Greenpeace Twit.

Simon Tindale, head of Greenpeace, is interviewed in the Guardian. Nice part here:

That’s next, says
Tindale, now playing with a red, orange and yellow stress ball. "It’s
tough. January in England is not fun and if you’re saying to people you
can fly to the Caribbean for a not unextortionate amount of money …"
For some years he and his family have not taken one flight for leisure
(he still has to fly, ironically, for Greenpeace). They holiday in
England, taking the train, indulging his great passion, hillwalking.
Next week he will climb to the top of Sugarloaf mountain near
Aber-gavenny with his five-year-old. "Basically the equation should be
that people who are taking environmentally damaging forms of transport
ie air travel and road travel should be paying the full costs and
people who are taking environmentally pretty benign forms of travel,
like rail, should be paying less. We’ve got to find ways of making that
transfer work."

Ah, isn’t that sweet, eh? He denies himself to make the planet better for all of us. Unfortunately, the following is true:

A recent report by Lancaster University shows that in terms of fuel efficiency cars, yes, cars are the most efficient form of transport in the UK.

"I know this will generate howls of protest, but at
present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally
friendly as you can get."


It gets worse for the eco-warriors. Trains are even less fuel efficient than short haul aircraft.

Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies.

The man’s an ass, a complete twit.

14 responses

  1. So the first time a study comes a long that agrees with your, er, Bayesian priors, it’s “true”, even if it conflicts with previous studies on the same subject? Rather subjective version of truth, isn’t it?

  2. Katie Avatar
    Katie

    Right, I’m going to be the first one to stand up and admit to being a thicky. I know, from wikipedia, that Bayes was a statistician, and that the term Bayesian is used for a staggering amount of things that have nothing to do with Bayes’ theories, but WTF is a Bayesian prior? Did you make that up?

  3. Katie Avatar
    Katie

    I mean, obviously, I understand from the context that it’s a high-faluting way of saying “preconceived notions” but I mean how does it fit into statistics?
    Tim adds: I first saw it at Stumbling and Mumbling. Other people have prejudices. I have Bayesian priors.

  4. N.I.B. Avatar
    N.I.B.

    Of course, trains are more environmentally friendy because they can (and the ‘lectric ones here mainly do if I remember correctly) run on lovely clean Nucelar Power.
    Which must please Greenpeace no end.

  5. …and just how many cars on the road today consistently contain a family of 4?

  6. Rob Read Avatar
    Rob Read

    Just how many people realise how much of the cost of a gallon of petrol is tax…
    That’s a whole lotta external cost claw back…
    I suggest CUTTING fuel duty.

  7. Tim, SHOW some respect for Greenpeace and address them as they should be rightfully addressed..GREENPEACE INC.

  8. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    See, you’ve got a figure in mind for the probability of something. That’s your “prior”. Then some evidence arrives. You bung the numbers into a formula called after Bayes (which means, in all probability, that someone else discovered it first) and you now get a new probability which you entertain until some more evidence comes along when you repeat the rigmarole. You can lend it all an air of intellectual respectability by emphasising the term “conditional probability”. Or you can be a lefty and ignore all evidence anyway.

  9. check out the 2000 accounts @
    http://www.undueinfluence.com/greenpeace.htm

  10. N.I.B. Avatar
    N.I.B.

    I suggest CUTTING fuel duty.
    Yes, I’d like to stop subsidising road haulage, too.

  11. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    less flippantly: there’s a useful article on Bayesian sums in the BMJ on May 7th. It’s written for the statistical layman, specifically quacks.

  12. These Bayesian priors. Do they have priories (assumed to be staffed by Bayesian friars etc) or just ‘a prioris’?
    Tim adds: What? As in statisticians lead a cloistered life? They’re naves? Insist on preaching to the choir? These puns’ll have ’em rolling in the aisles? They’re the font of all wisdom?
    Dunno really, I was mal-educated by the Benedictines myself.

  13. “Next week he will climb to the top of Sugarloaf mountain near Aber-gavenny with his five-year-old.”
    Errr, did anybody think to tell him that when he climbs mountains he tends to breathe faster, emitting more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas that everybody wants us to reduce production of) into the air? A really responsible environmentalist should spend his vacations sitting quietly and trying to keep his C02 output to a minimum.

  14. Seriously, though, the Lancaster study is total nonsense. The car considered is a 55mpg diesel being driven at 70mph with four passengers. If you believe that that approximates to the average car on an intercity journey, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
    The airplane statistic is even more egregious: it assumes the train travels at 220mph. Since there are no such trains in the UK nor will be for at least 25 years, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that the Lancs engineers are dodgy pro-car hacks.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading