Hurrah for Lurgee's Paradigm!

From the website of The Daily Press:

Some 31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity.

“No such consensus or settled science exists,” said Arthur Robinson, founder and president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in the July issue of “Environment & Climate News.”

“As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject” the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. (1)

The Oregon Institute petition and it's lying claim that "31,072 American scientists have signed a petition rejecting the assertion that global warming has reached a crisis stage and is caused by human activity" was used a demonstration of Lurgee's Paradigm (2), and so the whole article can be ignored as propoganda and / or very bad journalism.

1 - "31K scientists sign petition disputing global warming," unattributed article posted on the Daily Press website, 28th of July, 2008. (http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/petition_7737___article.html/scientists_31k.html)
2 - as described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/05/lurgees-paradigm-iii-31000-scientists.html

Yellow Journalism

From The Times:

ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. (1)

This is based on a survey carried out by an organisation called the Centre for Social Cohesion (2). It examined the attitudes of Muslim students in British Universities, and one of the findings [PDF] it uncovered was that:

Respondents were asked if it is ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion. Just under a third of Muslim students polled (32%) said killing in the name of religion was justified – the vast majority of these (28% of all respondents) said killing could be justified if the religion was under attack and 4% of respondents supported killing in order to promote and preserve that religion. (3)

The Times makes no effort -NONE AT ALL - to break down the figure of 32%. It does not point out that of that of that 32%, the overwhelming majority specified that killing was only acceptable in tha face of aggression.

As for the 4% who said killing was acceptable to "promote and preserve" Islam, bundling promoting and preserving may have confused some ome respondents. The times makes no comment on this, either.

As said, the report itself is published by the Centre for Social Cohesion. This is turn was set up by Civitas (4), a rightwing think tank. THe SFSC, inspite of its name, seem to exist for one purpose only - to publish reports portraying Islam and Muslims negatively. Scanning their list of publications, there is NOT ONE that deals with any other social group. Its other reports are titled are:

• Virtual Caliphate: Islamic extremists and their websites
• Crimes of the Community: Honour-based violence in the UK
• Hate on the State: How British libraries encourage Islamic extremism (5)

The trend is pretty obvious. Nothing about gypsies and travelling communities, blacks, the unemployed, the career criminals, immigrants in general, or the BNP's constituency. Like the trend, the purpose is pretty obvious.

I've had a look at the report itself, and I'll go into it in another post.

1 - "A third of Muslim students back killings," by Abul Taher in The Times, 27th of July, 2008. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece)
2 - The website of The Centre for Social Cohesion: http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/
3 - "Islam On Campus," by John THorne and Hannah Stewart, published by The Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008. (http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf)
4 - The website of Civitas: http://www.civitas.org.uk/
5 - A list of publications by The Centre of SOcial Cohesion, as displayed on their website aon 29th of July, 2008. (http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pubs/publications.php)

My favourite irony

This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

'This Land is my Land' is something of an alternate national anthem in the USA, written by semi-mythical folk legend, Woodie Guthrie. What is usually ignored is that Guthrie was a life long socialist and the early versions of the song, as sung by Guthrie, contain verses criticising private land ownership, and the church and the government's failure to address the real needs of the American people.

Unsurprisingly, these verses are usually omitted, or replaced by less challenging fare:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
That side was made for you and me.

In the squares of the city, In the shadow of a steeple;
By the relief office, I'd seen my people.
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking,
Is this land made for you and me?

Joe Klein's biography of Guthrie is a remarkable book. As Klein remarks, Guthrie has become a bit of a folk myth, a hobo-like figure from the dust bowl, sanitized of his political convictions. I used to have a copy of it, but it was 'borrowed' by a friend of mine and never made it back to me. The last I heard, my friend wasin India, working in television. I like to think the book still out there somewhere, pursuing its own hobo-ish course across the sub-continent.

1 - 'This Land is My Land,' by Woody Guthrie, originally published in 1944. The full lyrics can be found on wikipedia, amongst others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Land_Is_Your_Land#Original_1944_Lyrics

Lurgee's paradigm IV: "Sir David King said ..."

This is a new example of Lurgee's Paradigm, brought to light by the fallout surrounding the Ofcom report on The Great Global Warming Swindle.

I had been aware of the remarks attributed to David King, formerly the British government's Cheif Scientific Adviser, and even knew - vaguely - that they had been referred to in TGGWS and one of the complaints around the programme centred on what was said about him. It wasn't until after the Ofcom ruling that I noticed it was a further example of Lurgee's Paradigm, however.

