catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Sensible Greenies

with 244 comments

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger write

The death of the UNFCCC heralds the end of the delusion that nation-states will radically alter their energy, forestry, and agricultural paths through pollution regulations and a massive and extremely complicated global carbon market managed by Wall Street firms. It will mark the end of the belief that serious action on climate is better negotiated with representatives from 193 U.N. member nations in the room, rather than bilaterally or between a handful of large economies, which generate the bulk of emissions.

It should also land a death-blow to the dark fantasy that we’ll solve global warming by restricting economic growth. Climate change is not, as anti-growth green activists like the Archbishop of Canterbury would have it, the result of “greedy, addictive, loveless behaviour.”

It is none of the above. Global warming is a consequence of humans altering the earth through agriculture and burning fossil fuels to create a decent standard of living for all people. Indeed, raising every human on earth to the standard of living enjoyed by men like the Archbishop should be seen as a profound act of love. In ascribing dark motives to development, greens have created the perception that dealing with climate change requires downscaling our way of life, rather than new technologies to power it.

A more appropriate forum will allow major economies to more easily advance their collective self-interest through real actions, such as energy and agricultural technology development, rather than United Nations-certified acts of altruism, such as more development aid or purchasing fake emissions reductions in the form of offets. Climate realpolitik must function in a larger context of trade and technology innovation, both of which have historically created win-win opportunities between nations.

While Joel Kotkin writes

One problem is that the people of earth and their representatives don’t much fancy the notion of a centrally dictated, slow-growth world. They proved unwilling to abandon either national interest or material aspirations for promises of a greener world.

The other problem is that divisions are now developing within the green camp. There are members, like Michael Shellenger and Ted Nordhaus, who recognize the serious fall out from the “Climategate” scandal, while others, including large parts of the media claque, dismiss any such possibility. There are the corporatists aligned with big business–who will live with any agreement that allows them to exact monopoly profits–and the zealots–like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Bill McKibben–who see Copenhagen as an affront to themselves and to our endangered planet.

But the main, fundamental problem facing the movement after Copenhagen–which none of the green factions have yet addressed–is its people problem. The movement needs to break with the deep-seated misanthropy that dominates green politics and has brought it to this woeful state.

Our green friends have placed all their eggs in one basket. As Nick Minchin indicated the AGW lobby are watermelons who scheme to deindustrialise the world. Yet there are good arguments in favour of the environment, good arguments not to pollute. Making everyone poor will do nothing for the environment, while increasing our wealth and prosperity will.

Advertisements

Written by Sinclair Davidson

December 22, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

244 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. let’s cut out the hyperbole here.

    using price signals to accelerate takeup of possibly cutting edge technologies which may promise even more bountiful energy sources in the future nuclear, geothermal, solar) and reduce our reliance on theocratic shitholes is hardly ‘deindustrialising’ the world. one can have an argument about how well the ETS does this compared to a carbon tax or direct regulation and whether we have a choice of which to use given the current political dynamic but there isn’t any necessary connection between concern with insuring against climate risk and being anti-industrialisation.

    I am as pro-industrialisation as they come, have no interest in anything else to do with the environment but see sense in a risk management approach to this issue.

    jtfsoon

    December 22, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  2. I’m inclinded to agree with much of that – but you’re not the problem. There were, at least, 40,000 weirdos in Copenhagen who are the problem.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm

  3. what percentage of the Copenhagen contingent do you think are deep greens? Most I would suspect are risk management pragmatists. you had leaders of the world’s industrialised economies there and their contingent, probably as many industrialists and representatives of big business as actual ferals if not more. nor would the majority of climate scientists be categorised as ferals.

    jtfsoon

    December 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  4. This ‘risk management pragmatists’ line is starting to wear thin. Mitigation is costly and ineffective; it fails a CBA. If that is the case then ETSs or carbon taxes are beside the point and all you have left is adaptation. So ‘risk management pragmatists’ should be putting their efforts in adaptation and not in mitigation.

    So far as the Copenhagen contingent are concerned, their interests are many and varied. No doubt some sincerely believe that GHGs are a problem, others are opportunists that see a possibility of transferring large sums of money from the developed world to the developing world, while others would like to see further regulatory power transfered to international organisations like the UN, EU, etc., and so on. Not ferals, just a motley group of grifters, swindlers and fools.

    dover_beach

    December 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm

  5. No doubt there are some risk management pragmitists – some even concerned about climate change. A minority, I suspect. I’m sure, however, we’re going to hear a lot more about the precautionary principle now that the science is no longer settled. But that principle works both ways. Sure it is prudent to have some insurance for catastrophic events, but not much for low probability events.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 22, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  6. DB
    you can’t go around claiming that mitigation fails a CBA when you haven’t done one, no one has and I’ve already explained how that’s a logical fallacy. it depends on the probability distribution of costs. you simply can’t do a CBA by playing word games/. it is within the bounds of possibility that preventing a large drop in food producing capacity under some scenarios of climate change is more cost effective than adapting to something like that.

    jtfsoon

    December 22, 2009 at 7:29 pm

  7. Sure it is prudent to have some insurance for catastrophic events, but not much for low probability events

    A very low probability times a high magnitude of cost if the scenario emerges is a big number. That’s simple arithmetic.

    Putting that aside
    1) the science of CO2 is settled. It’s really pretty simple.

    just disprove the physical chemistry behind CO2 being a greenhouse gas and win yourself a Nobel or else stop making silly statements. what isn’t settled is the magnitude of the effect.

    jtfsoon

    December 22, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  8. The greenhouse theory is fairly straight forward, I agree. Everything else being equal an increase in CO2 should give rise to an increase in temperature. The ceteris paribus assumption is the issue. Our friends have stuggled resolving the ‘everything else being equal’ bit. Now we know they have struggled a lot, while perverting the peer-review process to prevent others from contributing to the debate. So the ‘science’ is not settled.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm

  9. A very low probability times a high magnitude of cost if the scenario emerges is a big number. That’s simple arithmetic.

