Bishop Hill Your taxes at work
Apr 9, 2012 Climate: Parliament More from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office activism files. This is a comment from Hannah Wood, the FCO climate officer last seen showing "green" movies to the natives in her posting in Tanzania. In this episode, she reports on a visit by Met Office staff:
Here in Tanzania we have also been happy to welcome the UK Met Office, working alongside the Tanzanian Meteorological Agency to provide advice and guidance on future plans. We were delighted to welcome two UKMO staff emembers – David Robinson and Tim Donovan.
David was here to install some essential digital recording equipment, provided by the Foreign Office, which will allow the TMA to record and digitally distribute their weather forecasts, thus keeping the forecasting up to date and helping with distaster risk reduction. David also provided guidance on filming and editing of material to produce a climate change awareness film for broadcast on national television and distribution among Tanzanian secondary schools.
Just remember when you hear people complaining about cuts to government spending, that we can still afford to help Tanzanians make "climate change awareness" films.
Reader Comments (108)
"...environmentalists, purely on the basis that they are women..."
Not really. More like, naming three women on the basis of their being environmentalists of a certain kind (the enthusiastic). I've followed the previous converstions/comment threads.
Can I say, that brainwashing Tanzanian children with climate change sounds like a sophisticated form of colonialism to me? The larger point here being that we could trade these accusations and it would leave none the wiser.
Some call it eco-imperialism, shub.
This is all quite interesting, but I am getting too sleepy to stay up much longer. I'll be sure to check in again in the morning just in case any more virtual mud has come my way!
John
Do you really want to have a discussion about whether these 4 women hold the views they have mainly as a result of their gender?
Even if sex differences do exist, claiming an individual believes something because of their gender is nothing but sexism.
Robert is another Hengist; he is a thread IED. No surprise, he's one of Hengist's 62 followers. If there's any question, here's a hint from Robert himself:
Perhaps, Mr Shade, this is Mr Wilson's plan again.
Robert said that he would read HSI if someone sent it to him.
I said I would.
A few hours later he, rather oddly, I thought, asked me why I thought that he would read the book if I sent it to him.
I pointed out that he'd said he would, and that he should be a man of his word. He replied "Absolutely", but with caveats.
After a day and a half of reading and attempting to engage with Robert, and in light of his interactions here, I'm left thinking that he's at the very least somewhat disingenuous and, rather than reading the book, will likely boast to Hengist about my purchasing him the book as a victory for activism that he bled a few quid out of a "climate denier".
The first question I asked Robert, when I began interacting with him on Twitter, was whether he's a scientist or an activist, in the Schneider double-ethical bind sense. Though his reaction to the suggestion that he's an activist was rather explosive, I certainly think we have the true answer by now.
I look forward to the day when the Scientific Method is reasserted as fundamental to scientific endeavour, and overt behaviour like Mr Wilson's is simply not tolerated.
Speaking for myself, I took Foxgoose's skit in the spirit of his opening sentence: "There's something splendidly Edwardian about us sending our climate emissaries out to spread the word to the primitive peoples of the world (...)", except that this mindset continued well into the 1940s-50s. Note that the people being parodied are those sending out the climate missionaries and certainly not the people they are being sent to "evangelise". How this could be construed as racist comment beats me; the only explanation I can find is that it emanates from minds hopelessly numbed by political correctness.
The cooking pot comment I did find a bit lame, which is why I reframed "Gigo devourer of teraflops" image - but can't these wet blankets see that was directed against the ever-increasing waste of public funds on yet more useless crunchers of dodgy information?
Robert Wilson,
We all applaud your concern and sensitivity toward gender issues.
Since you seem hell-bent on correcting all the World's ills in this regard, I offer you some more sites to complain to.
Google the words: climate change skeptics males
After you've spent a few months addressing all this sexism (I know you'd want to be thorough), come back and let us know how you were received.
just pointing out nthat hengist has given a hilarious non-review of HSI on his site. His lack of reading skills is again embarrassingly obvious - he just resorts to the usual fossil-fuel funded/aka Warmist canards - McIntyre did not propose his own reconstruction, the hockey stick has been validated by many independent reconstructions etc. And, best of all, John Mashey even comes in with one of his curious pieces of impenetrable verbal sludge - I could not work out the meaning. Hengist is a class act
Barry:
There is no point in approaching the ideologically devout, Barry. You need to be seeking out those who are actually scientists and who have been explicit about their interest in scientific integrity. Judy Curry is a perfect template, because she recognises that science should be apolitical. I believe Tamsin and Richard are similarly inclined.
Those who are interested in manipulating science to form a veneer for their socio-political agenda cannot be convinced to open their eyes, because they are pre-disposed to keep them shut if there is a danger of suffering cognitive dissonance in the bright light of rationality. Any scientist whose political tendencies/aspirations trump their scientific integrity is a wholly lost cause. They are typically intransigent, belligerent and incredulous. They are a waste of time, in absolutely every sense.
I applaud your dedication in seeking dialogue but I think you can sometimes be a little naive to think that everyone who is a scientist is therefore of an enquiring disposition. That this is not the case is what has given rise to the problem we have today, with a political science masquerading as a hard science, purporting to underwrite its ideological agenda with a "97% consensus".
Robert - is it now impossible to highlight the very questionable activities of Franny-lets-blow-up-some-sceptic-children-while-trying-not-to-eat-imported-blueberries-Armstrong, or Baroness-I-wrote-the-Climate-Act-in-three-months-Byrony-Worthington, because they happen to be female?
Does this mean that John should only comment on the likes of George Monbiot, Richard Black, or other such blokes, lest he is accused of sexism? Are female sceptics allowed to make negative comments about male believers?
I always read and appreciate John's comments, they are always perceptive and enlightening.
Yours I am not so sure.
btw - fyi here are some links to some excellent climate blogs run by women, (or dare I say lassies or even harpies and quines?) -
Jo Nova; Donna Laframboise and Jennifer Marohasy. Not forgetting Hilary, Lucia, Judith and Tamsin either. Or Lucy - e.g. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm
lapogus
John Shade named 4 environmentalists who appear to have nothing in common other than them being women. When I asked why he pointed out their gender he said the following.
"Secondly, do you admit of no difference between the sexes that might be of interest and relevance for political discussion?"
Do you actually think I am not justified in asking if holds sexist opinions?
Just imagine if you replaced women with black in all of his remarks. Sexism is just as unacceptable as racism.
What if you replaced women with Engineers in all of his remarks? Or Footballers? Or Labour voters? Discussing the differences between people is absolutely not the same as promoting discrimination based of those differences. It's a bit like People who are vehemently anti-gay. Sometimes there's a underlying reason for their vehemence ;)
"John Shade named 4 environmentalists who appear to have nothing in common other than them being women."
The commonality has been pointed out to you. How is it that you don't address it, but continue to repeat yourself?
Do you approve of activists, unelected, writing your laws based solely on their enthusiasm for their cause? Do you approve of the British High Commission spreading climate change 'awareness' among school children, when so much better can be taught? These are far more important questions.
Please excuse the poor syntax. It's late and I'm tired (or is that tyred?) :)
Robert Wilson
"Do you actually think I am not justified in asking if holds sexist opinions?"
My first thought is no, you are not justified. who made you the "sexist" police.
My second thought is that it's none of your business.
My third thought is, you visited voluntarily, no one forced you to read this. You can also voluntarily choose to go somewhere else.
@Foxgoose - our man in Tanzania - brilliant !
Pith helmeted Blenkinsop and Carruthers chest deep in a round pot of bobbing roughly chopped vegetables...
As somebody who's worked around Africa over 30 years I can't begin to elaborate my disgust with the self serving antics of the FCO officials perpetrating this travesty. There's so much more to do that would benefit the locals immeasurably more than deeply patronising climate faery tales.
As for Mr Wilson, I could offer him a "holiday" in a part of Africa of *my choosing* that would perhaps lead him to modify his comfortable, fashionably shrill urban prejudices somewhat.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/the-truth-behind-the-cannibals-of-congo-567654.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/congo.theobserver
http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Cannibalism-shock-as-Congo-atrocities-revealed/2005/03/17/1110913734387.html
As well as being women they are all Trustafarians.
Are we allowed to badmouth Trustafarians - or not?
On a related note did anyone else see the Guardian headline:
Just another piece of evidence to confirm that the Age of Enlightenment is Dead and Buried, as we move deeper and deeper into The Age of Stupid.
When all the Watermelon Warmers admit their Lie
We will raise a Monument into the Sky
A Monument of Solid Carbon
To commemorate their Bogus Bargain
Robert, first for your information:
I have read this post down to what for the moment is the end.
I do not intend to return to debate with you, so I suggest that you do not bother either.
Second - I take it from one of your many contributuins to this discussion that you are a PhD student in Sunny Scotland.
Good luck with that Laddie.
Yes that is an "ageist" comment.
I don't have much time for young people who have not yet learnt that there is more to both life and knowledge than they as yet realise.
Fortunately my grandchildren are not of your type - more "isisms" you will note for you to critise.
I put you in that bucket - you - you - "type" - you are not origional.
There I have said it - I'm a "typist" and proud of it, although I'm very bad at typing - something quite entirely different.
Get a life, "Laddie" - take some time off from your studies and your commenting on others' failings - get out and labour in the fields or the coal mines for a decade or more.
Collect a sense of humour as you go, but please, please do not pass Go any more - enough of your narrow minded blindness.
And then visit me in the old people's home or crematorium, where we can have a real discussion.
unbelievable propaganda from The Smithsonian Magazine, see the Population graph:
April 2012: Smithsonian Magazine: Mark Strauss: Looking Back on the Limits of Growth
Forty years after the release of the groundbreaking study, were the concerns about overpopulation and the environment correct?
However, the study also noted that unlimited economic growth was possible, if governments forged policies and invested in technologies to regulate the expansion of humanity’s ecological footprint. Prominent economists disagreed with the report’s methodology and conclusions. Yale’s Henry Wallich opposed active intervention, declaring that limiting economic growth too soon would be “consigning billions to permanent poverty.”
Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html
this is being reported now in Russia, Singapore, Australia, US as MIT researchers say, or Smithsonian says, having not seen the Correction at the bottom of this piece, perhaps, and having not checked out when Turner did his CSIRO report, perhaps?
4 April: Yahoo: AP: Next Great Depression? MIT study predicting ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030 still on track
A renowned Australian research scientist says a study from researchers at MIT claiming the world could suffer from a “global economic collapse” and “precipitous population decline” if people continue to consume the world’s resources at the current pace is still on track, nearly 40 years after it was first produced.
The Smithsonian Magazine writes that Australian physicist Graham Turner says “the world is on track for disaster” and that current research from Turner coincides with a famous, and in some quarters, infamous, academic report from 1972 entitled, “The Limits to Growth.” Turner’s research is not affiliated with MIT or The Club for Rome…
***However, the study said “unlimited economic growth” is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint…
Turner says that perhaps the most startling find from the study is that the results of the computer scenarios were nearly identical to those predicted in similar computer scenarios used as the basis for “The Limits to Growth.”
“There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,” Turner said. “We are not on a sustainable trajectory.”…
***Correction: This post has been edited to reflect that MIT has not updated its research from the original 1972 study.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html
June 2008: CSIRO: Graham Turner: A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
another example of how it's being spun:
6 April: Popular Science, Australia: Rebecca Boyle: MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030
Is this impossible to fix? No, according to both Turner and the original study. If governments enact stricter policies and technologies can be improved to reduce our environmental footprint, economic growth doesn’t have to become a market white dwarf, marching toward inevitable implosion…
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/mit-predicts-that-world-economy-will-collapse-by-2030
the road to Rio is being paved with many such distortions!
lapogus
You forgot Alene Composta. :)
Blame everything on Conservative White Males
I must apologise to Tanzanians for suggesting that they boil Met Office and FCO neddies in a cooking pot - it was in bad taste. Please do not do it - Richard and Hannah would taste horrible.
LC
"It's a bit like People who are vehemently anti-gay. Sometimes there's a underlying reason for their vehemence ;)"
Your disgusting words condemn you.
I'm currently working on hydrocarbon exploration offfshore Mozambique. Neighbouring Tanzania is also starting to prove up huge gas reserves offshore. I expect Tanzania to fully exploit its hydrocarbon reserves.
I've only got two words to say to Robert Wilson: "Giordana Bennet".
I propose that the FCO's money would be better spent on providing solar powered cooking pots so that any passing climate change activists or other meddlers can be despatched with the minimum carbon footprint.
But rumours that they taste better when done by solar have yet to be confirmed.
Robert Wilson is a troll that does not belong here ... off with you laddie, find your irrelevance elsewhere.
Update
With remarkably bad timing it seems that the new improved cooking stoves aren't all they seem
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/09/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-carbon-footprint/
:-(
Robert, I believe you have misinterpreted LC.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/09/study-homophobes-probably-harbour-same-sex-attraction/
I did rankle at Foxgoose's "pretty but inexperienced", as I would find this description very irritating! Even if either are true of somebody, it's patronising.
Thanks for the votes of confidence Simon and lapogus.
Can we get the thread back on topic please.
Tamsin
If I misinterpreted it I apologize.
Sorry Bish.
Wilson has now frothed up enough in the way of war stories so I guess we can.
Although what can you say in any case?
The only plausible reasons for funding this "education" are:
1) a general presence for the purpose of some distant political agenda we cannot determine
2) there is some secondary economic value passed on that couldnt directly be diverted to something more worthwhile
or most likely
3) we are setting the scene before insisting that they should endure deprivation (via limitung growth) in the name of the cause to offset the indulgences of wealthy industrial nations
@Robert
"Tamsin
If I misinterpreted it I apologize."
You ought to be apologising to LC.
@LC
"Please excuse the poor syntax."
No worries. It happens to the best of us. ;-)
On the other hand, some people take umbrage on other people's behalf all the time, and that is where they derive their ego. They used to be called 'bleeding hearts'. I've found most men who take this view are seen very poorly by feminists, who are quite entitled to defend themselves, and don't need a 'white charger'. Same goes for people defending race and against other prejudice. Heavens save us from middle-aged, middle class white men trying to save everybody else from externalised prejudices.
Now please don't attract more trolls.
I must confess to enjoying my moment or two as the centre of attention, albeit as a result of some stranger projecting his troubled views about women on to me. I think we have given him food for thought, and I do thank those who posted above to give me the benefit of the doubt at the very least and sometimes more. As for me, I clearly do need to get out a bit more.
Meanwhile, back in Africa our taxes are being spent in helping arrest industrial development, and all the benefits that come with it. This is known as 'sustainable' development for some reason best known to marketing types. Sometimes it includes scaring children about the future, and blaming the evil West for adverse weather. None of this is a very nice thing to do, nor is there any good reason to do any of it.
HMG has pledged to donate 0.7% of GDP to foreign aid - for misplaced ideological reasons, just like the pledge to cut CO2 emissions. Now that the public have got fed up with (indirectly) funding India's space programme there is a growing surplus in the pot. Nobody is suggesting that aid based upon need should not be funded, but the pity is that daft schemes like sending climate activists to Africa are even on the ageda.
Pity that the bit of sport with Mr. Wilson has (quite correctly) been stopped, so how about (from the original post): "....essential digital recording equipment, provided by the Foreign Office"
Moscow Rock, anybody?
John
What are my troubles about women?
That I think we should not identify groups of women by gender for no apparent reason?
That we should treat people as individuals?
That individuals don't hold opinions on climate change due to their gender?
Perhaps I should also get out more, and as others on this discussion have suggested stop reading The Guardian.
Just a bit of period detail Tamsin - like fans in a BBC Jane Austen drama ;-)
That might help - you could also consider resigning your self-appointed position as Witchfinder General to the blogosphere at large.
Robert, please return the word 'gender' to the grammar classroom where it belongs. People have sexes, words have genders. Second, no one except you has raised the contrary to the views you list and reacted to, and therefore I concluded that those contrary views were in your own head and causing you troubles. Please also stop derailing this thread no matter how bad your compulsion to project becomes. You have my sympathy, but the Bishop has spoken and may smite our comments away if you, and I, persist.
A peek a Tanzania's Health Stats would indicate that the last thing they need is a lecture about their carbon footprint.
However as we don't have much of a breakdown on the costs (yet - is that the siren call of FOI?) it's not necessarily a complete waste of time.
Lonely Planet describes the weather in a relatively measured way.
This CLACC report concedes that extreme weather event are a way of life for indigenous people, and then repeats the usual what-ifs.
Wonder what this monitoring equipment does? Is it of any use in allowing a Tanzanian to be prepared for an upcoming individual event, or is it in the long-term-trend-consistent-with-AGW realm?
Wilson's comments are completely inappropriate, off topic and without foundation. He's another left wing clown disrupting any continuity on this thread. Everything and anything is racist/sexist to his type and because he has no constructive point to make using these tactics are the only means he has to divert the issues here.
He needs to grow up and stop behaving like a offended spoilt brat.
I have just returned to discover that my report of events in Fiji has led to me being branded a racist. I find that both absurd and offensive. The only reason I know about this story is that it is all explained, alongside the exhibit in question, in the museum in Fiji devoted to the history of the island and its inhabitants . The museum obviously thought it worthy of display and explanation. It is not a joke but a fact.
I recommend this museum to anyone interested in the exploration and history of the Pacific islands. There is also an excellent, more generously funded, museum in Tahiti on dvelopments there and the remarkable feats of navigation achieved by South Sea Islanders.
EPG & OT
Robert Wilson is just an expert practitioner of the well established lefty technique of "shaping" the dialogue.
By erecting a "no go" area around large areas of normal discourse - they hope to tilt any discussion in the direction of their own views and make it sound as if they're winning the argument.
You can't say we've got too many immigrants - or you're "racist"
You can't complain about women-only short lists - or you're "sexist"
You can't observe that you think marriage should be between men & women - or you're "homophobic"
The prime practitioners of this "newspeak" are the BBC. Whenever I switch over from Sky News to the Beeb these days - I always have the eery sensation of visiting an exotic new and unfamiliar country (despite the fact I've lived here for nearly 70 years).
Foxgoose
Is this a climate skeptic blog or a right wing blog? Does Bishop Hill want this to end up being a debate over gay marriage and immigration?
As Barry Woods suggested it would be a good idea to tone things down and not act like the climate skeptic cliche/stereotype.
DNFTT.
Wilson continues with his tactic of noisily erecting strawmen to rail against; a mirror image of his behaviour on twitter where he spent the best part of a day throwing up electronic chaff in the ever-patient Barry's face.
He can easily engage in any of the more substantial issues, but instead chooses to obsess over a tangential comment.
And I disagree with Foxgoose: he's not an expert practitioner, his inexpert deflection is 6th form debating club at best.
Now then, back at the FCO I've asked for a bit more detail on the equipment that the blog post alludes to:
Can you expand on the equipment that was installed, and how specifically it helps with risk reduction?
and as I failed to read the post correctly, swiftly followed by:
Sorry just re-read – it’s the more rapid distribution of forecasts that helps, yes? How is this improved by the new equipment?
It's not at all clear how the new equipment will help (as we have no idea what it is) or whether it was a significant reason for the trip (as we have no idea about relative cost / time spent etc.)
Both in moderation, but it might get a reply - and it might even be that it's not quite the waste of money it appears.
As this thread has been successfully diverted from its aims lets bring it back to the points of discussion, namely the British Government spreading your cash far and wide. Its not just Africa that is getting the cash Canada too.
From our own Donna Laframboise
http://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2012/04/04/thank-you-british-taxpayers/
"The Guardian newspaper has released a list some 25 pages long of climate change projects in other countries that were funded by you, the British taxpayer. Since 2009 you ladies and you gentlemen have sent us, here in Canada, £165,937. This translates to roughly $260,000 in Canadian funds. A cool quarter-million.
For example, you wrote a cheque for £20,000 to our David Suzuki Foundation. But I must confess to some bemusement.
If the British government really believes the danger from CO2-induced climate change is dire why hasn’t it banned the use of private jets, forbidden government employees from traveling, and fast-tracked new nuclear power plants? If the Titanic really is headed for the iceberg, surely one takes stern and immediate action." Quite so
The saintly Suzuki has gone on record - on the Suzuki Foundation Facebook page - as saying "It (the foundation) does not accept any government funding" except, obviously, from foreign governments, to lobby its own government in the foreign powers' interests - your tax pounds and our tax free charity dollars at work.
I found out that Hannah Wood played "The Age of Stupid" to Tanzanian youngsters. ;)
http://ukintanzania.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=729832982