Bolitics The New Condem Government

[peterms]

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Who is Lord Lawson and why is he wheeled out to spew balderdash?

 

What's his deal?

[snowychap]

You don't know who Nigel Lawson is?

[bickster]

Who is Lord Lawson and why is he wheeled out to spew balderdash?

 

What's his deal?

He's most famous for being Nigella's dad but in a former life he lived next door to some old hag called Margaret who he got on with rather well for 6 years.

He's also less fat than he used to be

[peterms]

Lawson is a shill for polluters. Here.

Lilley is another. Here.

[MakemineVanilla]

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

[chrisp65]

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

Yes, agree with that. There has been a presumption that the recent floods are directly due to global warming and this is a given at the start of any debate. Radio 4 is particularly guilty of this.

It debases the sound science when it's used in such a silly shallow manner.

[peterms]

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

Yes, agree with that. There has been a presumption that the recent floods are directly due to global warming and this is a given at the start of any debate. Radio 4 is particularly guilty of this.

It debases the sound science when it's used in such a silly shallow manner.

 

 

My main objection to the debate is the unspoken assumption that if man-made climate change is proven, it automatically means that the solutions presently on offer, are assumed to be the correct reaction to that conclusion.

 

If UK consumers are to pay 14% extra on top of their fuel bills and have their home insurance inflated to subsidise people who buy houses in flood plains, they might decide that they would prefer to spend that money on defending against the effects of climate change, rather than wasting money on the futile act of trying to hold back the inevitable, in a world where the worst polluters continue unchecked.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

You don't know who Nigel Lawson is?

 

Before my time, I'm afraid.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

 

 

Slingo works for an organisation whose funding will be benefited from a belief in climate change.

 

She gets £130k a year plus a bonus of £30k (what for exactly?) and has received two public honours for her work (see Wiki).

 

Any Tory MP sitting on the board of an energy company and enjoying such rewards would be considered to have a conflict of interest.

 

Slingo has to be treated exactly the same.

Edited February 19, 2014 by MakemineVanilla

[peterms]

 

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

 

 

Slingo works for an organisation whose funding will be benefited from a belief in climate change.

 

She gets £130k a year plus a bonus of £30k (what for exactly?) and has received two public honours for her work (see Wiki).

 

Any Tory MP sitting on the board of an energy company and enjoying such rewards would be considered to have a conflict of interest.

 

Slingo has to be treated exactly the same.

 

 

 

She works for the Met Office, for god's sake.  It's not a lobbying group.  It is a public body with a remit to serve the best interests of the public.  It's nothing at all like an energy company, and the comparison is wholly misplaced.

 

You're saying that we must dismiss scientific advice coming from employees of the Met Office because their organisation may receive more funding if it is thought necessary to do more work on climate change?

 

That rather seems to defeat the whole point of having a scientific advisory body in the first place.

[Risso]

 

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

 

 

Slingo works for an organisation whose funding will be benefited from a belief in climate change.

 

She gets £130k a year plus a bonus of £30k (what for exactly?) and has received two public honours for her work (see Wiki).

 

Any Tory MP sitting on the board of an energy company and enjoying such rewards would be considered to have a conflict of interest.

 

Slingo has to be treated exactly the same.

 

 

I tend to agree.  Statements like “In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it,” Dame Julia said.

The “clustering and persistence” of storms that have hit the UK was extremely unusual, she added. “We have seen exceptional weather. It is consistent with what we might expect from climate change” don't really inspire a lot of confidence.  For a start, how can "exceptional" weather be consistent with anything?

[Risso]

 

 

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

 

 

Slingo works for an organisation whose funding will be benefited from a belief in climate change.

 

She gets £130k a year plus a bonus of £30k (what for exactly?) and has received two public honours for her work (see Wiki).

 

Any Tory MP sitting on the board of an energy company and enjoying such rewards would be considered to have a conflict of interest.

 

Slingo has to be treated exactly the same.

 

 

 

She works for the Met Office, for god's sake.  It's not a lobbying group.  It is a public body with a remit to serve the best interests of the public.  It's nothing at all like an energy company, and the comparison is wholly misplaced.