    That depends on the relative magnitudes. But it turns out that the greenies are not talking about very high net costs. My great-great grandchildren might have to turn up the air-con.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 22, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  10. Yes the devil is in the details. Re Climategate – all I see are scientists acting like everyone else i.e. like dicks. I’m sorry Climategate shattered so many illusions in that respect. But I still don’t see an epistemological smoking gun.

    jtfsoon

    December 22, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  11. But I still don’t see an epistemological smoking gun.

    So far, I agree. These guys do have a lot explaining to do. And they have been very slack in doing so. The real problem they face is that they played a political game and have been caught out. Over-reach kills.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 22, 2009 at 7:53 pm

  12. I can see the situation progressing somewhat along these lines;

    1) risk management will see insurance companies either increasing premiums or declining policies for those in high risk areas

    2) lack of policy direction will see energy companies not investing in new more efficient projects leading to power spikes, brownouts, blackouts and higher energy costs.

    3) investors will be cautious about projects that are exposed to climate and energy risks

    4) developers will not be able to secure funds for projects that have increased or no insurance and are energy hungry.

    5) lack of investor confidence will further drag on national economies.

    rog

    December 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm

  13. using price signals to accelerate takeup of possibly cutting edge technologies which may promise even more bountiful energy sources in the future nuclear, geothermal, solar) and reduce our reliance on theocratic shitholes is hardly ‘deindustrialising’ the world.
    .
    This point would be valid if nuclear and hydro were on the table. However they were explicitly excluded at Copenhagen as viable alternatives. If the motivation was to avert climate armageddon, any less-than-perfect solution, including a few big dams around the place, would be acceptable. But the reason they were shunned at Copenhagen is that the true agenda is to push “green-friendly” technologies.
    They’re betting the house that geo, wind and solar will come through.

    daddy dave

    December 22, 2009 at 9:23 pm

  14. But I still don’t see an epistemological smoking gun.
    .
    Here’s the epistemological smoking gun:
    i) the data was misrepresented;
    ii) The peer review process was corrupted.
    .
    given both these things, we can say that the IPCC conclusions, whatever merits they may have, fall outside the domain of science per se.
    .
    Climate scientists made a big deal about peer review. That’s how they sidelined some of their critics. Now it turns out that they rigged the game.

    daddy dave

    December 22, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  15. Jason

    The gun has blown up in the warmista’s faces, my friend.

    The data upon which their whole theory is based is corrupt! The theory is therefore rubbish.

    If you had any notion of the what constitutes evidence, you would understand this, but your inner geek is so enthralled with the lovely complex ETS that you can’t understand the simple truth that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 23, 2009 at 8:25 am

  16. “DB
    you can’t go around claiming that mitigation fails a CBA when you haven’t done one, no one has and I’ve already explained how that’s a logical fallacy. it depends on the probability distribution of costs. you simply can’t do a CBA by playing word games/. it is within the bounds of possibility that preventing a large drop in food producing capacity under some scenarios of climate change is more cost effective than adapting to something like that.”

    Jason, so you would have preferred I’d said “mitigation would most likely fail a CBA”? Speaking of word games, neither can you go around pretending that certain circumstances are within the bounds of probability when you haven’t produced a probability tree that contains a estimate of the likelihood of this or that event occurring in the next year, decade, century, millennium, etc.

    My estimate is that things will be more or less as they were the past century this century climatically (i.e. the null hypothesis) so the ball is in the court of those who think it won’t to persuade us as to why it won’t, by why magnitude, and what the costs will be, and what responses we will have available to us and what costs they will entail.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 8:35 am

  17. “the simple truth that CO2 does not warm the atmosphere.”

    I disagree, RL. The simple truth is that CO2 probably cannot warm up the atmosphere much more than it already does at the concentrations we’re concerned with.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 8:41 am

  18. RL is proving that lawyers and science are (generally) a bad mix.

    And d_b wants to be convinced of something with a degree of accuracy which will take some time to achieve, and at the end of which it will be too late to do anything effective if the problem is confirmed to “his” satisfaction. And he doesn’t believe in ocean acidification as a problem either.

    All kind of depressing, really.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 9:19 am

  19. “And d_b wants to be convinced of something with a degree of accuracy which will take some time to achieve, and at the end of which it will be too late to do anything effective if the problem is confirmed to “his” satisfaction.”

    Sounds like you want to sell me a car without letting me drive it or see it, Steve from B. I wonder why?

    “And he doesn’t believe in ocean acidification as a problem either.”

    No, I simply think it is probably a minor problem to which they and we can adapt to as we’ve done previously.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 9:26 am

  20. And d_b wants to be convinced of something with a degree of accuracy which will take some time to achieve

    No. Dover Beach hasn’t been claiming ‘the science is settled’.

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 23, 2009 at 9:35 am

  21. RL is proving that lawyers and science are (generally) a bad mix.

    We should leave science to the experts: failed divinity students, truffle farmers and railway engineers.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 11:52 am

  22. Not sure of your point Sinc. DB isn’t claiming that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas; he just thinks the climate sensitivity to it is being wildly overestimated by “the team”.

    I think everyone accepts there is uncertainty as to the precise figure for climate sensitivity, and presumably that uncertainty will only be lessened by longer observation of the reaction of the world’s climate to the current and increasing rate of CO2.

    I am half guessing here, but if it takes another 10 to 40 years to get the definitive answer, that’s a hell of lot more CO2 to be released in the meantime with potentially disastrous long term consequences if the current best estimate is right.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm

  23. DB

    You say in your usual excellent style what I meant to say.

    STEve from B

    It is the lawyers who will eventually be called upon to arbitrtate on the existence of AGW, as only they have the training and the skills to determine questions of fact that must be determined.

    AS far as I can see, the evidence for AGW would not stand up in Court.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 23, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  24. What utter rubbish about lawyers, RL. They are the only people in the world capable of properly comprehending mathematics, probabilities and science, are they? I dare say that most lawyers are in the field because of a comparative lack of ability in maths and science.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  25. Steve – No. The scientists and their fellow-travellors claimed ‘the science was settled’. Now you say they more time to provide definitive answers. So were they lying then or are they lying now?

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 23, 2009 at 12:24 pm

  26. Sinclair, if the IPCC was talking about probabilities of a range of temperature increases, then surely they are allowing for refinement of what the actual climate sensitivity will be.

    I think you’re setting up a straw man to a degree. (There’s a mild pun for you too.) I think it is universally accepted by genuine scientists that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so that part of the science is settled.

    But when it comes to climate sensitivity to CO2, it is based on estimates, and the position of “the team” is that the estimates are scientifically strong enough to justify action to limit CO2 to a certain range to keep temperature within a certain range.

    What’s wrong with a position that the science is settled enough to take action, without waiting for future measurements of the precise climate sensitivity?

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  27. Don’t be a dill Steve. Everyday Courts decide cases that involve more intricate and difficult issues than climate science. And many of those cases turn upon scientific or technological issues. Using stringent rules of evidence that have been developed over nearly 900 years, Judges and advocates will seek to determine the facts and the law. This may involve the calling of expert witnesses, but its still the judge who decides what the answer is. Often both sides will call expert witnesses

    The litigation process is by far the most rigorous test of truth that exists in Australia or any other common law country. It has nothing to do with knowledge of scince or mathematics but to with determining facts based on real evidence and not on theories.

    This is why I believe that a Royal Commission should be called to determine whether there is any truth in the AGW theory. If the Commssion rules that the theory is a myth, then we can all get on with otehr things. If it rules that AGW exists, then we can discuss what to do about it in the knowledge that it is a proven fact.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 23, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  28. Was it Gore who said the science is settled?

    tal

    December 23, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  29. Oh Good Lord. Correct me if I am wrong, but Royal Commissions are not traditionally bound by the rules of evidence anyway; so much for your idea that the litigation process is the most rigorous test of truth. What information exactly will a Royal Commission turn up that is not already getting a thorough going over in science journals of all varieties, the media and the internet? And if it found that AGW was true, I have no reason to believe this would convince skeptics like you anyway.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  30. I think there’s an argument that our lawyer-overloaded parliamentary assemblies in the West started this whole stupid hoax in the first place. I’m not sure I really want them put in charge of killing it off.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  31. Release the Christian Elephants CL, they’ll sort ’em out

    tal

    December 23, 2009 at 1:09 pm

  32. 🙂

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  33. Oh, Bolt’s shut down til January. You’re going to have no new ideas on climate science for a whole month, CL.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 1:26 pm

  34. Or you’ll need to wait until the result of the investigation into East Anglia , Steve.

    You noticed how Michael Mann through his buddies under a bus? LOL

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  35. LOL. Steve evidently checks in on Bolt hourly.

    The good news is that Steve’s principal sources for “climate science” – George Monbiot and that New Zealand truffle farmer – are working through the Christmas period.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm

  36. Indeed, Tal. Release the Christian Elephants!

    🙂

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  37. Royal Commissions can be bound by the rules of evidence, it depnds upon their terms of reference.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 23, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  38. You haven’t got the Pope on your side CL, so I’m expecting your conversion on the issue any day now.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 1:55 pm

  39. What’s wrong with a position that the science is settled enough to take action
    .
    two things. first, it isn’t. 🙂
    but second, even if the science is “settled”, climate researchers are not economists or sociologists. The settled science merely warns of adverse climate conditions. Like captains getting information from the masthead, we should be free to make informed decisions about how to respond to impending stormy weather.
    How we deal with that should be an open question, ranging from “do nothing” to “go nuclear” to “pump sulphur into the upper atmosphere.”
    yet the people making the predictions are the same ones telling us how to solve the problem, even though this is not their area of expertise.
    When someone presents a problem and a costly solution for it, I’m reminded of an insurance salesman.

    daddy dave

    December 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  40. Steve again admits that warmenism is a religious issue.

    The pope also loves classical music and cats – Catholics aren’t obliged to follow his opinions on those topics either. But no, Benedict has expressed no thoughts on technical responses to “climate change.” He has said that all such responses will fail if we go on ignoring what he calls human ecology – through aAbortion, euthanasia, etc. I don’t recall hearing about these more important crises at the disastrous Copenhagen conference.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 2:23 pm

  41. He says nothing on technical responses, but he does say:

    “His [John Paul II’s] appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously.Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions?”

    Admit it, CL: the Pope has just called you irresponsible.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 2:40 pm

  42. That’s nice, Steve. I mean it’s nice that you’re now openly admitting that warmenism is a religious question. I give you some credit for this – because others try to hide the religiosity underpinning their opinions.

    But again, no: Benedict has expressed no thoughts on technical responses to “climate change.” He has said that all such responses will fail if we go on ignoring what he calls human ecology – through abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research etc. I don’t recall hearing about these more important crises at the disastrous Copenhagen conference. So, in other words, the pope has said the warmenist modus operandi you support will fail. Copenhagen proved he was right.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  43. You must have been studying that Lateline video carefully CL; it’s clear you’ve learned all of your debating tactics from Ian Plimer.

    By the way, I note the Pope’s recent statement also included:

    “There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all.”

    and similar statements.

