They did what?

One of the most bizarre features of the Climate Change Act – put through by Ed Miliband when he was our first climate change secretary and passed almost unanimously by MPs – is that it was largely drafted by a young green lobbyist, Bryony Worthington, seconded to the Civil Service from Friends of the Earth, where she had been in charge of their global warming campaign.

Seriously?

They drafted in someone from a hugely biased campaigning organisation to write the fucking law? What?

Nov wonder the thing\’s so appallingly bad.

30 thoughts on “They did what?”

  1. Given that its in the Torygraph, and by Booker, and about Climate, then no: I wouldn’t take it seriously. Certainly not without verification from elsewhere. You’re not falling for the stuff you read in the meeja *again* are you?

  2. Heh. Remember this whenever eco-groups whine about being “disadvantaged” against petroleum companies.

  3. The Pedant-General

    Given that that comment is written by William Connolley and about climate, then no: I wouldn’t take it seriously. Certainly not without verification from elsewhere.

  4. “Mr Connolley cannot be unaware of her involvement.”
    Indeed, but Connolley’s behaviour is par for the course as far as climate clownery goes.

  5. Eddy.

    Connolley knows very well what happened.

    He is a true believer. A zealot.

    For him not to know about the Baroness’s involvement would be to admit that he is not the self-styled expert on all things climate he otherwise claims to be.

    It would be akin to admitting he hasn’t a clue what’s going on.

  6. The Pedant-general,

    Wot, like Wikipedia, the encyclopedia vulnerable to capture by biased editors pushing their own views?

  7. Ahhh we see the failed green party candidate leaving his urgent scientific work (haha), to inform us that we should not trust a major newspaper and a very successful columnist.

    But we should trust a failed green party candidate and spiteful blogger?
    You may wish to consider William, why he is successful and you are not.

  8. You mean know it all scientists publish their work on Wikipedia…….oh no they don’t do they! So why does little William…….oh I see!

  9. I must admit, Mr Connolley does have a great gift for absurdity.

    Seriously, d’y not have anything better to do on a weekend than try and leverage your credibility to change Tim’s readers minds? I guess it beats trolling wikipedia, but I’d sooner trust Alastair Campbell.

  10. A pile of ditto heads, how lovely. One of whom is smart enough to link to some text, but not one of them capable of reading it.

    > seconded to the Civil Service from Friends of the Earth

    No, wrong.

    > largely drafted by

    Again, wrong. Or at least, you’ve presented no evidence for it.

    > Mr Connolley

    More incompetence from your commentators.

    > change Tim’s readers minds

    No real evidence of a mind to change.

    Come on children, quote some text to support what you say.

  11. It’s typical Booker – mostly true, with a flavour it doesn’t deserve sprinkled over the top. Mainly I take offense to anyone describing Bryony Worthington as ‘young’, giving the impression that she was a student activist or some such. 40 is a perfectly reasonable age to be appointed a peer of the realm, even though the Climate Act is of course nonsense. It’s also notable that the CCA is no worse drafted than other laws of the time.

  12. William M. Connolley
    WILLIAM: “Come on children, quote some text to support what you say.”
    So, Bryony wasn’t seconded from FOTE? Read the bloody text of her CV for God’s sake will you? She’s actually PROUD of it. You think that because she came to DEFRA via a brief stint at an energy company (where she was, by her own admission, simply gaining experience to further FOTE’s cause and her own CAGW stance!), means she isn’t a green through and through? How very post-modern of you. Deliberately missing the point.
    But seriously, you think the CCA wasn’t largely drafted by Bryony?
    She seems to think otherwise. Is she lying? You should tell her. Cut her down to size.
    BRYONY: So by the time David Miliband joined DEFRA, I had left Friends of the Earth, having set up the campaign, I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there, which was very interesting and they had then seconded me into DEFRA. So when David Miliband arrived and said, “Right it looks like we are going to have to have a Climate Change Bill, who do we know in the department who can help us with this?
    Then someone said, “Well, Byrony wrote the document that Friends of the Earth, that kicked this whole thing off. Why don’t we get her in and see if she can help?” So I got shifted off my…I was doing some work on public awareness and a campaign about educating about climate change and told, “Right, you’re going to be part of a team of civil servants. We want you to draft a bill.”

    Christ. Read the text.

  13. Given that post I can see why only Wikipedia accepts his writing.
    Thank god his political career never took off, how could anyone understand the buffoon.

  14. Oh dear.

    > So, Bryony wasn’t seconded from FOTE?… “I had left Friends of the Earth, having set up the campaign, I spent some time in a power company learning how things work there, which was very interesting and they had then seconded me into DEFRA.”

    She was seconded to DEFRA from the energy company. Not from FOE.

    > Read the bloody text of her CV for God’s sake will you?

    Perhaps you need to consider taking your own advice?

    > “Right, you’re going to be part of a team of civil servants. We want you to draft a bill.”

    Yup, she was part of a team of civil servants, and that is what the “you” refers to.

    > Christ. Read the text.

    Excellent idea. How about you do so, instead of just quoting it.

    > Turborevisionism

    Its trash, like essentially everything on WUWT. Come to think of it… most of the comments on this thread read like WUWT rejects. Still, Timmy: if you’re going to write this kind of stuff, thats the kind of people you’re going to attract.

    Please see http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/23/poor-old-watts/ Do feel free to visit, if you think you’re hard enough.

  15. Keep trying Willi, you are legend in your own lunchtime.

    Care to compare your blog to WUWT………like comparing a turnip with a prince.

