Seen elsewhere
Twitter
Support

 

Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Instalanche | Main | The Monckton show »
Monday
Jan312011

More Delingpole

David Allen Green is very upset that I suggested he was trying to pressure Delingpole into doing another interview. I'll check over my sources now. It's possible I got the wrong end of the stick.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (58)

"very upset"

No, simply disappointed that any blogger can make such a basic factual error. I hold no such view. Indeed, I hold a different view.

As it is, you have misled 60 commenters and countless viewers with your slipshod approach to factual accuracy.

David

Jan 31, 2011 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

"I once did not know whether AGW was valid, so I looked at the facts and realised that it was. "

-David Allen Green

Is this a view you hold, David?

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Thank you.

So you went to the length of typing about me and even invoked my libel reform credentials.

And you got it wrong.

You cleary do not really understand the concept of factual accuracy or even how to check the evidence for an assertion.

Disappointing.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

Mr Green, I hope you will give the Bishop the credit for the grace to make a swift and straightforward correction and apology. That is a thing very rare, if not 'unprecedented' on the other side. It may not even have happened, (I can't remember such a case so it's probably worse than we thought).

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

David Allen Green

Dont push your case.

The misreporting appears to be confined to a characterizing of what you thought were doing.

You seem to have 'used' that say other things, a good number of times already now.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Dear DAG,

I thought bloggers were unreliable and opinionated children playing in an adult world of science?

That is why righteous folk should pay them no heed, just listen only to the holy 'consensus' (resistance is futile).

So, why the shaming language?

You can't have it both ways, either we're children playing, or we can have expectations placed upon us , not both - make your mind up.

Until AGW panicists show honesty and consideration to other view points, I don't really see that they are owed any great consideration of their sensitivities.

The Bish was (more than) polite, how about you try that too?

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterGendeau

@Cumbrian Lad

It is an error which should not have been made in the first place. Basic fact checking was all that was necessary.


@Shrub

As you are an evidently only a troll, so I have nothing to add.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

Gosh, there are some very delicate flowers around: let's hope AGW doesn't render them extinct.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

I could play your same game back at you, David

You seem to have made up your mind about me, just from two comments.

Maybe you did the same thing with the Bishop and AGW?

On the AGW bit, I would even change the 'maybe' to a 'most probably.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterShub

@Gendeau

Sorry, basic fact checking would have prevented the inaccuracy.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

If we are to get upset about basic fact checking (which would have prevented the inaccuracy) how upset should we get about the global temperature record changing several times a year even after it has bveen published? At least BH has apologised and corrected the error.

As far as temperatures go ... I think the Met office is still considering their basic facts and the NZ equivalent have long since stopped trying to justify their adjustments.

So my advice to all is: get a perspective.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

@Ian E

"Delicate flower"? It was a basic factual error, said without any evidence.

Facts and evidence are important.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

@matthu

"get a perspective"

If you cannot even get basic, easily checkable facts right, the you inevitably lose credibility on the wider claims.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

I'm sceptical.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterMac

Who is David Allen Green ?

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnoneumouse

I have no idea.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

David Allen Green shame you fail to take the same view on AGW supporters who fail to do
'basic fact checking ' , but then as I suppose that's 'different'.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

David Allen Green: Bishop Hill promptly conceded he'd got it wrong and apologised. That should have been the end of it.

I don't know who you are but the fact that you a still bleating makes me quite content for it to remain that way.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

David Allen Green - who are you? I've never heard of you.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Everybody

This is really not a very edifying thread. Let's talk about something more interesting shall we?

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

He is a Lawyer and writer , his website info is attached to his name.
John Lyon

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterjohn Lyon

"Shrub"?

Perhaps Shub should immediately demand an apology from David Allen Green for this blatant and literal mis-characterisation. Clearly with a little bit of effort in fact-checking, such a gross literal mis-characterisation would never have happened.