    It does seem to me sometimes that if Clive Hamilton expresses such sentiments, you’d bag him all day for it. But if the Pope says it, you let it slide.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 2:54 pm

  44. I didn’t see Plimer on Lateline, Steve. (The man with whom you’re disturbingly obsessed).

    The Church has been making those statements on the environment and stewardship for 40 years. The starting point for the Church is the inherent dignity of man – who is sovereign over nature, as willed by God. Hamilton’s starting point is that the Earth Goddess is sovereign and man is Gaia’s serf. Hamilton also has a liberal take on the “abortion debate.” Benedict XVI believes the debate on the morality of abortion is over. The science is settled.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm

  45. First Barry Brook, now Stewart Brand. We need more technophile Greens like this.
    http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/appleyard_12_09.html

    As Brand, heavily influenced by James Lovelock, perceives, this means that the Greens are going to have to reverse some of their primary positions. In the giddy days of 1968, eco-awareness was an aspect of the ideological package that included resistance to the Vietnam War and to The System, often defined as the military-industrial complex. We wanted to get ‘back to the garden’, to a condition of pastoral simplicity. This pastoralism seemed to be the way to save Spaceship Earth and it still clings to the Green movement with its belief in organic foods, wind power and sustainability in general. None of this will work because climate change is happening too quickly.

    ‘That means’, writes Brand, ‘that Greens are no longer strictly the defenders of natural systems against the incursions of civilization; now they’re the defenders of civilization as well. It’s a whiplash moment for everyone.’

    Climate change really means Mother Nature is preparing to rid herself of humans. If we are to survive, we can no longer worship her, we must fight back with smart weapons. So we have to embrace nuclear – there is no other source of clean energy which can sustain our societies – and genetically engineered ‘Frankenfoods’. Ideally, these would be synthesised in laboratories. Farming, as Lovelock has pointed out, is a planetary catastrophe, stripping out biodiversity and filling the atmosphere with the methane from cow farts.

    The Green dream must thus become a very hi-tech dream rather than the muddy paradise of Woodstock. Brand’s conversion to this view is the central drama of this book and it sends him off on a genial and enthusiastic safari through wild science and cool facts.

    jtfsoon

    December 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  46. That’s right, Tal. Warmenists now want us to eat our dogs.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 4:09 pm

  47. Goldfish are bad as well.

    tal

    December 23, 2009 at 4:11 pm

  48. God only knows the size of a budgies carbon footprint

    tal

    December 23, 2009 at 4:12 pm

  49. Nothing wrong with technophobe greens. In a sense that’s where I stand.

    Barry’s continual push for nuke is magnificent..

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  50. Just ignore predictions of changing rainfall and potential for drought in the most populous parts of the world, shall we CL, because a few score less people might die in European winters? Like the Pope says, irresponsible.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  51. That’s technophile, JC

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 4:31 pm

  52. “Just ignore predictions of changing rainfall and potential for drought in the most populous parts of the world,…”

    Why not when these same predictions demonstrably lack skill.

    If you’re worried by drought in the most populous areas of the world the solution is not impoverishing them further by depriving them of the cheapest mode of energy currently available but by making them wealthier and thus better able to meet the challenges we have all faced since Adam. Anything less is simply irresponsible.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 4:37 pm

  53. oops…. that’s what I meant .. wrong spell choice.

    Steve…are you less worried this festive season?

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm

  54. Steve..

    AGW is supposed to mean more rainfall not less.

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  55. I should add, the Met Office is infamous for getting its forecasts wrong. They predicted that the summer of 2007 would be above average; wrong, it was an average year and the wettest summer on record. They again predicted an above average summer for 2008; wrong, it was average and one of the wettest on record. They again predicted a BBQ summer for 2009; wrong again, it was average. They predicted a mild winter this year; it is still early in the piece but it doesn’t look good for them at the moment. But, of course, an incapacity to skilfully predict an average over a season shouldn’t allow us to question the skill with which they can predict what will happen in 2015, 2030, 2050, and so on. Puhlease.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm

  56. Depends where and when it falls, JC.

    DB, you well know climate is about averages on a scale of years, not just an extended weather forecast for a forthcoming season.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  57. Steve, do you actually give a flying fuck about what the pope says about global warming?
    Or are you just indulging in CL-baiting?
    If the latter, then please stop. That’s trolling, pure and simple.

    daddy dave

    December 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  58. “DB, you well know climate is about averages on a scale of years, not just an extended weather forecast for a forthcoming season.”

    They are unable to predict three months out whether a season is going to be below-average, average or above average (this is climate not weather; I’m not asking them to predict the weather on 23/1/10 but the average for a season compared to some other climatological significant average), but you think they are able to predict with greater certainty the qualities of a season or year in 2015, 2030, 2050, and so on. I perfectly understand the difference between weather and climate but I confess to thinking that the difference is often used as a cloak to disguise an obvious incapacity.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm

  59. daddy dave, I’m a Catholic who disagrees with the most prominent Catholic here, CL. I want to see effective steps to reducing CO2, so I would like to be able to convince people to (at the very least) not seek to prevent political action being taken. If the Pope would help “convert” CL, I’ll take it. (Yes, it’s a forlorn hope, I know, but don’t complain about my trying.)

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  60. …Greens are no longer strictly the defenders of natural systems against the incursions of civilization; now they’re the defenders of civilization as well.

    Well, that’s laughable. They are, in fact, the enemies of civilisation.

    Dave, Steve thinks the pope is an ally of Clive Hamilton. But then, Steve is also on record blaming Nick Minchin for hot December days in Brisbane.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  61. Is that true steve?

    Are you blaming Minchin for a hot Brisbane day?

    duuudde!

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm

  62. “I want to see effective steps to reducing CO2, so I would like to be able to convince people to (at the very least) not seek to prevent political action being taken.”

    You want people to lie down on the floor and keep calm while you remove their valuables? Not. Going. To. Happen.

    dover_beach

    December 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm

  63. Steve again admits that he sees warmenism as a religious issue. He’s more honest than other warmenists in this regard, I’ll give him that.

    But no, the pope – for what his views on the temperature of the planet are worth (not much) – has specifically ruled out any “Catholic” technical response to “climate change.” He has said that all such responses will fail if we go on ignoring what he calls “human ecology” – through abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research etc. He is far more interested in the stewardship theology on conserving the environment (propounded by the Church for decades) and has really done no more than repeat that theology.