  16. Is this the same William Connolly who “edits” any climate “literature” in Wikipaedia if he doesn’t agree with it?

    As for Baroness Worthington – I thought the intention of life peerages was that they were awarded for distinguished service to the community. Apart from the fact that it is unlikely tha she has made a substantial or distinguished service to the community at age 40 in the general sense, in the particular sense the Climate Change Act is nothing to be proud of.

    How many times must we say, Mr Worstall, that Carbon Dioxide is Good for humanity as it encourages food to grow. You are obviously aware that everytime you exhale, you exhale carbon dioxide. Perhaps we should tax you for breathing?

  17. As it happens, I read this piece on WUWT a few days ago. If you’re capable of understanding a scientific abstract, you’ll see that Watts has misrepresented the authors’ discussion of a potential misanalysis as being a conclusion. Commentators have pointed this out to him, but he hasn’t deigned to correct what he wrote.

    If you can find a similar crass error and failure to correct on Connolley’s blog, then we can start talking about which root vegetables each blog most resembles.

  18. And why should he correct it, when it is corrected for him in the comments?

    Are you in charge of his blog, of course you are not. Do you make the rules….no you do not my little blog kommissar. You do realise that being wrong does not make you evil…only wrong which is no sin.

    Our little willi screeches to the converted on his webshite and no one listens, Watts has one of the most popular blogs going. If willi were capable of thought he may like to consider why he is such a blogging failure when other so obviously lacking his insight, intelligence and charm (yes I am taking the piss) are so successful.

  19. Watts is of course free to blog whatever rubbish he wishes. I don’t doubt that his brand of imaginative fiction is popular with a certain readership.

    However, I thought we were discussing the relative merits of Watts and Connolley as science bloggers. In science, it’s important to understand one’s sources correctly and to represent them accurately. And if you do make a mistake to correct it promptly and with due prominence.

  20. Read the text Mr Connolley.

    I said: “You think that because she came to DEFRA via a brief stint at an energy company (where she was, by her own admission, simply gaining experience to further FOTE’s cause and her own CAGW stance!), means she isn’t a green through and through? How very post-modern of you. Deliberately missing the point.”

    Nicely ignored. She is a FOTE activist brought into DEFRA.

    Yes, she was part of the team that drafted the CCA. But she was the originator of the FOTE document that started it off, and was given a Peerage for her work on it. You don’t think that indicates she was ‘largely’ responsible for it. Anyone else on the CCA team get a peerage for their work?

    Your work as a propagandist is tireless but shallow.

  21. SR: you asserted (slavishly, like Timmy, copying Bookers errors, but quite appropriately, given your chosen name) that “Bryony [was] seconded from FOTE” Its now clear, from reading the text, that she wasn’t. At which point the correct response is to recognise your error and retract it, whilst apologising. You’ve failed to do that; in this you’re just like Watts.

    As for the “largely drafted” – that is pure speculation, on Bookers part.

    I read Timmy for his economics, which is interesting. His climatology is poor; as his ability to tell when others talking about climatology are making sense; and its failed him here.

  22. So, your entire position is that Bryony was not seconded ‘directly’ from Friends of the Earth.

    You are correct. I apologise for failing to understand this was the crux of your disagreement. Sorry.

    The larger point (and the point which Tim, Booker and Bishop Hill were making), which you consistently (and deliberately) ignore, is that she is a Friends of the Earth activist working at the heart of government to change energy policy.

    Presumably, since you don’t seem to offer any argument to the contrary you agree with this.

    If you disagree I’m sure you’ll offer some evidence of how Miss Worthington changed her belief system, renounced her membership of Friends of the Earth, ceased to campaign for recognition of CAGW causes and stopped working tirelessly towards the world redirecting its energy policy away from CO2 production, during this period.

    I look forward to that.

    As to her role in the drafting of the Climate Change Act. The ‘largely drafted’ is not pure speculation. You deliberately keep ignoring the fact of her importance to Milliband, Cameron & co, and her receipt of a peerage for services rendered.

    But the fact you keep ignoring this (with a little bit of hand-waving) is extremely revealing. You clearly know it to be true.

  23. > So, your entire position is that Bryony was not seconded ‘directly’ from Friends of the Earth.

    > Presumably, since you don’t seem to offer any argument to the contrary you agree with this.

    You’re now reduced to inventing position for those you disagree with.

    No, my original was quite clear: that you shouldn’t trust a word that Booker says if you can’t verify it elsewhere.

    Booker claims: that B was seconded from FoE. He was wrong.

    Booker claims: that the bill was “largely drafted” by B. He has no evidence for this. Nonetheless, you and Timmy lap up this crap because it conforms to your prejudices.

    There is nothing at all of substance in the paragraph that Timmy quotes that is correct. He can’t even be bothered to check that B isn’t “young” by any sane standard.

    > I apologise for failing to understand this was the crux of your disagreement.

    Notice that you’ve failed to apologise for your error, which is poor form. You’ve apologised for something you’ve made up, which is cretinous of you.

    There is nothing terribly odd about Booker writing crap. I had hoped that Timmy had higher standards, but it would appear not.

  24. I have apologised for the error I made. I confused the timing of Bryony’s journey from FOE to DEFRA.

    If there’s any confusion: Sorry. My mistake.

    It’s up to Tim and Booker to apologise for any error they believe they’ve made.

    I don’t expect an apology for your mistakes; thought they are clear to see from the thread above. Your denial of what the Baroness ‘is’ (a CAGW activist) and what she ‘did’ (draft the CCA) is pitifully thin: basically you refuse to be drawn.

    Your documented behaviour on Wikipedia, and now here, marks you out as a zealot. The accusation of ‘poor form’ from you is therefore a badge I will wear with pride.

  25. William,

    Did you call someone incompetent for addressing you as ‘Mr’ instead of ‘Dr’?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *