How appropriate that today of all days, Jack of Kent should pose the question ‘Does Political blogging Really Make Any Difference’?

Can anybody doubt that without the influence on the main stream press of political bloggers we would ever have seen charges brought against MPs in respect of fraud?

Jack is chairing a debate at The Monk Exchange next Monday to include Guido, Jonathon Isaby, Sunny Hundal and Slugger O’Toole to discuss whether blogs have changed anything in a substantial way. It should be lively, I wish I could be there.

Would the main evening news have even been posing the questions asked by bloggers regarding the veracity of ‘Climate Change’ protagonists without the efforts of Bishop Hill, Devils Kitchen, and many others. Would Phil Hill have been forced to account for his actions? I doubt it.

Following the success of Obama in using the Internet, ironically it was worldwide political activists who decided to use the Internet to propagate their vision of world Armageddon and the necessity for increased taxes to pay for their ‘Green’ industries via ‘Blog Action Day‘. They proudly proclaimed that Gordon Brown posted the first entry at the stroke of midnight – his ’60 days to save the world’ masterpiece – that invited ‘all’ to come to Copenhagen and save the world.

It was part of a campaign of propaganda that Copenhagen was to be an open and accountable process. Little did they suspect as they bragged that they had encouraged 32,000 blog posts all synchronised to sing from the same hymnal, that the real bloggers would be at work within days demolishing their arguments.

The iconic statements fell like dominoes, the Amazonian forests, the Himalayan glaciers, the Polar Bears, till even the font of all wisdom, the IPCCs own Rajendra Pachauri looked set to fall.

The Internet which had been seen as a propaganda tool for governments had bitten back. The BBC were initially reporting the ‘acquisition’ of the ‘climategate’ e-mails as a simple matter of data loss. When last heard of, even Channel 4 news was giving Lord Lawson space to out line his rebuttal of the Global Warming fear-mongers. Would they have had such a change of heart without political bloggers? I doubt it. Who else would have challenged their version of the truth?

Without the political blogging of Guido, forcing the resignation of Damian McBride, the main stream press would still have been cowering in a corner, frightened to upset their political masters.

Talking of Guido, did you see him on Newsnight last night, lodging himself firmly in Tim Yeo’s left nostril? The BBC don’t seem to keen on you watching a repeat, they have removed the clip from their site, fortunately, Old Holborn saved it.

Biffo
February 5, 2010 at 17:09

Without blogging & bloggers the whole world would now be marching into ‘Protection Camps’ clad in grey overalls & manacles ready to receive their RFID chip implant as the Mad Mullahs of the EU & USA realised their aim of One World Government.
History will celebrate bloggers as the saviours of humanity IMO.

RantinRab
February 5, 2010 at 17:27

There is no doubt that bloggers have achieved much to celebrate.

However, there are bloggers and there are bloggers, if you catch my drift.

The Slogger
February 5, 2010 at 17:46

…and without depressive Nazi bloggers nobody would know Gordo is mad, he observed in a vaguely self-obsessed manner. And nobody would’ve been alerted to the WMD at the end of Peter Hain’s disgusting legs.
But wee Rabbie is right, so he is. Sometimes we present an easy target for the Lord of the Ring and his fellow knitter Ben Cocksure.

More wit and more facts is what we need. More of a united front. But this is my hobby-horse, and I will now dismount.
xx

Demetrius
February 5, 2010 at 17:52

Good to see Rab C in there. It depends entirely on what bloggers come up with, whether it is good, and then on the traction it might get. Having read newpapers for 70 years and had TV stuff for 50 it never fails to amaze me as the documents come out how much they did not cover and how little we were informed. What we do know is that if someone picks up on a choice item, it goes viral and the blogger equivalent of the London Mob of the 18th Century pile in, then away we go. What also we know is that it is possible to read a real and full debate. Some sites are invaluable, e.g. The Oil Drum. Quite how next this can be translated into effects on voters is another matter. We shall see.

Plato Says
February 5, 2010 at 18:01

Check out the latest BBC opinion poll on belief in AGW – nose diving…

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm

Blink
February 5, 2010 at 18:17

I hope we get some feedback from this event.

Tim Yeo was a little discomforted, wasn’t he?

As for the efficacy of blogging …. let’s see

Joe Bratley
February 5, 2010 at 18:18

Loved last night episode Rab(BBC 2) last night.
Why cant I get a big 2?.

JohnRS
February 5, 2010 at 21:26

“The BBC don

Jack of Kent
February 7, 2010 at 11:32

Excellent points, well made. It is sad that you cannot be there, but I will make sure these examples are raised.

David Colquhoun
February 7, 2010 at 12:50

It’s a great pity that this post shows a level of understanding of science of roughly the level of Sarah Palin.

gimpy
February 7, 2010 at 12:53

Your comments on climate change are absolutely absurd and display no understanding of the process by which science works. AGW is demonstrably real. The criticism of AGW is not published in the scientific literature, it comes from idealogues whose scientific arguments are too poor to publish in a peer reviewed journal or who make the fatal mistake of assuming that reality is determined by ideology.

