Bishop Hill mentions this book: Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction

He tells us…

Specialists are considerably worse at making predictions than generalists – is now quite well known, although less so among the general public and media than it should be.

The generalist forecasters were better than the experts because…’ It was more about independence of mind, the ability to constantly recalibrate and to question assumptions, the ability to think in terms of probabilities rather than in black and white terms.’

A comment on Amazon for the book summed it up…..

If you want to understand what will happen in the future, do you ask a distinguished tv pundit, or do you go to a chimp throwing darts at a board? Philip Tetlock’s very readable book explains that you’d be better off with the chimp. Sadly talking heads are mostly good at telling you what is going to happen, and then explaining afterwards why it didn’t – or insisting against all the evidence, that actually, it did.

Harrabin a ‘distinguished tv pundit’ or a climate lobby flunky?

Bishop Hill also notes….

The opposition have called a debate on the Cumbria floods tomorrow, and so the House of Commons Library has issued a briefing paper to MPs. There’s lot to amuse. For example, I read with interest that:

…there is a general understanding that climate change is likely to be linked to increased winter rain in the UK.

I think it’s fair to say that this is complete drivel.

Interestingly, the “Further Reading” section also includes, among other things, a suggestion that MPs might like to take a look at a paper entitled “Floods, Climate Change and Flood Defence Investment”, published by Friends of the Earth.

Which is odd, because the first-named author of the briefing – one Sara Priestley – turns out to have worked at Friends of the Earth before moving to the House of Commons.

What makes me think that MPs’ briefings have something of a bias?

To be fair she only worked there for two months….but it could I suppose indicate where her heart lies….

• Legal

  Friends of the Earth

  September 2013 – October 2013 (2 months)

Firstly, my thanks to Alan for putting up the Start the Week thread, I’ve had wifi problems this past few days so wasn’t able to post until now. I had the misfortune to listen to the Today programme this morning. It was a leftist fest, as ever. The BBC were ecstatic that the Front National had been ‘crushed” in the 2nd round of the French elections. (Little time spent considering the fact that the FN vote held strong but tactical voting by the establishment parties had gerrymandered the result.It seems the wishes of 25% of the electorate can be dismisses when they hold the wrong views according to the BBC) Then they moved on to their new poster boy, Shakar Aamer, who is being hailed as a true blue Brit. We’ve seen the BBC do this before over Moazzam Beggs so they have form. There was an item on the WRETCHED failure of Social workers to stop child abuse. The BBC line was this was because they are not paid enough and that the tax payer must splash more cash their way if they are to consider stopping industrial scale sex abuse of young girls. And so it went. Grim, relentless, biased.

Guess David is still a bit Daeshed and confused after his Xmas bash so I’ll do the honours….a new open thread….

A teacher in France has been stabbed but survived the attack….the BBC’s report is for once open about the culprit…though the BBC is still being ‘PC’ in the title…….

Teacher in France stabbed by man ‘shouting Islamic State’

A teacher has been attacked in a preschool class in Aubervilliers, a suburb of the French capital, Paris, by a man citing so-called Islamic State.

The attacker shouted: “This is for Daesh [Islamic State]. It’s a warning”, stabbing the teacher with a box cutter or scissors before fleeing.

The life of the teacher, 45, who was alone in the room, is not in danger.

‘Daesh’ does indeed mean in essence ‘Islamic State’ but when Cameron and his cronies all decided to take up the Muslim lobbyists’ call to hide the fact that the ‘Islamic State’ were Islamic and instead call them Daesh the BBC insisted in calling them ‘Islamic State’…good for the BBC, and somewhat of a surprise….though still calling terrorists militants.

However the BBC’s reason for continuing to use ‘Islamic State’ said it all…it didn’t want to upset supporters of the Islamic State….

BBC rejects MPs’ calls to refer to Islamic State as Daesh

The head of the BBC rejected the demands, saying that using Daesh would not preserve the BBC’s impartiality as it risked giving an impression of support for the group’s opponents, the Times reports. He is said to claim that the term is used pejoratively by its enemies.

Instead, it is reported, Hall said the BBC would use terms such as the “Islamic State group” to distinguish it from a true state, and continue to use descriptions such as extremist or militant for its members.

Got to be confusing when the Islamic State uses Daesh itself.  What’s Cameron going to do?  What’s the BBC going  to do?

Guess that’s what happens when you try to manufacture perceptions and not just go with  the truth and deal with the real problems rather than pandering to Muslim lobbyists.

Update:  Fun and games daeshed.…..#youain’tnoknifemanbruv

The BBC reported this story straight, the victim said the attacker used the name Daesh …..should have known something was wrong….apparently the herbert managed to stab himself accidentally.  Shame all ISIS/Daesh wannabe martyrs don’t try the same thing instead of the cliched suicide vest.

