Bishop Hill always likes to see the best in people. He assumes good faith unless it is overwhelmingly obvious that it is absent.
So he is pleased to report that the House of Commons Committee on Energy and Climate Change has announce that it is to hold an inquiry into the economics of wind power. But this time, says the Bishop:
Looks like policy-based evidence making to me.
Confession: when I first read that, I assumed that I was reading this:
Looks like evidence-based policy making to me.
I have had to do a complete rewrite of this bit of the posting. I contrasted that with the following comments. In fact the following comments agree! Deep apologies. This is the biggest mis-reading I have ever committed as a blogger. I think. I hope. Anyway, back to that evidence-based policy making.
A commenter assumes that to be sarcasm. No. He means it.
Or as I should have put: A commenter read most of the questions the Committee says it will ask as I did, at first, and he wondered: why the sarcasm?
But most of the Bishop’s commenters are not nearly as charitable as he is agree with him. (Which concludes the corrections.)
The first one says:
It’s 2012. The Climate Change Act was passed in 2008, committing us to the most costly programme ever legislated in our history. Now they want to examine the economics!
And another says:
The last question reveals the true intent of the inquiry, “What methods could be used to make onshore wind more acceptable to communities that host them?”
And another:
Tim Yeo, MP, is in the Chair.
Expect the conclusion to be “We are getting it about right”.
Then in ten years time the lights will start to go out on still winter nights.
Biggest question of all: Is it actually necessary to fret about “climate change”? Something tells me that this Committee will assume a yes on that.
So, take your pick. Better late than never, or too bloody late? Enough of the right questions, or too many wrong assumptions?
What I mostly think is: Keep blogging away Bishop. Kudos for spotting this, and further kudos for reporting what gets asked and what answers are forthcoming, as I assume you will when the time comes.
There is something very old fashioned about blogs like Bishop Hill. While the newspapers mostly now bang on about celebs and football tournaments, here is a blogger actually spotting some at least potentially quite significant news, and reporting on it.
But maybe that is the point – the media should be banging on about various inconsequential distractions for the proles to read, so that news of attempted State manipulation (“policy-based evidence-making”) can pass by unnoticed until it is a fait accompli.
Bishop Hill’s blog is an example of why the country urgently needs a “Cyber-Security Protection Bill”, or something, so that blogs pushing the sort of vile misinformation such as he publishes can have their mouths stopped.
That (the C-SP Bill) should also give the ailing business model of the media the sort of injection and certainty that arguably is so desperately needed to help the media recover from their progressively worsening loss-making condition. Then the media can then get back to doing the job they have done so well, over the years – communicating the news that is really important, and without fear of competition from scum like Bishop Hill.
If he actually meant policy-based evidence making that’s not particularly charitable at all.
Andy:
Oh dear, this comes of posting things before going to bed, very late. I got that line wholly wrong.
He usually is quite nice to people, but not this time. I have had to revise the posting heavily.
Thanks for straightening me out. Luckily, something vaguely coherent survives from the original posting.
The whole point of most legislation these days is to keep a large section of the middle class employed making, administering , reviewing and enforcing it.
We can’t just shove these people onto the dole because there’s no real work for them, as they are too educated and articulate and would make real trouble.
Yes, the Bish is indeed normally extremely charitable and even-handed. It’s quite amazing how many mainstream climate papers now reference MONTFORD 2010 approvingly (aka HSI aka The Hockey Stick Illusion).
But he really stuck the boot in this time. I had to read that lie twice too. And then nearly had my morning coffee all over my keyboard.
Bruce Hoult:
Many thanks for that comment. I am very relieved to learn that it was not just me who had a problem reading that line as written. Yesterday morning, I was thinking: oh dear, I am going to have to stop doing this very soon, because my brain no longer works.
This reminds me of that psychology experiment where they show the victim a red ace of spades.
“Windfarms” are subsidy farms.