If you honestly think that the recent climate scandals in the media disprove the established science then perhaps you could point to the retractions of key papers? Or are you just another denialist who thinks that because their personal prejudice isn’t accepted by the science then there must be a conspiracy?

Thaddeus J. Wilson
February 7, 2010 at 13:29

Gimpy, given that the media scandal has highlighted how the “process by which science works” has been corrupted, is there any reason why your argument has any particular merit? Given that the base data upon which all this science is predicated cannot be produced or reproduced as it has been “lost” or “eaten by the dog” and all we have left is data which has been “adjusted” by people who have a lot to gain if AGW is accepted; given that some of the “settled science”, such as glacier melting, has been disproven; and given that there are now massive commercial interests vested in the the acceptance of AGW, do you honestly believe that we should accept your bland assertions?

Paula Thomas
February 7, 2010 at 12:54

I am afraid that science cannot be treated as a branch of politics. Do that and you kill the chicken that has laid so many golden eggs.

David Colquhoun
February 7, 2010 at 14:13

One wonders if any of the politicians here have made even the slightest attempt to read or understand the data. Their assertions are reminiscent of every other sort of conspiracy theorists Does Thaddeus J Wilson think that there is also a conspiracy to hide abduction by aliens too?

Competitiveness has been an element of science ever since Newton & Leibnitz quarrelled about the invention of calculus. It may (hard to say) have got worse as a result of idiotic numerical ‘productivity’ targets imposed by politicians and vice-chancellors. I thing that the vice0chancellor of UEA should resign immediately for his mis-handling of events there, None of that alters the facts that hundreds of labs throughout the world are really not very likely to have got together to deceive the populace.

The people who who seem to doubt the basic facts or warming remind me of so many homeopaths or reflexologists who, every time someone points out that they are talking gobbledygook, invoke a great conspiracy to stop their brave attempts to persuade the world that you can cure malaria with a drop of water.

Statements like that made in this post

“The iconic statements fell like dominoes, the Amazonian forests, the Himalayan glaciers, the Polar Bears, . . .”

represent the worst sort of unchecked irresponsible tabloid journalism.

Saul
February 7, 2010 at 14:30

All data can be dissected and probed, to point to whatever outcome is desired by the dissecter. But where is the unrefutable evidence?

Dario
February 7, 2010 at 14:39

@Thaddeus J Wilson: Glacier melting has been disproven? Has it really? First I’ve heard of it. Are you sure what you’re referring to wasn’t a story about an overestimation of the actual melting rate of a particular set of glaciers? If only there was some way you could check.

Thaddeus J. Wilson
February 7, 2010 at 16:36

Dario, of course the glaciers are melting, that’s how half the continent gets its water. But the claims put out by the IPCC as “settled science” were that they would be completely gone by 2035. Raj Pachauri, head of the IPCC and “one of the world’s leading climate scientists” dismissed all talk to the contrary as “voodoo” science”. Of course, Pachauri is actually a railway engineer with a lot of very lucrative business interests that would be greatly furthered if AGW continued on its unquestioned path. The glaciers are melting at a rate that very possibly may have the gone in hundreds of years time and very possibly may not. The earth has been cooling rapidly since 1998, effectively negating all the alleged warming that had taken place.

David, it is clear to me that the number of gatekeepers who control the data sets on which all other scientists base their research is small enough, with a sufficiently large vested interest in the acceptance of AGW and with a very biased position that makes it possible that even if there was not an active conspiracy to falsify the data, there was at least a motivation to ignore data that they didn’t like and to massage the data that supported their theory to support it even more. There have been a number of reports of CRU ignoring data sets from colder regions to reduce their effect on global average temperatures. Having trawled through the leaked files myself, there are a number of things that could certainly be interpreted as at best, inappropriate comment and at worst, a conspiracy to prevent their theory (because that’s all it is) from being challenged. If there was nothing to worry about, they would simply release the raw data (not the “corrected” data that the Met Office has released) and people could apply the code to the data themselves and it would all be proven, conspiracy theorists like myself would be shut up and we could then move on to the discussion about what would be the best way of addressing the situation.

But when you cannot even clearly show a rise in temperature without “correcting” the data, then I don’t really care what you think of me, I do not trust what I am being told.

eveningperson
February 7, 2010 at 16:42

“The iconic statements fell like dominoes, the Amazonian forests, the Himalayan glaciers, the Polar Bears, till even the font of all wisdom, the IPCCs own Rajendra Pachauri looked set to fall.”

This shows starkly the difference between the trivial, superficial, reality-avoiding, gossip-driven world of political blogging and the reality of science. Science does not depend on “iconic statements”, it depends on a long, hard slog of finding data and testing theories, through the work of thousands of people and exposing your work through publication. The anti-AGW bloggers have never engaged in real science. They are political bloggers looking for “icons” to dismiss.

The vast amount of published research that was sampled by the IPCC – and has continued since the last IPCC report – is unambiguous: human-created global warming through the generation of CO2 is real and is continuing.

