way to the Chamber to take part in the debate on the budget and one Tory admitted he had been too drunk to vote after he fell to the floor of a Commons bar, where drinks are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. 

In The Daily Telegraph we recently read of MPs exploiting new expenses rules by prolonging a debate past 1am in order to claim up to £130 each for staying in hotels, this not being unrelated with the episodes of drunkenness. 

My immediate response is to rail at the stupidity of these people. Given all the recent events, the one thing you would be expecting of an MP is that he should be asking himself constantly of his own actions, "what would my constituents think – what would the general public think?" Given that they are now so obviously ashamed at their own behaviour, one wonders whether such morons are safe to be let out on their own, much less to represent us as MPs.

Not far short of two years ago, I wrote a piece about parliament entitled "this is not a game". Too few have listened – they seem incapable of listening. But what do these half-wits expect us to think? How do they expect us to react? What do they expect us to say? Are we supposed torespect these creatures?

And now, looking at the "cuts", one can see the ripples spreading – the story having reached the Australian press and all points in between. So does it mark yet another step in our decline. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for our cretinous MPs. This we do not deserve.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Day 3 – Battle of Britain - by Richard... Monday, July 12, 2010

This was settling down into what was becoming apparent as "phase one" – clearing the Channel of shipping, the so-called Kanalkampf. The British were not to know that that was the plan, although this was now very evident on the third day of sustained attacks.

Formations of early-morning fog in the Channel hampered the Germans and until 8.50 am activity was slight. Several radar plots were then picked up, heading for convoys "Agent" off North Foreland and "Booty", twelve miles north-east of Orfordness. The heavier attack was aimed at “Booty". Sections from six squadrons were scrambled.

Action was seen in Scotland later that morning, with an He 111 being shot down off Aberdeen. Several more German aircraft were shot down during the day – one off the Isle of Wight. Poor visibility throughout the day, though, made interceptions difficult.

By midnight, the Germans had suffered only eight losses, against six from the RAF, in the course of 670 sorties. Already, some squadrons were running short of pilots, an issue which was to dominate the battle. But, while this first phase was the Stuka war, these vulnerable aircraft were soon to be withdrawn from the English campaign. This was the beginning of the Spitfire legend.

Battle of Britain thread

Print ready

The assumption of stupidity - by Richard...

For sure, the headline of this piece is modified by the strap, but the commentators are in no doubt about the message - and nor are we. Our politicians have been giving away power for far too long and it has already transformed Britain.

But, as always, we get the dismal Cleggeron pair prattling about the transfer of power, power which is not theirs to give as it has already been ceded. Again, as always though, this dire, malign pair manage their quota of extruded verbal material without once mentioning the EU.

Not for the first time, we are left to wonder whether it is the Cleggerons themselves who are so thick that they don't realise we will notice the missing elephant, or simply that they think we are so thick that we won't notice.

Purely on the basis that no politician could get to the levels this pair have achieved and be as thick as they look and behave, one must assume that they are taking us for fools.

And, if there is one thing you should not attempt to do in this country is take the electorate for fools - it's this "assumption of stupidity" which is really so offensive. You can get away with it for a while – for quite a long while - but eventually it catches up with you. Politicians who take the piss tend to get slaughtered in the polls, if not in the streets.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

An affront to safety? - by Richard...

In The Daily Mail today, we see a report that competence tests on nurses trained in EU member states are to be scrapped, opening thousands of NHS jobs to Eastern European nurses.

Thus we are told, thousands of foreign nurses will be allowed to work in Britain without any safety checks – and all because EU rules demand that the tests are axed. They will not need to sit rigorous competence exams before treating NHS patients. And they will no longer even be required to show they have looked after patients in the past three years. 

The test will still apply to non EU applicants – so a New Zealand trained nurse will have to take it. They have to show they have carried out a minimum of 450 hours' nursing in their own country in the past three years or they must attend an intensive three month course with regular tests on their knowledge and skills.

In the past five years, says The Mail, more than 40,000 nurses from the EU – including former Soviet Bloc countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia - applied to work in Britain. But just 270 completed the course, deterred by its cost and difficulty. 

Now the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which regulates nurses, has been forced to scrap both requirements because they are deemed to be "discriminatory" towards workers from EU member states.

Whether this report is true, in whole or in part, is anyone's guess. We are long past the stage where we can believe any media report uncritically. Given that the tests which can be applied to medical doctors are extremely limited, however, this sounds plausible. We will have to keep an eye on it to see if it pans out.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Excessive welfare regulations? - by Richard... Sunday, July 11, 2010

You should not be burdened with this, but I have been struggling with it all day ... the photograph. At first sight, I fantasised that it was something to do with excessive EU animal welfare regulation. But there must be a more rational explanation.