Or maybe it was just an error; a misunderstanding, and something that - once pointed out - could easily be corrected. Perhaps Shub, being all grown-up and un-babyish, won't feel the need to burst into tears or fury or.. whatever the heck that was from David Allen Green.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Well done Bish, apologise for and correct the wrong. Then move on.

I think David Allen Green has said "Thank you" for the apology. So that should be then end of matters.

There was a little bit of "afters" which is disappointing. But hey ho on we go. We live in interesting times.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

David Allen Green:

Thank you.

So you went to the length of typing about me and even invoked my libel reform credentials.

And you got it wrong.

You cleary do not really understand the concept of factual accuracy or even how to check the evidence for an assertion.

Disappointing.

You, sir, have absolutely no grace.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

The phrase "overweening self-importance" popped into my mind as I struggled through this baffling thread.

Jan 31, 2011 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterJane Coles

DAG

"Facts and evidence are important."

They certainly are, which is why most of us here are sceptics. Carl Sagan said that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - we'd like to see some!

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

GS

>I think David Allen Green has said "Thank you" for the apology

It sounded ironic to me...

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Id like to thank Andrew for his mention of me, though I wouldn't characterise his remarks as a fisking. There have been some great to'ings and fro'ing on there for which I'm grateful. I am always happy to correct errors in the factual content of my writing. I may be wrong about McKintrye and McKitrick, but the fact is that they've failed so far to convince the critics that their statistical approach is correct. It has been shown that Mann et al made some centering mistakes but that these had no quantitative effect on their results.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatt Flaherty

@SH :).

I have read DAG's Twitter account posts. He recognized the Bishop's misreporting and informed, and that is good.

But he attached a remark on his own "wider credibility" judgement with many of these "tweets" when shooting them off, which is puzzling.

Off the top of my head, I remember a blog post on the Jack of Kent blog (which I think DAG runs), long, long ago, that contained a closely critical examination of one or the other aspect of the climate debate. It was a darn good post,...can't find it at the moment.

DAG says he is doing a new post on the Delingpole issue. In his earlier posts on his blog, he appears to stake out his own ground which is constrained by his rather limited engagement in the climate debate. He has much common ground with AGW/CAGW skepticism. (Which is puzzling as well, because DAG seems to have stumbled upon the holy grail when he looked into the evidence). ***

Too many people look at the tribalistic nature of the climate debate and mistake that to be a real thing. Judith Curry comes to mind. Jack of Kent seems to fall in the same category.


*** Maybe he can tweet that evidence to us, trolls? :)

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

Thanks John Lyon.

My question - "David Allen Green - Who are you?" - was a serious one. I've been away from internet contact for a few days and this chap came out of the blue - or should it be green?

I looked at his website for a second and now I know...

What is his relevance to the debate? I missed it.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterJimmy Haigh

Matt,

I left a similar comment on your blog. It looks to me, that you are just entering this climate thing. Of course, I may be wrong; I did not read back the older posts on your blog.

But your questions and claims really do indicate this to be the case. In this event, I hope you have a good chunk of time on your hands and you can read everything about the hockey stick and the Working group II and the IPCC's findings on climate impacts, the Soon and Baliunas case, among others.

If you do, I am sure you'll come to surprisingly different conclusions in each and every one of these above instances.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

PG Wodehouse had it right:

“It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort of people take a mean advantage of them.”

(Not a criticism of the Bishop, more a comment on the reception.)

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Matt Flaherty attempting to excuse the inexcuseable and failing.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/01/7ss-%E2%80%93-r-i-p/

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

@Mac, that's a bit unfair. My criticism of Richard Treadgold is valid. His statement to the press was misleading. It suggested that the new 7SS series reached a different conclusion. It did not. I have no problem at all with the coalition challenging the NIWA. I think it is a good thing that they did. But his characterization of the results of that court case is misleading as I explain on my blog. It caused some news outlets to jump to incorrect conclusions.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterMatt Flaherty

Matt

Welcome. For those of you who don't know Matt is probably best described as being on the other side of the argument, but I would also say his mind is open. I hope commenters will treat him accordingly.