 

You're saying that we must dismiss scientific advice coming from employees of the Met Office because their organisation may receive more funding if it is thought necessary to do more work on climate change?

 

That rather seems to defeat the whole point of having a scientific advisory body in the first place.

 

 

If we could see the scientific evidence, then we could choose to accept it or dismiss it.  If it's available, I'd like to see it, because otherwise she's just making stuff up as she goes along.  And I firmly believe in global warming etc, I just don't like off the cuff comments, which then get translated into Facebook memes, being accepted as scientific fact

[peterms]

I tend to agree.  Statements like “In a nutshell, while there is no definitive answer for the current weather patterns that we have seen, all the evidence suggests that climate change has a role to play in it,” Dame Julia said.

The “clustering and persistence” of storms that have hit the UK was extremely unusual, she added. “We have seen exceptional weather. It is consistent with what we might expect from climate change” don't really inspire a lot of confidence.  For a start, how can "exceptional" weather be consistent with anything?

Climate change is predicted to lead to unusual weather patterns.  Exceptional weather is consistent with that prediction.  I don't understand why you seem to think that's odd or somehow self-contradictory.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Exceptional/unusual weather is to become more frequent, and it has over the last decade or so.  I don't see anything wrong with what she said.

[peterms]

If we could see the scientific evidence, then we could choose to accept it or dismiss it.  If it's available, I'd like to see it, because otherwise she's just making stuff up as she goes along.  And I firmly believe in global warming etc, I just don't like off the cuff comments, which then get translated into Facebook memes, being accepted as scientific fact

Have you looked on their website? Try the "research" page, here.

[MakemineVanilla]

 

 

 

Even though we have every right to accuse Lawson of having suspect motives, I don't think that he was wrong to criticise Dame Julian Slingo, for claiming that recent weather is proof of climate change.

 

That was not a scientific statement, it was a political statement, and should be viewed as such.

 

She had already been much more cautious in a previous statement and her radical change of opinion was totally opportunistic.

 

If we are to dismiss opinions where a conflict of interest is evident, we must dismiss Slingo's opinion just as we dismiss Lawson's.

 

You think Slingo has a personal financial interest in this?  What do you think it is?  Could you reference it for us?

 

 

Slingo works for an organisation whose funding will be benefited from a belief in climate change.

 

She gets £130k a year plus a bonus of £30k (what for exactly?) and has received two public honours for her work (see Wiki).

 

Any Tory MP sitting on the board of an energy company and enjoying such rewards would be considered to have a conflict of interest.

 

Slingo has to be treated exactly the same.

 

 

 

She works for the Met Office, for god's sake.  It's not a lobbying group.  It is a public body with a remit to serve the best interests of the public.  It's nothing at all like an energy company, and the comparison is wholly misplaced.

 

You're saying that we must dismiss scientific advice coming from employees of the Met Office because their organisation may receive more funding if it is thought necessary to do more work on climate change?

 

That rather seems to defeat the whole point of having a scientific advisory body in the first place.

 

 

The Met Office is a 'trading fund' which in Government speak is a business which receives more than 50% of its income from selling its services.

 

Selling those services will rely on their potential customers' view that the service is essential for planning their strategy (Slingo's job) for dealing with any perceived threat.

 

Just like a quango will expend a considerable amount of its energies on lobbying for funds, so the Met Office will do the same.

 

So Lawson and Slingo both have an identifiable vested interest in promoting a particular side of the same argument.

[Kingfisher]

The general ignorance of science and the inability of some to understand simple statements when it comes to climate change is disturbing. Surely this has to be a case of denial now the evidence has become so compelling.

[MakemineVanilla]

The general ignorance of science and the inability of some to understand simple statements when it comes to climate change is disturbing. Surely this has to be a case of denial now the evidence has become so compelling.

 

I agree.

 

The BBC and other media sources reported that Slingo 'suggests climate change link to storms' but anyone who understands science would probably agree that making a link between local conditions and a global phenomenon, is not being scientific.

Edited February 19, 2014 by MakemineVanilla