    No Catholic is obliged to believe in warmenism – which is the dishonest and dumb sub-text of Steve’s sour references to Catholicism. But look, if Cardinal Pell is excommunicated because of his views on the subject, I’ll change my mind.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm

  64. Do stop repeating that human ecology bit, CL, you’ve told us many times already, and I’m not embarrassed by it anyway. (I was bringing up something new by quoting from a new message from the Pope released about a week ago.)

    It’s true that no one is obliged by Catholic doctrine to believe in global warming – I never said it was – but on many matters of science & morals you are persuaded by Vatican/Papal opinion (stem cell research for one). I just like to point out that you’re on your own path when it comes to this particular matter of science and morals. I encourage you to become better informed on the topic, and move closer to your Church’s opinion.

    Also – quote back at me the line where I said Minchin caused hot weather in Brisbane. Go on, let’s see it.

    steve from brisbane

    December 23, 2009 at 6:38 pm

  65. So except in the Prime Minister’s febrile brain (and Steve’s, apparently), since when do “matters of science and morals” belong together? Scientific evidence should be the same regardless of one’s moral stance or religious persuasion (and no, model projections are not evidence, at best they are hypotheses).

    I know it is tempting to pull CL’s chain, but really, leave it alone. I don’t believe for a minute you have any respect for anything the Pope has to say. I know I could not care less.

    entropy

    December 23, 2009 at 6:57 pm

  66. daddy dave, I’m a Catholic who disagrees with the most prominent Catholic here, CL
    .
    fair enough.
    Personally, I think Greenism, as a religion, is cannibalising Christianity at a rapid rate… but as an agnostic I’ll try to stay out of it.

    daddy dave

    December 23, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  67. quote back at me the line where I said Minchin caused hot weather in Brisbane. Go on, let’s see it.

    That the Lambert defense. Did you say something remotely like that, killer Kowalski.

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 7:07 pm

  68. Do stop repeating that human ecology bit, CL…

    Here we see the classic manifestation of the East Anglian approach to dissent. Shut up, Steve explains. It’s an inconvenient truth and Steve wants it airbrushed away. But yes, Benedict’s very brief (even peremptory) pre-Copenhagen statement insisted that the Church had no opinions on technical aspects to the question of climate. He instead reiterated the Church’s decades-old stewardship theology and said that all attempts to safeguard natural ecology would fail unless societies respected human ecology: vis-a-vis abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research etc. As these topics are never canvassed by warmenists, we can assume that the warmening religious movement is utterly antagonistic to Christianity, as propounded by the pope.

    Finally, the “Church” has no opinion on climate change. Catholics can make their own minds up about the wamening movement and the greed of its promoters: corrupt multi-gazillionaires Pichauri, Gore, Virgin space flight PR man, Tim Flannery et alia.

    Regarding Nick Minchin, Steve knows that the relevant thread has now disappeared down the gurgler but he did say that the people suffering in Brisbane’s (entirely unremarkable) summer heat would not look kindly upon Minchin because he helped bring down the ETS. There was a specific and undeniable linkage made between Minchin’s actions and the temperature in Brisbane. JC and other contributors to the thread know that I’m not making this up.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm

  69. I actually do recall stevo pining for the ETS as a mechanism to cool down Brisbane.

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm

  70. Anybody with access to google can easily read that the Vatican “commends” the UNFCCC to “providing a global framework for concerted international action to mitigate climate change”, states that the report from the IPCC is “impeccable” and has taken action to “reduce and offset the carbon emission of the Vatican City State”

    rog

    December 23, 2009 at 9:26 pm

  71. From the skeptical hypochondriac blog.


    But new research by Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong at the University of Toronto ……… In their study (described in a paper now in press at Psychological Science), subjects who made simulated eco-friendly purchases ended up less likely to exhibit altruism in a laboratory game and more likely to cheat and steal.

    Shiny?

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 9:29 pm

  72. And here’s me thinking from his previous missives that Rog hated Catholics.

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  73. Now he’s citing Vatican scientists.

    jc

    December 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

  74. Benedict’s very brief pre-Copenhagen statement insisted that the Church had no opinions on technical aspects to the question of climate. He instead reiterated the Church’s decades-old stewardship theology and said that all attempts to safeguard natural ecology would fail unless societies respected human ecology: vis-a-vis abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research etc. As these topics are never canvassed by warmenists, we can assume that the warmening religious movement is utterly antagonistic to Christianity, as propounded by the pope.

    Finally, the “Church” has no opinion on climate change. Catholics can make their own minds up about the wamening movement – which Catholics like Cardinal Pell certainly have.

    C.L.

    December 23, 2009 at 10:25 pm

  75. Not one person has yet died because of Climate Change, yet thousands have dies because of the banning of DDT. Another great triumph for the environmentalists. Like the left everywhere they often tend to leave people worse off than they found them.

    Rococo Liberal

    December 23, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  76. CL, earlier you said “Steve is also on record blaming Nick Minchin for hot December days in Brisbane.”

    Now you say my position was “the people suffering in Brisbane’s (entirely unremarkable) summer heat would not look kindly upon Minchin because he helped bring down the ETS.”

    The latter is pretty much correct; the former is not. You can stop saying the former now (you have repeated it many times, perhaps in the belief that misrepresentation becomes funnier or truer the more you repeat it.)

    steve from brisbane

    December 24, 2009 at 7:40 am

  77. by the way, a lot of defenders of the climategate scientists use the “business as usual” defense. A variant was used in this thread, that they were just behaving like ‘dicks.’
    This is no defense at all.
    I’d like to hear any of these defenders answer the following questions.
    1. have you ever altered or misrepresented data to help you strengthen your case? (and if so, tell us when that was).
    2. have you ever attempted to stack an editorial board? have you ever attempted to ostracise scientists or journals that publish points of view with which you have a theoretical disagreement?
    .
    I’m betting that in almost all cases the answer is not only “no”, the true answer is “no.” this sort of stuff just isn’t normal, par-for-the-course behaviour. The defenders of climategate are doing untold damage to science and academia by claiming that it is. They’re throwing us all to the wolves to save a couple of their own skins.

    daddy dave

    December 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  78. They’re throwing us all to the wolves to save a couple of their own skins.

    This is embarrassing hyperbole that you will one day likely disown.

    Climategate has been given ample airtime, and yet it’s still utterly trivial. It’s a footnote to a footnote to an addeundum. There are two key reasons for this. Firstly, it means absolutely nothing with respect to the overall science. Second, it means even less with respect to concrete policy. Either Green-voting lizard men secretly rule the world, and the Chinese communist party are building all those windmills because they’re sentimental about that sort of thing, or else there are some serious environmental problems brewing that are related to carbon emission.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 12:11 am

  79. “Firstly, it means absolutely nothing with respect to the overall science.”

    Of course it doesn’t. The overall science shows us that global warming is a fraudulent movement. So of course the climate-gate business makes no difference to the science. It merely reinforces the science. We knew it was a fraud. And here we have reinforcement of this notion.

    Houdini

    December 26, 2009 at 3:49 am

  80. “Climategate has been given ample airtime, and yet it’s still utterly trivial. It’s a footnote to a footnote to an addeundum.”

    I wonder if those who say this are actual aware of the particulars of climategate? Putting to one side the many instances of gatekeeping, the ‘hide the decline’ instance should have been enough to raise eyebrows. To use an analogy, if medical researchers noticed that the condition of some patients in their experimental group improved and then rapidly deteriorated, ending in death, and these same researchers truncated these patient’s records at the point in which their deterioration begins and they substituted an entirely different record, say that of the control group, I’m sure that those here saying that what has been uncovered is “entirely trivial” would be whistling a different tune.

    “Firstly, it means absolutely nothing with respect to the overall science.”

    I wonder if those who say this are actual familiar with the “overall science”?

    “Second, it means even less with respect to concrete policy.”

    Yes, I think you’re probably right here; the science has very little relation to the policy.

    “Either Green-voting lizard men secretly rule the world, and the Chinese communist party are building all those windmills because they’re sentimental about that sort of thing, or else there are some serious environmental problems brewing that are related to carbon emission.”

    The Chinese and the Indians have more or less admitted that they are not going to reduce their emissions beyond a BAU scenario precisely because they do not want to threaten their economic growth. They participate with instruments like the CDM because they are its two major financial beneficiaries. That you think the building of windmills by the Chinese means they take ‘the science’ seriously is touching in its innocence.

    “This is embarrassing hyperbole that you will one day likely disown.”

    No, what is truly embarrassing is how we let a tail (‘the science’) so flimsy actually wag the dog (society).

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 9:20 am

  81. Overstatement, THR.
    The emails contain nothing that directly undermines the current consensus scientific view. They do though show a group of scientists at the heart of the AGW work on which the IPCC reports are based behaving like grubby politicians rather than disinterested scientists seeking the truth. They needed at any cost to win the public debate and exclude alternative opinions.
    This coupled with the hockey-stick matter and the Siberian trees must make us a bit less sure about the reliability of the science upon which very large political decisions are being based.
    I accept the consensus view, as I am not a scientist and cannot challenge it.
    But I would be happier if there was a group of young scientists challenging and polishing the science – that is how it is supposed to work. But for a young scientist to express any reservations would be career suicide – no job, no grants and probably character assassination.
    Finally, I don’t know how many windmills are being built in China. What I do know is that China sabotaged any agreement in Copenhagen. They do not seem to believe that the future of the planet is threatened.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 26, 2009 at 9:32 am

  82. The emails contain nothing that directly undermines the current consensus scientific view.
    .
    Ken, with respect, what does “consensus” mean in this context, to you? Speaking in literal terms, there is not a scientific consensus on this matter. That is to say, there are scientists, including prominent scientists, who disagree with the AGW hypothesis. Therefore, technically, there is no consensus view.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm

  83. OK, d_d it seems to me (a scientific illiterate) that a clear majority of scientists with relevant qualifications who are willing to speak out accept the view expressed in the IPCC reports.
    I suspect there might be scientists with doubts who don’t want to damage their careers by expressing reservations. If so, that is worrying.
    But I really don’t want to argue about the truth or otherwise of the IPCC view, because I have nothing to contribute.
    What I can do is express concerns about process and behavior of some of the scientists. I do know enough to say that behavior was more political than professional.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  84. I wonder if those who say this are actual aware of the particulars of climategate?

    It’s a mistake to think that the behaviour of a small minority of climate scientists undermines anything except the work of those particular scientists (and even then, it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis).

    Speaking in literal terms, there is not a scientific consensus on this matter.

    The same could be said of the ‘science’ of water fluoridisation and the spherical nature of the globe. You only need to find one crank who disagrees, and strictly speaking there’s no ‘consensus’.

    A better question to ask is: which of the main tenets/hypotheses of AGW proponents has actually been destroyed overturned or refuted by Climategate? If the answer is none, then yes, the matter is trivial.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm

  85. THR – I agree, more or less, with you up to your last sentence. Behaviour like this by such prominent scientists is not trivial.
    It, and other instances, show that scientists (Hansen in particular) are behaving as politicians. That is damaging to science and, what’s more, they are not very good at it.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 26, 2009 at 2:26 pm

  86. When I use the word trivial, I mean it with respect to the broader debate re AGW, and the more important debate on policy options.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 2:42 pm

  87. In the sense that we already knew global warming and its promoters were fraudulent, ClimateGate is significant only insofar as it amplifies that truth. But the dismissal of ClimateGate with formulaic talking points about how it’s a ‘distraction’ that has no impact on the “consensus” science (which has never existed) echoes the same PR strategy that followed the demolition of the hockey stick and a British court’s finding that Al Gore’s propaganda film was also fraudulent. Apart from that, we now have a situation where alleged defenders of “science” happily sign off on intimidation of heretics, banning of contrary views, destruction of data, deliberate bowdlerisation of data and – more generally – the subordination of science to an ideological green agenda that, in the minds of its backers, is simply too big to fail.

    C.L.

    December 26, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  88. “It’s a mistake to think that the behaviour of a small minority of climate scientists undermines anything except the work of those particular scientists (and even then, it needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis).”

    This is true so far as it goes, but unfortunately, it does not get you very far in this instance. This does not involve a “small minority of climate scientists” but quite many. It does not only involve people at the CRU like Briffa, Jones and Wigely, but also people like Mann, Trenberth, Rahmstorf, Santer, Schmidt, etc.; many of which have been lead authors of chapters of the IPCC’s various assessment reports. You simply cannot credibly suggest that this involves only a minority of climate scientists. Even if we accept the thesis that it involves only a ‘minority’ they constitute a very influential minority; they are in many instances the principals promoting the AGW thesis. The other problem you have here is that their work often buttresses the work of others, so the problems that are identified in the former may undermine or weaken the work of the latter.

    “The same could be said of the ’science’ of water fluoridisation and the spherical nature of the globe. You only need to find one crank who disagrees, and strictly speaking there’s no ‘consensus’.”

    But, and again, and unfortunately for your argument, the analogy is flawed. You don’t have senior figures in science communities of either of the above who disagree with the use of fluoride in water or the spherical nature of the globe; this is the case for the AGW thesis.

    “A better question to ask is: which of the main tenets/hypotheses of AGW proponents has actually been destroyed overturned or refuted by Climategate? If the answer is none, then yes, the matter is trivial.”

    Setting aside the obvious limits of such a question, there is Trenberth’s email:

    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

    What such a statement does is not overturn or refute the main tenets/ theses of AGW, an unrealistic expectation after all, but make them far more uncertain then we have otherwise been led to believe. Add to this the numerous instances in which these principals have gamed the peer review process, the dubious computer code, the dubious instrumental record, the dubious proxy record, the tendentious manner in which the main thesis ise defended, suggests to me that rather than climategate being trivial, it is the general thesis of AGW that is trivial.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  89. I’ll leave you to it, folks. Nothing more to contribute.
    I’m still (increasingly uncomfortably) somewhere in the middle.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 26, 2009 at 3:08 pm

  90. AGW raises my suspicions because there are a lot of patches. just because a theory has patches doesn’t mean it is wrong but it makes it more complex and open to doubt.

    Problem:
    we have problems with temperature reconstructions diverging from the instrumental record which might imply temperature reconstructions diverge somewhere in the past that we are not aware of.
    Patch:
    something has happened only recently that has broken temperature reconstructions.

    Problem:
    based on warming in the last century climate sensitivity is only 1.1 degrees for a doubling of CO2 (or something like that).
    Patch:
    something is causing temperature to cool but it will disappear sometime in the future. ie: oceans are absorbing heat currently but won’t continue to do so in the future or aerosols have been causing cooling but they will increase in concentration much slower than CO2.

    drscroogemcduck

    December 26, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  91. “the ‘hide the decline’ instance should have been enough to raise eyebrows. To use an analogy, if medical researchers noticed that the condition of some patients in their experimental group improved and then rapidly deteriorated, ending in death, and these same researchers truncated these patient’s records at the point in which their deterioration begins and they substituted an entirely different record, say that of the control group, I’m sure that those here saying that what has been uncovered is “entirely trivial” would be whistling a different tune.”

    Are you aware of the particulars, Dover? Your analogy suggests you are not.

    A better one would be if medical researchers noticed that, going by their patients’ shadows at 10am, the patients were getting shorter, but the patients were visibly getting taller, confirmed by rulers. So when presenting the graph of heights, they used most of the line derived from shadows, ignoring the erroneous tail end, and attached the line derived from rulers, clearly showing the two lines are separate.

    The worst that can be said about “hide the decline” is that a proxy measurement that was failing to fulfill its role anymore, and that would not be considered in analysing the data, maybe should have been included in the IPCC graph with a footnote explaining its irrelevance, instead of deleted in the interests of having a nice clean hockey stick.

    Then again, politicians are simple folk, so you can understand the scientists’ desire to dumb it down for them. It’s not good science, but understandable politics.

    Which brings me to Ken’s point, and the obvious rebuttal – any time you want to influence public policy, convince a politician to do something (especially a large collection of disparate politicians), you are playing politics. It’s necessary to achieve anything. But the standard scientific approach doesn’t fit the mould. The science overwhelmingly points one way, with minor doubts sprinkled everywhere, but because politics is the art of compromise and concession, those minor doubts are seized upon as proof that the response to AGW should be moderated away from the scientific recommendations. That’s why we get farcical results like Kyoto or Copenhagen.

    Jarrah

    December 26, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  92. Scrooge, you have to ask yourself why they might choose the ‘patch’ as more likely to be true than otherwise. Usually they have very good reasons, like preponderance of convergent evidence – if one piece doesn’t fit into an otherwise coherent picture, it’s probable the problem is with the piece, not the picture.

    Dover, there is dubiousness* everywhere, and I can understand why you would want to lump it all together in a meta-dubiousness, but it’s not a strong argument. Each individual dubiousness is small(ish), and not necessarily correlated with each other (ie they don’t ‘add up’ – take a system with 5 things that are each 90% certain; the ‘total uncertainty’ of the system is not 50%).

    * – Too tired to express this more elegantly.