I know nothing about the picture, other than it is Spanish (perhaps) and of some antiquity. Answers on the forum, please ... I am sure someone out there knows what is going on.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Amazongate: why it matters - by Richard...

Says Delingpole:

The IPCC made a false claim in its most recent assessment report, passing off the propaganda of environmental activists as peer-reviewed science. Instead of admitting the truth and retracting its false claim, the IPCC and its sympathisers went into entirely characteristic cover-up mode. Activist scientists like Daniel Nepstad obfuscated; other activist scientists like Dr Simon Lewis of Leeds University exploited the ignorance and pro-Warmist bias of the Press Complaints Commission to bully an entirely unnecessary retraction of a true story on the subject by the Sunday Times; activist journalists like George Monbiot then boasted that they had been vindicated – a claim that was excitedly repeated throughout the ecotard blogosphere and among ecotard cheerleaders like the BBC. All of this energy in defence of a great, stinking lie.

Modesty prohibits reproduction of the next paragraph, very welcome though it is as an antidote to the unpleasantness over on the Moonbat site.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Dumbing down - by Richard...

Before I get down to proper work, I couldn't avoid the temptation of flagging up this report by the BBC's so called defence correspondent, Caroline Wyatt.

"In the blazing afternoon sun, a heat-haze rises from the tarmac as soldiers from 47 Air Despatch Squadron load up huge pallets of water and rations into the back of a Hercules C-130 aircraft," she tells us.

This is all about Our Brave Boys in the RAF air-dropping supplies to Our Brave Boys on the ground. This, she rather unhelpfully tells us: "... is a method dating back to the air drops of World War II, when British troops operating in France were re-supplied by air." She even gets some unfortunate airman to say those words to camera.

Well, up to a point, Lord Copper, although we then go on to see the fair Caroline witness a high-level night drop on a remote patrol base in Afghanistan, a "text-book drop" where all the supplies obligingly arrive on target. 

And the chances of that happening unaided are about zero. Left to the ministrations of the Crabs, the brown jobs would still be bartering with the Taureg to get their supplies back. And yes, I know the Taureg inhabit the Sahara. That's the point.

The miracle ingredient that allows the RAF to hurl things out of the back of an aircraft in the expectation that they will actually land anywhere near where they are aimed is a US-devised system called JPADS. These are GPS precision-guided parachutes - brilliant stuff, much appreciated by all.

Now, you would think the fair Caroline in her report might actually mention this piece of technological wizardry – but not a bit of it. It's still a method dating back to WWII, according to her.

It is possible, of course, that the MoD put a block on it being mentioned – they are stupid enough to do that. Although I cannot imagine why. It is not a secret – even I wrote about it more than two years ago and its acquisition was reported in 2007.

Another possibility is that the fair Caroline didn't notice the system, or didn't understand it, so she didn't report it. That can't be ruled out. I've only met the lady once, and then very briefly, but she didn't strike me as the sharpest knife on the planet. I don't think its just because she's a girlie Beeb - although that doesn't help.

Then, the other possibility is that the BBC thought a discussion of JPADS was far too complicated for the poor little British viewers, so it left the detail out. That patronising view, in fact, is all too possible. But whatever the cause here, we are seeing a serious bit of dumbing down.

What I don't understand, though, is why so many people are willing to pay their license fees in order to have their intelligence insulted in this way.

COMMENT THREAD

Print ready

Battle of Britain – day 2 - by Richard...

This was another day characterised by attacks on convoys, with attacks off the Suffolk coast. Portland Harbour was also raided. During the night there was activity over south-west England, East Anglia, the Yorkshire coast and Portsmouth. Weather was overcast in the Channel with a cloud base at 5,000 ft. Thunderstorms and bright intervals in the Midlands and North.

Action started early, with two Luftflotte formations operating out of Cherbourg detected at 7.30 am heading for a convoy in Lyme Bay. Six Spitfires and six Hurricanes were scrambled, with the Hurricanes intercepting ten Stukas and about 20 Me 109s shortly before 8 am. One Hurricane was shot down almost immediately.

The picture shows a gaggle of Stukas (Junkas 87s) from the Bundesarchiv, taken some time in 1943 – location unspecified. It is a rare shot of a formation in action, and presents something of the image that the Hurricane pilots must have seen. The action on 11 July was successful as, although two Spitfires were shot down, the Stuka attack was disrupted and no ships were sunk.

There was also a battle over the Channel over a German rescue seaplane, when two Spitfires were shot down and the seaplane forced to land. There were Stuka raids on Portland, at which the RAF was late in arriving, the radar having given false (low) estimates of strength, although a later raid on Portsmouth was well and duly carved up. A night raid on the city though, by 30 bombers, killed nine and injured 50.

At the end of the day, the Luftwaffe had lost eleven aircraft and the RAF four in the course of 432 sorties. 

Battle of Britain thread