Clicked on the link to Michael Collins' book and was amazed to read, 'You own this item' (purchased March 2021). Well, about time I got down to reading it then.
Perhaps we will sort the immigration problem out, reach zero carbon emissions and have the whole population housed just as the last indeginous white Brit in England dies. Still, at least we will leave a pleasant country for other people's descendants, which is a nice thought.
Why don't we just let black people live rent free and not have to pay any bills? Then maybe Anneliese Dodds would shut up. On second thoughts, she would then start demanding reparations for previous rent and bills paid. There is no end to this.
thanks for the Morrissey article it’s very poignant. I’ve convinced myself that that England is gone - in the 80s I would also have thought the good days were in the past but I wasn’t to know how bland the future would be
It may be (only may) that our new Puritans have a sufficient grip on the institutions that their coming to near-absolute power is now unavoidable. In which case, we may reasonably suppose that they will, like their 17th century forebears, sufficiently overplay their hand that the public will eventually suspend them all from trees, at least metaphorically, and beg for the return of some merry monarch. Boris's day may yet come.
Ed, can I recommend that you do devote a little more of your time to focus on "Climate Change". It is a topic I have been following quite closely for nearly 2 decades, and the more I know, the bigger the scam looks. "Unsettled" by Steve Koonin (who was Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration) would be a good book to read, if you have not already done so.
This gives you a flavour, from Adam Ellwanger. But I suggest if you are interested, you read "Unsettled" and start to frequent "Net Zero Watch" or "Wattsupwiththat".
By law, the U.S. Global Change Research Program must provide a “National Climate Assessment” report to Congress “no less than every four years.” As empirical documents, these reports naturally quantify the level of confidence that the experts have in the accuracy of their prophecies. The last report (referred to as “NCA4”) was submitted in early 2019, which means that we are due for NCA5 later this year. Indubitably, NCA5 will receive significant media attention since its covert purpose is to draw attention to (and therefore advance) the climate agenda. Thus climate reports are decidedly rhetorical documents despite experts’ insistence that science has no interest in rhetoric.
NCA5 will allow us to assess the accuracy of the prophecies foretold in NCA4, and we’ll also learn whether the apocalypse is unfolding on schedule. But in preparation for the new report, we not only have a duty to revisit the “projections” of NCA4, we must refresh our memories on just how much confidence experts had in those projections to begin with. The answer, it seems, is “not much.”
NCA4 was full of dire predictions. For example, the report warned, “Many millions of Americans live in coastal areas threatened by sea level rise; in all but the very lowest sea level rise projections, retreat will become an unavoidable option in some areas” (emphasis added). Note the certainty of the phrasing: “will become.” Although the quote explicitly acknowledges that some “projections” don’t foresee the U.S. coast being inundated, the writers make sure to emphasize that these (allegedly flawed) projections don’t undermine the “scientific consensus.” But then what of the curious assertion that “retreat will become an unavoidable option”? Here we see the rhetorical sleight of hand: by definition something that is “unavoidable” is not an “option.” And if retreat will be an “option,” then the hypothetical flooding would necessarily be negligible.
Elsewhere, though, the report stresses that there is no uncertainty about these matters at all: “Across the United States, many regions and sectors are already experiencing the direct effects of climate change. For these communities, climate impacts—from extreme storms made worse by sea-level rise, to longer-lasting and more extreme heat waves, to increased numbers of wildfires and floods—are an immediate threat, not a far-off possibility.”
Oddly, the bold prophecy quoted above comes after an admission: “The world we live in is a web of natural, built, and social systems—from global climate and regional climate; to the electric grid; to water management systems […]; to managed and unmanaged forests; and to financial and economic systems. Climate effects many of these systems individually, but they also affect one another, and often in ways that are hard to predict. […] A key factor in assessing risk […] is that it is hard to quantify and predict all the ways in which climate-related stressors might lead to severe or widespread consequences.”
Even the oft-repeated platitude that climate change causes more severe storms (an idea routinely touted as “settled science”) is cast in doubt: “Some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of the science does not yet permit detailed understanding.”
“Projection” and the Confidence Game
What, then, are we to think? How reliable are these (often contradictory) prophecies? Fortunately, the report gives some guidance. The writers say that the reliability of each “projection” is determined by two metrics: “confidence” and “likelihood.” The former is a qualitative measure of how confident researchers are in a given conclusion; the latter is a quantitative assessment of the statistical probability that the prophecy will come to pass.
