This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Our Bending Author cites the number of the month as the number of deaths attributed to global warming in a recent study.
Of course, that study has been trailed before and answered before.. for those who can stand the shock that such a notorious global warming advocate could make an adverse comment on the report, see here:
This is debunked in one of the Telegraph Blogs anyway, so don't go expecting fewer winter deaths just yet.
Yes, you got it, milder winters will save more lives than hotter summers will claim but which bit of that news do they want to publish?
However, if the month had ended a little later or the report was published a little earlier, perhaps the number of the month might have been .... well some other but as yet unstated number...(I couldn't find one in the report - presumably because, when it comes to pets, the British public are not going to worry how many it is as however many it is will be far more serious than people dying). Er, and does a mild winter mean more fewer pets will die in the winter months???
Well, whatever next?
It is unusual to see a non-green organisation like the RSPCA voicing concern over climate change. I think this may be an example of some sort of 'plot' the Greenies seemed to be hatching towards the end of last year. This post from Jonathan Porritt's blog in Jan 2009 gives more details:
Basically the Greenies have been very successful in getting Britain's political class to go along with their gibberish, culminating in the potentially disastrous Climate Change Act last year. But they remain worried that politicians won't ever be too serious in implementing this stuff for fear that the public don't really buy into it. So they've come up with a vague plan to mobilise the entire 'third sector' in lobbying on climate change. (the third sector consists of charities and NGOs, the name comes from an extension of the idea of the two better known sectors, the 'private sector' and the 'public sector') The RSPCA expressing concerns over climate change would be an example of this third sector involvement.
The Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) report which produced last month's 'Number of the Month' of 300,000 would be another example of the same sort of thing, but operating on an international level. This article by George Monbiot enthusiastically welcomes the idea of a non-environmental organisation like Kofi Annan's GFH entering into the climate change lobbying scene:
It seems to me there is more than a whiff of anticipated failure in the utterances of both these commentators, though I hesitate to voice it too strongly since we don't want to feel complacent, but there is something faintly encouraging in Porritt resorting to a plea for the third sector (the first I've heard of it, by the way) and describing his concerns as "- the Clarkson/Daily Mail effect; an army of denialists filling the blogosphere with a combination of vitriol and errant rubbish; a tendency not to believe politicians on anything, let alone climate change, and so on." (Clarkson? Hmm. I was afraid he was an embarrassment to the cause but he could be due some respect after all. By all means let him acknowledge there is an "army of denialists" since it basically says that not everyone agrees with him and he recognises the fact. Hopefully it won't be long before he acknowledges that some of these denialists are climate scientists.)
Moonbat? well, having denied the right of non-scientists to be credited with intelligence or the right to an opinion, if they oppose AGW, it now seems he is reaching out to non-climate scientists, in fact the whole rank and file of the man in the street, oh, wait a minute .... he is referring to what he calls "humanitarians" I guess a Humanitarian is thus any non-climate scientist who is prepared to speak in support of AGW and, by extension, anyone who speaks against is not a humanitarian. Nice one, Dingbat (Sorry; Moonbat).
I think Porritt has an exaggerated view of Clarkson's importance to AGW scepticism in the UK. He has been running a sort of vendetta against Clarkson for years. Even Clarkson is mystified by it, as he explains in this newspaper article from about three years ago:
The origin of Porritt's tension, as mentioned in the article, seems to come from when Porritt appeared as a guest on a chat show hosted by Clarkson in the early 00s. (Clarkson was given a chat show while Top Gear was off the air for a year or two.) In the interview Porritt was apparently made to look foolish and was given a generally much harder time than he gets on Newsnight, but the broadcast version of the interview was edited in a manner that was a lot more favourable to Porritt.
The only significant contribution I can think of that Clarkson has made to AGW scepticism is the Top Gear special from a few years ago which involved driving a car to the North Pole (the magnetic pole rather than the geographic pole). Any Greenie propaganda that the Arctic is breaking up was seriously set back by that programme.
I seem to remember my various pets dying of things entirely unrelated to the climate (getting lost, getting bitten by a snake, getting put down due to being savage, old age, cancer and cancer being the complete list), but apparently I am wrong. Not only that, but now the media would have me feel guilty over opposing the environmental movement, and would have my countrymen despise me for it.
Anything to demonise rational scepticism, it seems.
Well, the recent hot weather has so upset our cat that she took to sleeping on our bedroom floor. Now that the reain's back, she's back on our bed.
Not at all sure what that means, other than the influence of height on AGW/Climate Change. Mind you, she's never eaten Porridge. Sorry, I must mean Porrit.