The wonk's job is to protect the institutions of wonkery.
Smears are more effective than science; debate is anathema to the clergy.
Smears are more effective than science; debate is anathema to the clergy.
https://twitter.com/jameswilsdon/status/1315241015654191104
I wonder if she's really so keen on testing scientists for 'issue advocacy' when her views -- and her paper's views -- align.
Pielke's broader work on issue advocacy would suggest otherwise...
Pielke's broader work on issue advocacy would suggest otherwise...
https://twitter.com/jameswilsdon/status/1315241786575589377
(Typo -- Align with the science, that is).
If there is alignment, then Guardian/Observer journalists seem reluctant to address the matter of issue advocacy.
Which leads to alarmist editorials like this...
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
If there is alignment, then Guardian/Observer journalists seem reluctant to address the matter of issue advocacy.
Which leads to alarmist editorials like this...
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
I interviewed Pielke about his book which discusses such claims, noting that he is not a climate sceptic, and that his observations do not make the case for climate scepticism.
spiked-online.com/2018/09/26/the…
spiked-online.com/2018/09/26/the…
In it, I point to the claims made by seemingly respectable organisations, such as the WRI, which receives £millions from the taxpayer for its "research". It produces graphs like this... 
I pointed out that the same data the WRI used in fact reveals this:
The work in question was produced -- using £millions of UK taxpayers cash -- by none other than Nick Stern.
I hope the wonk can join the dots here, without my help.
Advocacy starts at the head. And Britain, if not the world, has a bigger problem than mere advocates.
I hope the wonk can join the dots here, without my help.
Advocacy starts at the head. And Britain, if not the world, has a bigger problem than mere advocates.
We can also find Stern bringing his risk management expertise to the pandemic, such are his infinite talents.
But this really ought to raise questions about panjandrums, not let wonks pass their smears off as 'science'.
royalsociety.org/news/2020/04/r…
But this really ought to raise questions about panjandrums, not let wonks pass their smears off as 'science'.
royalsociety.org/news/2020/04/r…
After all, the fact that the president of the Royal Society's sister is on the same panel is only as much of a coincidence as the fact that Stern got his profile-boosting job at the World Bank after his brother became vice-president of the World Bank.
If the Ferguson model hadn't been such obvious bullshit, then it would be harder to say all this. And if the Stern review had not been such obvious bullshit, it would be harder to say it, too.
But...
But...
The fact is that *advocacy* is the condition of membership of UK research organisations of any consequence.
UK "research" *rewards* issue advocacy. It institutionalises advocacy. It is *built* on advocacy.
Hence we see boilerplate Guardian smears, shared by a research wonk.
UK "research" *rewards* issue advocacy. It institutionalises advocacy. It is *built* on advocacy.
Hence we see boilerplate Guardian smears, shared by a research wonk.
Back at the article, we see this...
But do we really believe that scientists and research who take the seemingly mainstream position do not themselves mingle with weirdo billionaires?
It's an interesting claim...
But do we really believe that scientists and research who take the seemingly mainstream position do not themselves mingle with weirdo billionaires?
It's an interesting claim...
Why, gosh, it would seem that Stern is quite pally with a billionaire... Jeremy Grantham...
Where's the Guardian exposé?
Where's the Guardian exposé?
"Shady corporate interests"?
The GBD might well have its flaws. But its immediate entry into Guardian mythology and demonology is how we know it's bullshit.
It's the opposite version of the Gates/4G/Covid conspiracy theory.
But Gates is a good guy. He sponsors the Guardian.
The GBD might well have its flaws. But its immediate entry into Guardian mythology and demonology is how we know it's bullshit.
It's the opposite version of the Gates/4G/Covid conspiracy theory.
But Gates is a good guy. He sponsors the Guardian.
Thou shall not criticise the wonks.
They don't really like being scrutinised. But they want influential roles, all the same.
They *want* political roles for "science" and "research", you see. They *want* science and research to be politicised. They *actively* politicise science and research.
And they run away when the problems are pointed out.
And they run away when the problems are pointed out.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