When it comes to “confidence,” the report classifies its predictions with one of four descriptors: low, medium, high, or very high confidence. When you hear someone say that they have “high confidence” in a particular outcome, you probably think that means “almost certain.” But when readers peruse the fine print that explains how the report defines these terms, they find that only “moderate evidence” and “some consistency” in research findings is required in order to designate a “high confidence” prediction. Not only that, but “high confidence” projections are ones where “methods vary” in the supporting research “and/or documentation [is] limited.” Finally, the report says that its “high confidence” conclusions are drawn from a “medium consensus.”
In short, then, the definitional threshold for “high confidence” only seems to require a modicum of evidence. By design, readers of the report would miss this little trick unless they read the fine print in the preliminary materials of the report. And on the off-chance that a journalist was aware of the shockingly-low level of certitude required for such “high confidence,” most reporters wouldn’t mention it. After all, that would undermine the entire rhetorical purpose of the document. So much for the measure of “confidence.”
How do we fare on the scale of “likelihood”? Here the report offers five descriptors: “very likely” (defined as “≥ 9 in 10” chance), “likely” (defined as “≥ 2 in 3” chance), “as likely as not” (“1 in 2”), “unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 3”), and “very unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 10”). Of course, this scale is completely useless as the deliberative weight of these measures wholly depends on the case in question.
If a bag held nine red slips of paper and one green one and you told me that if I draw the green one wearing a blindfold that I will win a million dollars, I would see “1 in 10” as surprisingly good odds. I wouldn’t call winning the million a “very unlikely” outcome (as the report’s metric would). In the same vein, if you told me that a horse had a 66 percent chance of winning the race, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “likely” outcome (as the report would), and I certainly wouldn’t place a large bet on it. After all, “experts” often make “very likely” predictions with a 99 percent chance of happening—only to get it wrong. Let’s assume, though, that scientists’ estimates of likelihood are accurate when it comes to climate change. Is a 70 percent chance of catastrophe a high enough likelihood to justify costly, sweeping reforms that would fundamentally change the nation’s way of life?
With all its inconsistencies and misdirection, the authors of the report still find ways to congratulate themselves: “climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly within the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations.” Older readers might find this praise strange given that the expert narrative as recently as the late 1970s was that we were entering a new ice age. Has the reliability of their prophecies improved since then? It doesn’t look like it. Some who are inclined to climate alarmism will be tempted to think that I am cherry-picking. Maybe I’ve just chosen isolated, egregious passages from NCA4? Maybe other climate reports don’t play these rhetorical tricks? Readers who harbor these doubts can read my much longer analysis that demonstrates the same tendencies in reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I came upon a more concise version today, by Matthew Crawford (UnHerd):-
"Try to imagine the larger setting when the IPCC convenes. Powerful organisations are staffed up, with resolutions prepared, comms. strategies in place, corporate "global partners" secured, interagency task forces standing by and diplomatic channels open, waiting to receive the good word from an empaneled group of scientists working in committee.
This is not a setting conducive to reservations, qualifications, or second thoughts. The function of the body is to produce a product: political legitimacy".
I have noticed myself massive difference between the statements made by the IPCC scientists in the detailed "Physical Science" report, which really only express high confidence in the fact of some gentle warming, and the hysterical "Code Red for Humanity" which the Head of the UN grabbed the headlines with.
Thus, journalists, political types etc may distort the content and conclusions of scientific reports through ignorance, political prejudice, or simply to further their own careers. The solution, as you imply, is to read the original report. This is a general rule which all sensible persons follow, and not just in relation to climate science.
The greater misfortune, I fear, is that we live in a society historically inclined to apocalypticism; I blame the Vikings and all that Ragnarök malarkey.
Tory/despair: I do not know about the UK. In the US I see the Democratic party as the natural home of conservative ameliorative reform. The Conservative party certainly does need to be punished (though not necessarily destroyed) for an un-conservative thing as Brexit.
I'm not sure its a great idea, isn't there a big shortage of maths teachers already. OTOH, I wish I had done Maths A-Level and I was pretty good at GCSE. It was just too hard and I wanted to take the easy route.
on the schools thing generally, a friend of mine who was put in the lower English set (unfairly as he was good at English) recalls everyone having to talk about a book they'd read over the holiday and one boy choosing 'Robocop: the novelisation'. My friend was somewhat sceptical of whether he had read it.
I have seen the other side of the coin. I taught at Pacifico University best University in Peru. First unit was about poetry - Funnily enough a young man moving to San Francisco for adventure and a dirge on post colonial Nigeria did not excite my class. The next unit which spoke about applying to university did.
Saw the change in the class literally overnight.
Reading novels- isnt per se a sign of intelligence.
In the United States, the reason for poor math achievement, overall, is that children do not master arithmetic facts and computation skills in the early elementary years. Without that, no amount of additional instruction is of much use. A student who cannot do operations with fractions cannot do algebraic calculations.
As a former teacher, this is a very interesting topic. I totally understand personal attitude and interest ( I was okay/good at Maths, never brilliant), but I just can’t escape the question “what is that our kids should know”.
No hostility here- I am aware we have serious problem with education in Italy. But as somebody who lives in the UK, I am not convinced that specialising so much at 16 is a good idea.
Who are these great science writers that can be trusted? Inquiring minds would like to know, because there are virtually none on anything where collectivism might become an option(pandemics, climate change, etc).
The Tories biggest problem is that many/most of their MPs are politically apathetic and drawn from the large segment of society that mostly just wants to be liked. They see "going into politics" as the sort of thing respectable people do at a certain age because they want to serve, yadda yadda. That's inherent to "conservatism" as a form of politics - it doesn't stand for anything, it only stands against other's attempts to change things. But if you're only ever against change, it automatically means you're always playing defense, and even if you "win" 80% of the time i.e. stop whatever progressives want to do today, that means you're still losing 20% because the whole thing is defined as purely resistive.
In other words, until conservatives stop being conservatives and actually commit to *specific* beliefs that they know how to argue for (which might entail arguing for great social change!) then this is what will happen - decades of Tory drift-and-crisis punctuated by occasional left wing governments that radically reshape society, then voters get sick of it, kick them out and we get more decades of drift-and-crisis.
Margaret Thatcher is unusually hated on the left vs someone like David Cameron, John Major, Theresa May etc exactly because she was NOT a mere conservative but actually of a libertarian bent, and was willing to make big changes to make the UK more libertarian. The British Conservative party does attract such types but they rarely make it to the top.
Clicked on the link to Michael Collins' book and was amazed to read, 'You own this item' (purchased March 2021). Well, about time I got down to reading it then.
Perhaps we will sort the immigration problem out, reach zero carbon emissions and have the whole population housed just as the last indeginous white Brit in England dies. Still, at least we will leave a pleasant country for other people's descendants, which is a nice thought.
Why don't we just let black people live rent free and not have to pay any bills? Then maybe Anneliese Dodds would shut up. On second thoughts, she would then start demanding reparations for previous rent and bills paid. There is no end to this.
thanks for the Morrissey article it’s very poignant. I’ve convinced myself that that England is gone - in the 80s I would also have thought the good days were in the past but I wasn’t to know how bland the future would be
It may be (only may) that our new Puritans have a sufficient grip on the institutions that their coming to near-absolute power is now unavoidable. In which case, we may reasonably suppose that they will, like their 17th century forebears, sufficiently overplay their hand that the public will eventually suspend them all from trees, at least metaphorically, and beg for the return of some merry monarch. Boris's day may yet come.
Ed, can I recommend that you do devote a little more of your time to focus on "Climate Change". It is a topic I have been following quite closely for nearly 2 decades, and the more I know, the bigger the scam looks. "Unsettled" by Steve Koonin (who was Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration) would be a good book to read, if you have not already done so.
What is this scam you speak of, exactly?
This gives you a flavour, from Adam Ellwanger. But I suggest if you are interested, you read "Unsettled" and start to frequent "Net Zero Watch" or "Wattsupwiththat".
By law, the U.S. Global Change Research Program must provide a “National Climate Assessment” report to Congress “no less than every four years.” As empirical documents, these reports naturally quantify the level of confidence that the experts have in the accuracy of their prophecies. The last report (referred to as “NCA4”) was submitted in early 2019, which means that we are due for NCA5 later this year. Indubitably, NCA5 will receive significant media attention since its covert purpose is to draw attention to (and therefore advance) the climate agenda. Thus climate reports are decidedly rhetorical documents despite experts’ insistence that science has no interest in rhetoric.
NCA5 will allow us to assess the accuracy of the prophecies foretold in NCA4, and we’ll also learn whether the apocalypse is unfolding on schedule. But in preparation for the new report, we not only have a duty to revisit the “projections” of NCA4, we must refresh our memories on just how much confidence experts had in those projections to begin with. The answer, it seems, is “not much.”
NCA4 was full of dire predictions. For example, the report warned, “Many millions of Americans live in coastal areas threatened by sea level rise; in all but the very lowest sea level rise projections, retreat will become an unavoidable option in some areas” (emphasis added). Note the certainty of the phrasing: “will become.” Although the quote explicitly acknowledges that some “projections” don’t foresee the U.S. coast being inundated, the writers make sure to emphasize that these (allegedly flawed) projections don’t undermine the “scientific consensus.” But then what of the curious assertion that “retreat will become an unavoidable option”? Here we see the rhetorical sleight of hand: by definition something that is “unavoidable” is not an “option.” And if retreat will be an “option,” then the hypothetical flooding would necessarily be negligible.
Elsewhere, though, the report stresses that there is no uncertainty about these matters at all: “Across the United States, many regions and sectors are already experiencing the direct effects of climate change. For these communities, climate impacts—from extreme storms made worse by sea-level rise, to longer-lasting and more extreme heat waves, to increased numbers of wildfires and floods—are an immediate threat, not a far-off possibility.”
Oddly, the bold prophecy quoted above comes after an admission: “The world we live in is a web of natural, built, and social systems—from global climate and regional climate; to the electric grid; to water management systems […]; to managed and unmanaged forests; and to financial and economic systems. Climate effects many of these systems individually, but they also affect one another, and often in ways that are hard to predict. […] A key factor in assessing risk […] is that it is hard to quantify and predict all the ways in which climate-related stressors might lead to severe or widespread consequences.”
Even the oft-repeated platitude that climate change causes more severe storms (an idea routinely touted as “settled science”) is cast in doubt: “Some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of the science does not yet permit detailed understanding.”
“Projection” and the Confidence Game
What, then, are we to think? How reliable are these (often contradictory) prophecies? Fortunately, the report gives some guidance. The writers say that the reliability of each “projection” is determined by two metrics: “confidence” and “likelihood.” The former is a qualitative measure of how confident researchers are in a given conclusion; the latter is a quantitative assessment of the statistical probability that the prophecy will come to pass.
When it comes to “confidence,” the report classifies its predictions with one of four descriptors: low, medium, high, or very high confidence. When you hear someone say that they have “high confidence” in a particular outcome, you probably think that means “almost certain.” But when readers peruse the fine print that explains how the report defines these terms, they find that only “moderate evidence” and “some consistency” in research findings is required in order to designate a “high confidence” prediction. Not only that, but “high confidence” projections are ones where “methods vary” in the supporting research “and/or documentation [is] limited.” Finally, the report says that its “high confidence” conclusions are drawn from a “medium consensus.”
In short, then, the definitional threshold for “high confidence” only seems to require a modicum of evidence. By design, readers of the report would miss this little trick unless they read the fine print in the preliminary materials of the report. And on the off-chance that a journalist was aware of the shockingly-low level of certitude required for such “high confidence,” most reporters wouldn’t mention it. After all, that would undermine the entire rhetorical purpose of the document. So much for the measure of “confidence.”
How do we fare on the scale of “likelihood”? Here the report offers five descriptors: “very likely” (defined as “≥ 9 in 10” chance), “likely” (defined as “≥ 2 in 3” chance), “as likely as not” (“1 in 2”), “unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 3”), and “very unlikely” (“≤ 1 in 10”). Of course, this scale is completely useless as the deliberative weight of these measures wholly depends on the case in question.
If a bag held nine red slips of paper and one green one and you told me that if I draw the green one wearing a blindfold that I will win a million dollars, I would see “1 in 10” as surprisingly good odds. I wouldn’t call winning the million a “very unlikely” outcome (as the report’s metric would). In the same vein, if you told me that a horse had a 66 percent chance of winning the race, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “likely” outcome (as the report would), and I certainly wouldn’t place a large bet on it. After all, “experts” often make “very likely” predictions with a 99 percent chance of happening—only to get it wrong. Let’s assume, though, that scientists’ estimates of likelihood are accurate when it comes to climate change. Is a 70 percent chance of catastrophe a high enough likelihood to justify costly, sweeping reforms that would fundamentally change the nation’s way of life?
With all its inconsistencies and misdirection, the authors of the report still find ways to congratulate themselves: “climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly within the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations.” Older readers might find this praise strange given that the expert narrative as recently as the late 1970s was that we were entering a new ice age. Has the reliability of their prophecies improved since then? It doesn’t look like it. Some who are inclined to climate alarmism will be tempted to think that I am cherry-picking. Maybe I’ve just chosen isolated, egregious passages from NCA4? Maybe other climate reports don’t play these rhetorical tricks? Readers who harbor these doubts can read my much longer analysis that demonstrates the same tendencies in reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Seriously?
https://americanmind.org/salvo/settled-science-and-the-politics-of-knowledge/
I used to give my students the full Jeremy Clarkson for this sort of thing. How about trying the one paragraph version in your own words?
I came upon a more concise version today, by Matthew Crawford (UnHerd):-
"Try to imagine the larger setting when the IPCC convenes. Powerful organisations are staffed up, with resolutions prepared, comms. strategies in place, corporate "global partners" secured, interagency task forces standing by and diplomatic channels open, waiting to receive the good word from an empaneled group of scientists working in committee.
This is not a setting conducive to reservations, qualifications, or second thoughts. The function of the body is to produce a product: political legitimacy".
I have noticed myself massive difference between the statements made by the IPCC scientists in the detailed "Physical Science" report, which really only express high confidence in the fact of some gentle warming, and the hysterical "Code Red for Humanity" which the Head of the UN grabbed the headlines with.
Splendid!
Thus, journalists, political types etc may distort the content and conclusions of scientific reports through ignorance, political prejudice, or simply to further their own careers. The solution, as you imply, is to read the original report. This is a general rule which all sensible persons follow, and not just in relation to climate science.
The greater misfortune, I fear, is that we live in a society historically inclined to apocalypticism; I blame the Vikings and all that Ragnarök malarkey.
I agree but why not go back to the original cause?
Tory/despair: I do not know about the UK. In the US I see the Democratic party as the natural home of conservative ameliorative reform. The Conservative party certainly does need to be punished (though not necessarily destroyed) for an un-conservative thing as Brexit.
Ed I should have just asked yesterday but the PM's plan for Maths till 28- Where do you stand?
I'm not sure its a great idea, isn't there a big shortage of maths teachers already. OTOH, I wish I had done Maths A-Level and I was pretty good at GCSE. It was just too hard and I wanted to take the easy route.
on the schools thing generally, a friend of mine who was put in the lower English set (unfairly as he was good at English) recalls everyone having to talk about a book they'd read over the holiday and one boy choosing 'Robocop: the novelisation'. My friend was somewhat sceptical of whether he had read it.
I have seen the other side of the coin. I taught at Pacifico University best University in Peru. First unit was about poetry - Funnily enough a young man moving to San Francisco for adventure and a dirge on post colonial Nigeria did not excite my class. The next unit which spoke about applying to university did.
Saw the change in the class literally overnight.
Reading novels- isnt per se a sign of intelligence.
In the United States, the reason for poor math achievement, overall, is that children do not master arithmetic facts and computation skills in the early elementary years. Without that, no amount of additional instruction is of much use. A student who cannot do operations with fractions cannot do algebraic calculations.
As a former teacher, this is a very interesting topic. I totally understand personal attitude and interest ( I was okay/good at Maths, never brilliant), but I just can’t escape the question “what is that our kids should know”.
No hostility here- I am aware we have serious problem with education in Italy. But as somebody who lives in the UK, I am not convinced that specialising so much at 16 is a good idea.
Yeah I can see advantages of letting people redo GCSE maths or get to AS level maths Or quietly do remedial maths at college rather then in HS.
Who are these great science writers that can be trusted? Inquiring minds would like to know, because there are virtually none on anything where collectivism might become an option(pandemics, climate change, etc).
The Tories biggest problem is that many/most of their MPs are politically apathetic and drawn from the large segment of society that mostly just wants to be liked. They see "going into politics" as the sort of thing respectable people do at a certain age because they want to serve, yadda yadda. That's inherent to "conservatism" as a form of politics - it doesn't stand for anything, it only stands against other's attempts to change things. But if you're only ever against change, it automatically means you're always playing defense, and even if you "win" 80% of the time i.e. stop whatever progressives want to do today, that means you're still losing 20% because the whole thing is defined as purely resistive.
In other words, until conservatives stop being conservatives and actually commit to *specific* beliefs that they know how to argue for (which might entail arguing for great social change!) then this is what will happen - decades of Tory drift-and-crisis punctuated by occasional left wing governments that radically reshape society, then voters get sick of it, kick them out and we get more decades of drift-and-crisis.
"That's inherent to "conservatism" as a form of politics - it doesn't stand for anything, it only stands against other's attempts to change things. "
Margaret Thatcher.
Margaret Thatcher is unusually hated on the left vs someone like David Cameron, John Major, Theresa May etc exactly because she was NOT a mere conservative but actually of a libertarian bent, and was willing to make big changes to make the UK more libertarian. The British Conservative party does attract such types but they rarely make it to the top.
Benjamin Disraeli.
Disraeli?! That's a long way back, but also, Disraeli would be considered on the left by today's standards!
thank you