Going off the rails?

No, nowt to do with trains.

I am just wondering what has got into some sections of our political classes, and their notions of advocacy.

First we have the government just getting more bizarre in its kamikaze scorched earth end game, with such as Presidente for Life Blair and David 'sod this I need a better job than the one I'm supposed to be doing' Miliband vying for who can sell the UK out quicker to score a top EU job.

And then we have Lord Stern on climate duty, getting all fence sitters onside:

Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet

Of course he is right in that going veggie will make more efficient use of available food resources.

It'll make sod all difference to 'the planet'.

So 'we' give up meat (betting an all vegan diet is unlikely in the 1st class flights to Copenhagen and at all the banquets).

This buys us how long before 'we' simply expand to occupy the space and time that buys us?

Then what do 'we' forgo?

Wrong bloke. Wrong time.

And in one fell swoop he has rather tainted any possible good he might have been associated with in the past.

Sorely Missed: *

You can pop in the appropriate noun here: *

Newsnight: Stern climate questions

As was in Brussels I obviously did miss it. But maybe not much as I interpret post 100.

In the hands of our media and those in authority tasked to shape our futures, this Bali effort is looking more and more of a joke as it approaches.

God help us if they find Maddie's teddy bear at the same time as any worthwhile consensus or call for action is broadcast. I know what our beleaguered PM will rush to the studios to comment upon first.

A week may be a long time in politics. But it seems an hour can be an eternity when it comes to weighing priorities: the end of the human race, versus the travails of some individuals who are just part of it.

Stern honour

Peerage for climate change economist
After publishing the report that seemed to trigger some initial movement on climate change by our government, then getting unceremoniously dumped by the very same, Sir Nicholas Stern is now to be made a life peer.

That should provide plenty of opportunity for networking and hobnobbing then.

Imdy - No wonder the British no longer trust anyone

THE INVESTIGATION

Golly, managing this blog is almost getting as tricky as the site!

A few days ago I cited a report of a report, namely by a paper, about the Stern report.

And I was tweaked by a reader who mildly hinted that I hadn't read the thing myself. At 600 pages I doubt I ever will in its entirety, because a) no one could pay me enough and b) no one is paying me. But he did point at a few key areas worth a scope, which I hope to get around to.

Of course I may be falling into another trap of going where I am led, and away from where I could be, to try and steer my views, and hence what I in turn pass on.

Anyway, along the way I was also made aware of a Radio 4 show called the Investigation, and have just listened to it.

It seems pretty clear that a lot of what was in the paper was based on this. Again, editing and agendas can always come into play, but one thing I immediately noted was that the Stern Report based some of its hairier assumptions on, in turn, others people's work. And these guys are about as good as we're going to get for objective analysis for now. And they did not seem happy bunnies. In short, a couple, quoted by Stern, felt their work had been mis-represented. And that, I'm afraid, sets up all sorts of red flags for me, and establishes a basis for the kind of tainted view I referred to in my original opinion piece.

There was also a lot of economics theory in there that was way over my head, but I did pick up on a few points to pull things back the other way a tad. Mainly this was in the realms of 'worst case scenarios' being painted, and 'it not be as bad, as quickly.'

Well, I subscribe to the ad man's view that you promise low and deliver high, and that it seems better to start early to avoid a last minute panic.

Hence I will be interested to hear the ICC's report referred to. I just hope it is digestible!

FT - UK climate change costings 'too high'

The Fast and the Loose. Play On!

It's a biggie: What's black and white and green all over? Another dodgy dossier

I await with some dread the moderator’s approved selection of rabid deniers and righteous believers knocking spots off each other as the rest of us cower below the artillery exchange. It seems like it has been ever thus.
In my pleas that we do something (I accept debate is required while evidence of practical ROIs on worthwhile proposals, across all measures, from money to planetary benefit, is established beyond doubt) whilst all the talk detracts from action, I have often also appealed for the comforting sanity of facts, for normal folk such as myself to try to arrive at some form of objective notions on what may be the best course(s).
So I was/am pleased to see that this has some, and seemingly more than worthy ones, to chew upon. I also do note that, as with any potential agenda, facts can be edited in or omitted to steer the argument to a desired conclusion. But some here seem pretty clear, incontrovertible... and damning. At least to what I care most about, because yet again I see the necessary cause (that I, personally espouse) of a reduction in waste, improvement in efficiency and an overall acceptance that ‘we’ can’t really sustain the way we are living too much longer, has been undermined by less than coherent policy and claim in the name of some other things less noble, more self-interested and short term than sorting out a future for the coming generations.
Of course the media are pretty complicit, from equal ‘tomorrow’s headline’ self interest. Striking assertions are almost all virtually unquestioned. They are good for ratings.
So it is eye-openingly honest, but rather shocking to learn that it is ‘easier for us just to repeat the claims of people such as Stern (or any other pro/con activist or big oil-funded mouthpiece – the riposte du jour to any counter these days), sexing them up as we go along.’ That’ll serve the public right then. I must thank you for the tip about ‘Investigation’ which I will track down immediately.
I don’t know if this piece is attempting a mea culpa, but I’ll take what ever I can get.
Some doubts I must confess I have arrived at myself. I have to say any projection beyond 2100 has to be "particularly unreliable" short of engaging Hitchhikers Guide’s Deep Thought, which ironically I believe turned out to be our planet. But making and feeding off such projections has turned into a very lucrative industry for some. And the best part is... if you turn out be wrong, who cares? You’re already nowhere to be found to offer a refund!
I don’t claim to understand a fraction of the economic debate, but to the point that the rich today need not make sacrifices for the poor tomorrow, they may or may not on average be 12 times better-off than we are now but, like Midas, gold is not much good if there is no green to eat. Surely a more appropriate point is that a few quite eminent people are making pretty firm, dire noises, and it seems a tad overconfident, not to say foolhardy, to simply say ‘carry on smoking’ and wait and see if there is indeed a gas leak as time progresses.
It is a shame I get to the end to find out that, yet again, there is no suggested best approach to climate change. And I must look elsewhere. I will.

But meantime, to try and improve an uncertain future, I will pay a fair bit now, so long as it is managed by those who I can trust to do it fairly, and without organisational agenda, targets or career gain, ahead of doing what’s right, practical and effective.

ADDENDUM: I have just read a coincidentally complementary set of pieces to this, as a totally Kismetic consequence of a posting by the ever-excellent Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science, who has just, and justly, won an award (with the bonus of another relevant piece, for another place and time on the site) for an article on the manipulation of stats.