Basically, in TGGWS, Fred Singer, a cliamte scientist and a vocal denier, attributes the following view to King:

There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world – particularly when you have, for example, the chief scientist of the UK telling people that by the end of the century, the only inhabitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic; and it may, humanity may survive, thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic –I mean this is hilarious. It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren’t so sad. (1)

King complained on three grounds. First, Singer had claimed he said "only inhabitable" when in fact he had previosuly referred to "most inhabitable." Second, he had never mentioned breeding couple perpetuating the human race - this appears to have been a confusion with the well known scientist-fantasist, James Lovelock. Finally, he complained that he did not suggest that such a catastrophic climate change could occur by the end of the century:

By way of background Sir David said that during his original testimony to the House of Commons Select Committee in 2004 he had stated:

“Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth;
the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot. It isestimated that it [the carbon dioxide level] was roughly 1,000 parts per million then, and the important thing is that if we carry on business as usual we will hit 1,000 parts per million around the end of the century.”

Sir David noted that his original statement: made no reference to the survival of humanity depending on “breeding couples who moved to the Antarctic”; and the programme had exaggerated his speech by replacing “most habitable” with “the only habitable”. (2)

There was some fairly typical argument about who was meant by "the chief scientist of the UK" - Ofcom ruled that it was reasonable that it would indicate King, given his job title.

Channel 4 then did a very odd thing, claiming it was justified in attributing false views to King as he'd previously not complained about, in the Independent and the New Statesman (3). This is very odd logic, akin to a mugger pleading not guilty to an assault charge because the victim had not complained about previous assaults. It also says something about the professional standards - or integrity - of Singer and the programme makers. It is very odd to learn that a prominent scientist like Singer gets his information from the Independent and the New Statesman - one would have expected more rigorous interest in the opinions of his - equally illustruous - peers, especially since he makes a career of attacking them. And the programme makers seem to have neglected to do basic fact checking.

Ofcom ruled that the programme was distorting King's views - because of the 'breeding couples' comment. The other points were not addressed, perhaps acknowledging, tacitly, that the previously published erroneous accounts gave Channel Four valid grounds for botching it.

The squabble about "Only habitable" and "Most habitable" is unimportant, though it should be noted that Singer was wrong. The other important, however, is far more serious. Recall that Singer accused King of saying that "by the end of the century the only habitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic". King claimed out that he said nothing of the kind. Channel Four claimed the misquotation came from an interview he gave to THe Climate Group in April 2004, where as King refered to testimony given to the Commons Select Committee in March of that year. King stated that what he said on both occasions was very similar. I have not been able to locate the text of what he said to the Climate Group, but his testimony was quoted in the Ofcom report (above).

It is obvious he is saying that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will hit the same level as previosuly seen 55 million years ago, by the end of the century. He is not suggesting that the conditions prevailing then will reappear in that time. If he were, he would be every bit as laughable as Singer makes him out to be, but as he clearly isn't, it is Singer who looks like the fool, or the liar. Which is it, Fred?

This is all very obvious and straight forward and clear from the information available. So anyone claiming that David King said anything about the Antarctic being the only or most habitable place on the planet by the end of the century is either a fool or trying to mislead you, and can safely be ignored. The Independent and New Statesman stories have been reproduced across denier sites, very quickly, without any analysis of whether it is really credible for a scientist like Singer to repeat the blunders of incompetent journalists. But it is all there in black and white for anyone willing to look and think - and anyone failing to do that can be dismissed, likewise, as a propgandist or a fool.

First cab off that particular rank - Steve MacIntyre (4), who scrupulously avoided that issue in his attempt to undermine the Ofcom complaint against TGGWS. Even though he quoted from part of the Ofcom rpeort that mentioned it, specifically:

Sir David said that he did not say or imply that the Antarctic was ever the ONLY habitable place for mammals, still less was he making a prediction that it would be
the only or even the most, habitable place for mammals if CO2 concentrations reached similar concentrations in the future. (5)

Though he spends a lot of time dwelling on the "Most" vs "Only" debate, MacIntyre ignores the second part entirely, preferring to make silly and disingenuous comments about Monty Python, and post pictures of scantily clad women. Which tells you all you need to know about the objectivity of his website.

1 - Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, number 114, published by Ofcom, 21st of July, 2008.(http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb114/issue114.pdf). The material relating to King's complaint is on pages 36-42 and the quotation cited is on page 36.
2 - ibid, page 37.
3 - ibid, page 38. Neither paper gets it right - the Independent claims King "Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week" and The New Statesman also blunders: "he told reporters ... that ‘Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live and the rest of the globe would not sustain human life’. He warned that these conditions, with CO2 levels as high as 1,000 pm [parts per million] and no ice left on earth, could again be reached by 2100.”" [my emphasis] Of course he said nothing about these conditions being possible - merely that we might hit the same CO2 concentration.
4 - 'David King: Hot Girls and Cold Continents,' posted by Steve MacIntyre on Climate Audit, 22nd of July, 2008. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3329)
5 - Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, op. cit., page 39. The quotation is also reproduced on Climate Audit, op. cit.

Of Com ruling: TGGWS broke the rules

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been found to be in breach of principles relating to fairness and impartiality.

Inspite of expressing "some concerns about aspects of this programme as regards the portrayal of factual matters" the report found the programme had not commited factual inaccuracies. This was on a technical diefinition, however, as the Guardian analysis makes clear:

It grouped the complaints about factual accuracy into four categories:

• The use of graphs·
• The distortion of the science of climate change·
• The argument that global warming is used by campaigners to reverse economic growth.
• The credibility of the programme's contributors – some of whom have been linked to the fossil fuel industry.

On the first two points, Ofcom judged that the programme did not go far enough to cause harm or offence.

It said the third was justified under the right to freedom of expression and was not misleading.

On the credibility of the programme's contributors, Ofcom said such programmes did not have to disclose potential conflicts of interest, and that, in not mentioning them, the programme did not mislead.

On the charge of misleading by omission, Ofcom said it was clear that the programme was attacking a well known, mainstream view, and that viewers would have known this. There is no obligation on such programmes to include a wide range of views. (1)

[My emphasis]

So while the programme was misleading, it was not so to the required (and rather high) standard of causing "harm or offence." While conflicts of interest may existed, it was not required for the programme makers to disclose them. And while the programme makers may have been guilty of misleading by ommission, this was again - technically - not a breach.

Full text here (2) [pdf].

I'm sure there will be a massive attempt by the progreamme makers to spin this as some sort of vindication of their programme - there will be talk of 'minor infractions' and 'slight exaggerations' and so on. But the points noted by OfCom are devastating - they lied, but because we enjoy freedom of speech in this country, that is permitted, so complaints relating to that are not upheld. They distorted and misrepresented people's opinions to fit their agenda, and that is not acceptable, and they have been found to be in breach on that count.

1 - "Global warming documentary: The Ofcom report at a glance" by David Adam, published in The Guardian, 21st of July, 2008. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/21/climatechange.carbonemissions)
2 - OfCom Broadcast Bulletin, issue number 114, 21st of July, 2008. Reproduced on The Guardian website. (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Media/documents/2008/07/21/issue114.pdf)

OfCom ruling on 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' imminent

... unfortunately I am too tired to stay up for it. Anticipating its findings, however. According to the BBC:

Leaks to newspapers last week indicated that Sir David's fairness complaint - that the programme attributed comments to him that he had not made, and did not allow him a chance to reply - would be upheld.

It is also believed Ofcom will back a complaint from Carl Wunsch, an oceanographer interviewed for the programme, that he was misled as to its intent.

Dr Wunsch, from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, said he believed he was being asked to take part in a programme that would "discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change", but "what we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance".

The accuracy code, meanwhile, includes an instruction that "a personal view or authored programme or item must be clearly signalled to the audience at the outset", and that programmes covering issues of political controversy must not give "undue prominence" to any particular point of view. (1)

My hunch is that the programme will be found to be in breach of both misrepresentating and misleading contributors, and failing to signal that it was, essentially, a shrill piece of hysterical opinion, and counter-factual opinion at that, not investigative journalism.

Which will be interpreted as an attempt by the 'elitists' and the 'so-called scientific consensus' to silence the clarion voice of truth, or some such delusion twaddle.

1 - "Ruling expected on climate film," unattributed BBC article, published online, 21st of July, 2008. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512916.stm)

Zimbabwe deal

This (1), I have to say, I did not expected. Some immediate thoughts on why the MDC and Mugabe might, suddenly, have found common ground:

• Mugabe has decided to exit and this is a deal to grant him and his family immunity. This would not be a bad outcome. While in an ideal world criminals should always face justice, getting Mugabe and Zanu-PF out of power without further bloodshed would be a good thing. Unlike some, I'm not aroused by the idea of guerrilla warfare and bloody revolution if it can be avoided. Let the old bastard go if necessary, so that other not-bastards might live.
• Alternately, Mugabe has no intention of stepping down, but he is weaker than previously thought. Perhaps he genuinely fears the MDC, or is worried about elements within his own party. By coming to an accomodation with the MDC, he may hope to stengthen his position and extend his reign.
• If Tsvangirai is seeking to pull of a Mandela style 'historic compromise' with Mugabe then he's naive. Mugabe is a snake and can not be relied on to keep faith.
• The most pessimistic option is that Tsvangirai is joining the hegemony with his eyes wide open and with cynical motives in his heart. In which case, he is engaging in a bauble grab to make Winston green with envy.

My gut feeling is that it is either a stalling tactic by Mugabe, or a cynical power grab by Tsvangirai. It won't be the first time an opponent of tyranny has become the thing he sought to overthrow. There is a recent example from the region - think back to Laurent Kablia, one time Congo guerilla, associate of Che Guevara and eventual tyrant of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

1 - "Zimbabwe leaders 'to sign deal'," unattributed BBC atricle, published online, 21st of July, 2008. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7516019.stm)