Thaddeus J. Wilson
February 7, 2010 at 16:45

Perhaps if you all continue to ignore the fact that your scientists have behaved with the same moral standards, practices and attitudes as politicians, you can take that view, eveningperson.

guthrie
February 7, 2010 at 16:51

Perhaps you can quote the bit where it says the glaciers will definitely be gone by 2035?
I heard a rather worried Indian chap a couple of days ago saying that the glaciers had lost 30% of their mass in the last 30 years or so. The earth’s warming and it’s mostly our fault, (not to forget the ocen acidification) and the problem is that people spend more time ranting on blogs than actually doing things.

Anna Raccoon
February 7, 2010 at 16:56

“people spend more time ranting on blogs than actually doing things”.

Want d’you want us to do? Go and put a match under the glaciers to speed them up a bit and prove your point?

jailhouselawyer
February 7, 2010 at 23:30

Anna: Am speaking at a meeting in Parliament tomorrow. This story was buried on page 23 of the Observer. Prisoners ‘could sue’ if denied vote in general election. However, just by typing Prisoners ‘could sue’ if denied vote in general election into Google, it brings up 3 pages full of links to this story which has gone all around the world and is on blogs and Twitter. It’s obviously a bigger story than first appears. The internet has helped it travel and reach more people than those buying the Observer or visiting the Observer Online.

The Prison Reform Trust put out its press release and issued its briefing and what Jamie Doward has done is plough way the bullshit to get to the heart of the story.

It’s the story of the next general election. Prisoners have taken the fight to Parliament. Votes or else! It will cost the taxpayers

eveningperson
February 8, 2010 at 11:43

People make too much of the IPCC. It is a political body, not a scientific one – it is bound to be, as it was set up to advise governments to help them set policy. And it was bound by political considerations from the start – the Reagan administration feared the science and so the IPCC has to be very conservative in its considerations. And Pachauri’s was a political appointment – his predecessor was fired at the behest of the GW Bush administration, apparently after lobbying by ExxonMobil.

The IPCC does not do research. If you want to see the real science, you should go to the literature, as scientists do.

The IPCC attempts to summarise the results of the ever-growing body of climate research. Its reports involve papers by thousands of authors and anyone can contribute a review. It’s not surprising that errors can creep in. The Himalaya glaciers business has attracted attention only because it was an error – it was a minor part of the report of Working Group 2. The fact that this small thing has been blown up is a striking demonstration of the lack of evidence on the part of the ‘sceptics’.

When it comes down to it, the science deals with the hard reality of the physical properties of matter and radiation. These don’t pay any attention to the self-absorbed ramblings of political bloggers.

eveningperson
February 8, 2010 at 14:15

It appears to be true that CRU failed to follow the legal procedures for dealing with FOI requests. But I’ve asked in many places, and failed to get any answer: is there any genuine evidence that CRU scientists, or other climate research groups, actually suppressed data, falsified methods or otherwise did corrupt science in order to get untrue results?

Genuine debate over the validity of data or the correctness of methods is a essential part of science, so those don’t count. (And mindless repetition of Climate Audit’s false accusations against Michael Mann going back to ca 2003 should also be excluded.)

Mike from Ottawa
February 8, 2010 at 17:48

“Perhaps you can quote the bit where it says the glaciers will definitely be gone by 2035?”

IPCC 2007 WG#2 Report, Chapter 10, ‘Asia’, page 493 (of the entire report), pdf available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter10.pdf:

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”

I wonder how many of you know that at the top of the immediately following page is a table with figures that demonstrate that the 2035 figure is badly off target. That table does, though, show that the glaciers are receding, which is itself, coupled with the fact most glaciers in other areas of the world are also receding, evidence of global warming. I’ve never seen one of the denialists mention that table (perhaps some do somewhere), which is kind of peculiar except that they’d rather pretend the 2035 is part of some conspiracy rather than an error in the editing process.

As to any intent to deceive, well, if the IPCC wanted to deceive people into thinking the Himalayan glaciers were going to disappear by 2035, putting on the next page a table that demonstrates they won’t would not be the first thing they’d do. Someone didn’t catch the mistake. A mistake, BTW, which doesn’t make it into the summary for policy leaders or the technical summary.

Typically, denialists work by claiming that any error on the part of a scientific enterprise or theory means the whole thing is wrong. They pick at nits because any major scientific enterprise will be big and scientists are not infallible so there’ll be errors and things that they change their minds on later. As Dara O’briain says ‘Of course, science knows it doesn’t know everything. If it did, it’d stop.’ However, where there is a huge amount of evidence for a theory, like evolution or AGW, it takes more than nitpicking to bring it down.

Blogging is excellent for a lot of things, but one of the things it is best for is nitpicking, taking things out of context, preaching to the like-minded and self-congratulation. Like all sorts of things, it has its good and bad points and it comes down to how it is used. Its use to promote AGW denialism isn’t the bright shining moment of blogging.

Thaddeus J. Wilson
February 9, 2010 at 00:42

Curiously, Mike from Ottawa, there is no mention in that table of any glaciers that are growing.

I wonder why that should be?

Thaddeus J. Wilson
February 9, 2010 at 08:49

Further developments on reducing carbon emissions:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia