Equality or meritocracy?

According to a recent BBC News article, Equalities Minister Harriet Harman has stressed the importance of tackling inequality "for the sake of a strong and meritocratic economy".

She has commissioned a report entitled "An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK".

While it is true that in a meritocratic society we would expect to see smaller gaps between those from different social backgrounds, the socialist dream of equality is the antithesis of meritocracy. People are naturally unequal, both in their talents and in their industriousness. Welfare handouts and rhetoric about "disadvantaged classes" do not promote aspiration; they simply reinforce feelings of worthlessness and hopelessness. Comprehensive schooling, which disregards differences in ability, only serves to keep down the talented among those who cannot afford private education. If New Labour truly believed in meritocracy, we would have seen very different policies over the last 12 years.

As Tom Paine puts it:

A rational society strives for quality, not equality. It strives to give those who have talent the maximum incentive to deploy it. A vibrant society that efficiently harnesses the energies of its most talented members is a richer society overall. The creations of the creative and the output of the industrious may fill their bank accounts more than others, but their effort benefits all. The corollary of that is that the idleness of others, costs everyone. A rational society therefore incentivises effort and never rewards idleness. In pursuit of the chimera of "equality" Britain has adopted precisely the opposite approach. Now we can see that, even in its own terms, it doesn't work.

2073

We will have to wait until 2073 to know the truth about the death of Dr David Kelly, the UN weapons inspector who allegedly slit his wrists in the woods near his home, days after being revealed as the source for a BBC report on Blair's "dodgy dossier".

Tom Paine summed up my thoughts exactly:

I have resisted speculating about the death of Dr David Kelly. Largely because I am generally a sceptic when it comes to conspiracy theories. If I ever find myself considering one, I am usually put off by the wild-eyed company in which I find myself. So, I am still not suggesting that anyone in government ordered his murder. I have no evidence to substantiate such an accusation and, to be honest, I don't want to believe such things could happen in my country.

I am racking my brains, however, to conceive of a good alternative explanation as to why all records pertaining to Kelly's death have been sealed for 70 years. What legitimate purpose could such an order possibly serve? I really can't imagine.

If I live to see 2073, I will be in my 90s. If blogging is still allowed, I'll post an update.

Himalayan glaciers: gone by 2035?

Back in 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its Fourth Assessment Report, which contained an extraordinary claim:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world ... 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)

Two years later, this doomsday scenario was questioned in a report by an Indian geologist, supported by India's environment minister. The report was met with scorn by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri:

"We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

"With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."

According to The Guardian

Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".

According to the BBC

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as "voodoo science" and said the IPCC was a "sober body" whose work was verified by governments.

The truth about this "sober body" is now starting to emerge. According to The Register

It now turns out the 2035 claim has no scientific basis at all - but was an off-the-cuff remark by an obscure Indian scientist who now disowns the prediction. It was made not in the scientific literature, but a telephone interview with a pro-warming journalist Fred Pearce of the New Scientist for a news item in the magazine in 1999. The IPCC picked up the spurious factoid after it was cited in a propaganda publication by eco-group the World Wildlife Fund. (WWF).

And now the IPCC editor responsible for the chapter sheepishly admits he doesn't know anything about glaciers.

The BBC article highlights another possible source for the 2035 claim:

Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

"The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates - its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350," Mr Kotlyakov's report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".

Astonishing indeed.

A Beginner’s Guide to Liberty

From the Adam Smith Institute, some easy but important Christmas reading, available free online in PDF form:

This short book is an accessible introduction to liberty – one of the key concepts of political and economic thought. It explains why liberty is so important and sets out in clear language the benefits of freeing individuals from big government. The guide consists of ten concise chapters, each focusing on a particular aspect of liberty and written by an expert in the field. The authors show why liberty is essential if people are to lead prosperous and fulfilling lives, and also point to the terrible consequences when politicians and officials get too much power. At a time when our freedom is threatened by a rising tide of government controls, A Beginner’s Guide to Liberty is essential reading

BBC News in a nutshell

In an article on the BBC News website yesterday, Richard Black asked "Why are virtually all climate 'sceptics' men?"

Here's a taste:

There are two distinct views of why climate scepticism exists in the way it does today.

One - promulgated by many sceptics themselves - speaks to a rigorous, analytical deconstruction of a deeply-flawed scientific edifice that is maintained by a self-interested cabal of tax-hungry politicians and careerist scientists.

The other is that climate scepticism has psychological roots; that it stems from a deep-seated inability or unwillingness to accept the overwhelming evidence that humanity has built with coal and lubricated with oil its own handcart whose destination board reads "climate hell".

As one ex-scientist and now climate action advocate put it to me rather caustically a while back: "I've been debating the science with them for years, but recently I realised we shouldn't be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood".

The rest of the article is made up of similar indignant, condescending, alarmist drivel. Instead of providing proper coverage of the Climategate scandal, and investigating the shocking lack of transparency in climate change research, Black prefers to speculate about the psychological problems of "high income, well-educated, white men" who dare to question the official line.

Yet there is cause for hope: almost all of the comments on the article note Black's bias. You see the same pattern on most BBC articles: hysterical journalism, followed by a reminder from the British public that their common sense and capacity for critical thought have not yet been completely extinguished.

Perhaps a demographic study is indeed warranted, not just of "climate sceptics", but of "BBC sceptics" and "Government sceptics" more generally. Personally, I'm less interested in any male-female split that may exist, and more concerned about a generation gap. I suspect that common sense is not so much diminishing, as dying out.

Losing the Rosetta Stone?

According to the BBC, Egypt's head of antiquities, Dr Zahi Hawass, "will drop a demand for the permanent return of the Rosetta Stone if the British Museum agrees to loan it out".

The British Museum has said it would "consider the loan request".

One thing is certain: if the Stone ever goes to Egypt, there's no chance that it will be returned.

The Violation of Mr Smith

Another excellent article from the Cobden Centre.

Mr Smith works hard, plans carefully, and saves what he can, putting his money into a building society. He pays his credit card bills off each month, and tries to overpay his mortgage when he can.
...
As technology produces things more cheaply, Mr Smith should have been able to reap the rewards – except that things don’t get cheaper for him. Society cheats him when the government opens the spigot of new money, washing this value away as the torrent of new money chases prices higher beyond his reach.

The winners are always those close to the gusher – the banks, financiers and politicians. These are the ones who get to spend the new money first, thus chase prices up before Mr Smith gets any sniff of what is happening.