No expert on statistics but looking at this I would say the 97% claimed stat for scientific consensus on global warming is a crock….

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

So hang on……66.4% expressed no position on the causes of global warming…

but……32.6% endorsed the alarmist position.

And the 97%?

The 97% is 97% of that 32.6%, or least of ‘those who expressed a position’, which definitely counts out the 66.4% who expressed no position and is even more definitely not 97% of  ‘all scientists’…by my reading of that explanation.

So maybe around 33% of the literature openly supports the man-made climate change theory.

I’m sure someone will  put me right.

NB…Not as if the author of the study isn’t a climate change campaigner himself…

Why we need to talk about the scientific consensus on climate change

An interesting sequence of events followed the publication of a scientific paper I co-authored in May last year. The paper found a 97% consensus that humans were causing global warming in relevant scientific papers.  [Really?…see above]

So there is still much work to do. Several decades of casting doubt on the consensus has contributed to maintaining the consensus gap. This is why communication experts urge scientists to communicate the 97% consensus. This approach is based on a growing body of evidence underscoring the important role of perceived consensus and the necessity of consensus messaging.

Amusing to see this from our old mate Richard Black in 2007..

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

“The research itself is biased,” as one recent blog entry put it.

“Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government.”

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.

Naturally Black couldn’t find any convincing evidence of that….but the above surely is where “Scientists are quick to find what they’re looking for.”  97%?  That’ll do nicely.

We have already had a look at Roger Harrabin’s latest exercise in climate change promotion via the Open University and the below just confirms absolutely what the intention of that promotion is in a report from the same event in 2014…

Report on TippingPoint Oxford 2014: Stories of Change

Sustainability has a reasonable foothold in UK discourse. It features as part of Government policy with, for example, Government Departments being obliged to report on their sustainability achievements, for example.

It is much less clear, however, that it has a genuine and deep purchase on the national
psyche. Outside select groups in the research and NGO sector, and a general, casual and
relatively inconsequential popular acknowledgement of it, particularly among the urban
middle classes, it can reasonably be said that it has made rather little tangible impact on
the way people live their lives.

TippingPoint is one of a handful of small British organisations that have been championing the concept of artistic intervention in this field.
The rationale for this is best summed up in our strapline ‘energising the creative response
to climate change’. Our conviction is that without deep engagement in the subject by the
cultural sector we will not achieve the breakthroughs in public understanding that are
necessary.

We were extremely fortunate to form a partnership with the newly created, and substantial, Stories of Change project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. This project has aims that are almost exactly aligned with those of TippingPoint, and both felt that it was well worth combining forces – and budgets – to achieve a greater impact.

So the government sponsored climate alarmists who pay for Harrabin’s spiel, join forces with climate activists to contrive to produce climate propaganda via the Arts and Cultural sector...and their aims are exactly aligned.

Who can doubt this year’s Harrabin harangue isn’t also aligned with that aim.

The ‘People’ aren’t onboard with climate change so Harrabin and Co are out to make the case for climate alarmism.

A journalist or activist?

Not as if our Rog hasn’t been in the pay of the government before according to the Mail…

BBC’s six-year cover-up of secret ‘green propaganda’ training for top executives

Amused by the venomous BBC knifing of right-wing Tony Abbott…

Ex-Australia PM Tony Abbott says Islam must reform

Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has sparked criticism by saying Islam has a “massive problem” and needs to reform.

Writing in Australian media, Mr Abbott said “not all cultures are equal” and the West should stop apologising for defending its values.

The BBC gives Abbott a couple of lines to hang himself (they hope) and then they set the kangaroo court in motion with the first 1/3 of the article devoted to slagging Abbott off.

Abbott is then allowed to expand on his statement before the last 1/3 is given over to Muslims to give him a kicking.

Note there are no voices brought on to support Abbott’s views, just critics.

Boo Hiss

Laughably the BBC resorts to low insults and contrived counterpoints that are designed to supposedly undermine Abbott’s criticism of a religion, well, supposed religion….

Mr Abbott was removed as prime minister by a party vote in September amid poor poll ratings and is now a backbench MP. Before his political career he had trained to be a Catholic priest.

His letter, published in News Corps tabloids, cautioned against “demonising” Muslims, but said the West “can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam”.

So a mere ex-PM with low ratings who is now a lowly backbencher (and yet they still love Ed Miliband) …and oh yes, he was a trainee priest, a catholic one….so  not only must he be intrinsically inclined to hate Islam he’s probably a bit ‘suspect’.

And get this…the real clincher…not only was his letter in a Murdoch paper, but in a tabloid Murdoch paper….how revoltingly populist can you get.  ‘Tory’ scum.

Doesn’t say who wrote this stitch-up but I’m guessing it was Hamas’ representative in OZ, Jon Donnison.

Love his idea of what constitutes ‘superb’ journalism….

• Jon Donnison ‏@jondonnisonbbc Dec 8

  superb.

   

  

  0:10

  Monty Moncrieff @MontyMoncrieff

  Oh well done @CliveMyrieBBC “You can not be a dickhead & win Sports Personality of the Year” @Tyson_Fury #SPOTY

 

 

A film from over a decade ago…how soon we forget…conveniently.

Birmingham a no go zone…for Blacks?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODVXIIKwQ

‘Think 20 years ahead…this’ll be Pakistan…they’re all shipping over..fake passports and that….’  A Paksitani youth

‘Somalis are vermin…dirty…it’s our job to clean up the dirt…they’re black but they’re not…they’re not like us.’  Black youth

‘The government should send them [Somalis] home…they’re animals’  Black woman

‘Is there a sense of threat from Islam?……There is an overpowering element to Islam..intimidating’ Darcus Howe

If a white person said anything approaching that…imagine the outrage.

In the previous post we had a quick thought that Shaker Aamer was gaming the non-Muslim population with a faux anti-extremism posture, a front in order to gain our confidence…entryism in other words.

What if a London Mayor candidate also plays such games and seeks to gain a position which he can use to silence critics of Islam?  Here Sadiq Khan positions himself as a humanitarian and equalities campaigner….

We must do more to challenge Islamophobia. As mayor of London, I’ll make tackling hate crimes – including Islamophobia, antisemitism and homophobia – a top priority for the Metropolitan police and ensure they get the resources they needs to make a real difference. I’ll work with the police and community organisations to improve the way we report and record Islamophobic crimes – so we have the best possible information to act on.

Nice that Labour’s Sadiq Khan thinks he can use the Met. Police as his own private police force to enforce an Islamic Inquisition….oh yes he’ll tackle anti-Semitism and homophobia (East London will be in lock down) but he had to say that didn’t he…just a bit too obvious what the agenda really might be if he hadn’t….though the title of his Guardian rant might just give the game away….

‘With Islamophobia on the rise I fear for my friends and family’

Craig at Is the BBC biased? (LOL) remarks on a very usual BBC discussion that peddles a defensive Muslim narrative in regard to a Times report that the man who shouted out #youain’tnomuslimbruv didn’t actually hear the Muslim terrorist shout that ‘this is for Syria and my Muslim brothers’.

What’s curious is that the BBC  (10 mins)don’t seem to have noticed that the man who shouted out ‘you ain’t no Muslim bruv’ was in fact not a Muslim himself…despite the big Times frontpage headline that the BBC actually read out…..perhaps that’s why the BBC are attacking him and his ‘prejudice’ that a terrorist might be Muslim despite him obviouly being a victim of successful BBC brainwashing on the subject of Islam (ROP)…..the Times reveals all….

THE man dubbed a “hero” and praised by David Cameron for shouting “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv” to a knife-wielding suspected terrorist at a London Tube station has told The Sunday Times he now fears retribution from Isis.

John, 39, who asked for his surname to be witheld, revealed that he is not a Muslim himself but is angry that terrorist organisations such as Isis claim to represent Islam.

“Isis should be wiped out, because they’re not Muslims, because Muslims don’t do that. It’s as simple as that. For people to be like that, they’ve obviously got stone hearts, they don’t care about society. They don’t care about anyone. They’re evil, pure evil,” he said.

So Muslims, who reaped enormous vicarious credit for this denouncement of a terrorist as it ‘resonated around the world’, got that by the BBC et al assuming the guy shouting out was a Muslim …so as the BBC says…

‘Why should be immediately jump to the conclusion that he was a Muslim?! Because that again raises other questions…

Martine Croxall: Yes, of course.

Mihir Bose: …about how we look at these things.

Yes…how do we look at Shaker Aamer…considered a terrorist by the US and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that.…but the very anti-war Mail has shamefully decided to promote Aamer’s narrative and give him credibility and the BBC is lapping it up…and of course there is the obligatory cheap tilt at Trump (10 mins)...he is aiding the terrorists with his own narrative apparently.

Do we believe Aamer, who was a ringleader inside Guantanamo, or is he just creating a credible, anti-Jihadi persona in order to position himself where he can then speak with ‘authority’ having made people believe he is not a ‘radical’ Muslim…therefore when he then goes on to speak for Cage or some other Muslim agitprop group that demands more Islam in the UK he is listened to with respect when he is in fact pushing the Jihadi line?  Entryist?  Wait out.

Of course the Mail has a history of backing the wrong side….