So none of the usual rowdiness please, you lot. :-)

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

@Shrub
"As you are an evidently only a troll, so I have nothing to add."
Jan 31, 2011 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

Sorry David but you are so far outside the boundaries calling Shub a "Trol". Your turn to apologize!

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

What a strange thread this has become.

The host of this blog makes a factual error, regarding something he could well have checked. Not a trivial error, but dragging me into a post and making my work for the libel reform campaign an issue.

But the post had nothing at all to do with me. I do not hold the view he gives me, and there was no evidence that I ever held that view. It was thereby a fabrication. And there can be no easy explanation as to how that fabrication came about.

Now a number of the commenters here attack me. That is perfectly fine. I have no worries being attacked for views I hold or opinions I express. I have been called a lot worse elsewhere, and for better reason.

But what is perhaps interesting is that not a single commenter here seems to be giving a second thought to the original error. It is just brushed over. It just doesn't seem to matter: just attack the person misrepresented seems to be the chosen tactic. All good fun, but also actually rather telling about the attitude some of the commenters here seem to have to basic factual accuracy and evidence.

I can respond to each of the insults above, but so what?

It will stand that this blog made a basic factual mistake and that many of the commenters do not really seem to care.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

David Allen Green is also convenor of the Westminster Skeptics. "Westminster Skeptics promote an evidence-based approach and critical thinking in the areas of policy, media, and legal reform."

http://westminster.skepticsinthepub.org/

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

DAG

You don't seem to get it. Our host apologised very promptly for something that some of us hadn't even got round to noticing, yet your response seems, to put it mildly, ungracious. That is why you are getting the flack, and the Bishop isn't.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Bish, the only thing that will resolve this is for you to run naked round the nearest snow covered mountain. Maybe then David;s thin skin will thicken up! Meanwhile I await his apology to Shub!

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterPete H

Oh, and @James P, that is why I did not ask for an apology, only a correction (those pesky "facts" again).

Perhaps you think I shouldn't have asked for a correction?

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Allen Green

All

OK, that's enough.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:52 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

DAG

For heaven's sake. The Bishop has acknowledged his error, corrected it and apologised. What more do you want? Costs?

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

Your Grace

Apologies. I didn't hear the bell.

Jan 31, 2011 at 12:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterDreadnought

DAG,

No one is 'attacking' you.

One mistake does not reveal any "slipshod approach to factual accuracy". I would assume the responses above are a reaction to this characterization, rather than a reflexive defense of the blog owner. Mine surely is.

Almost all the commenters here have spent decent amounts of time and effort into understanding climate issues. But the tone of the climate debate is polemical sometimes. It would be nice if you would not allow that to come in the way of your seeing that there has been an acknowledgement, that your views were (unfairly) lumped with Singh's.

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

I prefer Dave Allen - he was a lot funnier.

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

DAG - as others here have stated, the Good Bishop made an honest mistake, and apologised. I like many others here don't know who you are. But if you go to the pub with the likes of Evan Harris, Ben Goldacre and Brian Deer I have no desire to. Critical thinking? Consensus witch-hunting more like. http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Stop

Really. Stop.

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

And now for something completely different....

http://www.envirotech-online.com/news/environmental-analysis/7/breaking_news/environmental_legislation_will_become_a_national_movement/13677/

Greg Barker, minister for climate change at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, said the government's Green Deal will enable the nation to achieve emission targets.

Speaking at the Retrofit Salford 2011 event last week, he stated: "The green deal is really about making a national movement."

Is he really saying the "green deal" is about giving the nation the shits?

Enquiring minds want to know ;¬)

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

BH: Really. Stop.

OK

Jan 31, 2011 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.