    Jarrah

    December 26, 2009 at 3:35 pm

  93. “The science overwhelmingly points one way, with minor doubts sprinkled everywhere, but because politics is the art of compromise and concession”

    Science, or rather scientists, can only say “X is likely to happen” (and in most cases they overstate the probability.)
    As scientists they can’t say what we must do about it. Their opinions on that are no better than anyone else’s.
    So as scientists they should stick to science and leave politics to others. Or become politicians – as Hansen has – and suffer the lack of credibility that goes with that.
    Acting like a politician while claiming the privileges of a scientist is unacceptable. Which is my problem with Jones and friends.
    Copenhagen had nothing much to do with the sceptics. The Copenhagen debacle simply reflected the fact that no politician anywhere will impose the short term pain on his or her citizens necessary to hold the temperature increase to 2 degrees or limit C02 to 350 or whatever the target is.

    We will end up managing the problem, as we always have, with technology and adaptation. No grand plan just muddling through. This conflicts with most scientists’ sense of order which is why they can’t help much on the solution.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  94. “Are you aware of the particulars, Dover? Your analogy suggests you are not.

    Jarrah, I’m aware of the particulars, and even better, I was also aware that the analogy I was employing – an advantage which comes with being its author – was analogizing the truncation of results unfavorable to the thesis I was purporting to establish with an entirely different set of results rather than analogizing a measure, B, as a proxy of measure, A.

    “A better one would be if medical researchers noticed that, going by their patients’ shadows at 10am, the patients were getting shorter, but the patients were visibly getting taller, confirmed by rulers. So when presenting the graph of heights, they used most of the line derived from shadows, ignoring the erroneous tail end, and attached the line derived from rulers, clearly showing the two lines are separate.”

    BTW, that is a flawed and tortuous analogy since one’s shadow through the day cannot be a direct proxy for height; the shadow gets shorter coming to midday and gets longer until it final disappears with twilight.

    “The worst that can be said about “hide the decline” is that a proxy measurement that was failing to fulfill its role anymore, and that would not be considered in analysing the data, maybe should have been included in the IPCC graph with a footnote explaining its irrelevance, instead of deleted in the interests of having a nice clean hockey stick.”

    Wrong again; that is the best one can say about it. The worst one can say about it is that one can no longer trust the efficacy, not merely of this tree-ring proxy, both before and after the decline, but of the other tree-ring proxies as well since they may possibly be confounded by the same uncertainties as the former. Pretending that the result is an ‘irrelevance’ simply denies the uncertainties that it raises so far as tree-ring data is concerned and doing what you have suggested is no better than what they in fact achieved through truncation.

    “Then again, politicians are simple folk, so you can understand the scientists’ desire to dumb it down for them. It’s not good science, but understandable politics.”

    Jarrah, if scientists want to act politically they should resign their scientific positions and seek to attain political office by the usual means rather than treating our politicians and policymakers as marionettes for their own political interests, even in what they purport to be scientific papers.

    “The science overwhelmingly points one way, with minor doubts sprinkled everywhere,”

    A mantra if there ever where one.

    “those minor doubts are seized upon as proof that the response to AGW should be moderated away from the scientific recommendations.”

    If Trenberth is right, re the energy budget and geoengineering, and he is, then what do you think it says about GHG-emissions reduction? That we could never tell “if it is successful or not!” That is why it is a travesty. And still, we are told ‘the science’ is ‘overwhelming’, that there are only ‘minor doubts’, and that we should lie down and think of England.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  95. “Each individual dubiousness is small(ish), and not necessarily correlated with each other (ie they don’t ‘add up’ – take a system with 5 things that are each 90% certain; the ‘total uncertainty’ of the system is not 50%).”

    Jarrah, even if we were assuming that each of these five individual ‘dubiousnesses’ was known to such a certainty, i.e. 90%, the total uncertainty may not be 50% but it would be near enough, 59% total uncertainty. We are, however, likely looking at something more like this, however, in terms of certainty: 0.95 x 0.85 x 0.75 x 0.70 x 0.50 and therefore, 0.22, total uncertainty.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  96. THR: The same could be said of the ’science’ of water fluoridisation and the spherical nature of the globe. You only need to find one crank who disagrees, and strictly speaking there’s no ‘consensus’.
    .
    not the same at all. As Dover mentioned, you’ve got mainstream scientists, some quite eminent, who disagree with the theory. Freeman Dyson is not a crank. That’s not true for fluoride, the spherical earth, etc.
    .
    Jarrah: A better one would be if medical researchers noticed that, going by their patients’ shadows at 10am, the patients were getting shorter, but the patients were visibly getting taller, confirmed by rulers.
    .
    wrong. There is no analog of the ruler- there are no rulers in climate science. It’s all shadows. If there were, not only would this not matter, but they wouldn’t have bothered to be deceitful.
    .
    Jarrah: – take a system with 5 things that are each 90% certain; the ‘total uncertainty’ of the system is not 50%
    .
    yes it is. Or to be more precise, it’s .9 to the power of 5, which is 59%.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  97. ouch, Dover got there first.
    note to self. Must type faster.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  98. just got in….

    Wow, this must be homer or Lambert probability math that Jarrah is peddling.

    Dude… a series of probable events each with 90% certainty means that on a combined basis they amount to 90% multiplied by itself 5 times = .5905… as both Dads and DB point out.

    Dude, where did you math? Was it Lambert or Homer?

    JC

    December 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  99. The emails contain nothing that directly undermines the current consensus scientific view.

    Put it this way, the emails have not caused any existing model or projection or analysis to be changed. So their impact is only political ie various armchair experts claiming a “gotcha” moment for political gain. It’s all that the AEs can claim as they dont really know the science just what a few energetic bloggers have conjured up.

    rog

    December 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm

  100. “Acting like a politician while claiming the privileges of a scientist is unacceptable.”

    That’s fair.

    “one’s shadow through the day”

    Perhaps you missed the ’10am’. And I chose it deliberately – 10am from day to day leaves a different shadow, so is an imperfect proxy. I’m happy to admit my analogy, like all analogies, is inherently flawed. I stand by my assertion that yours is worse.

    “The worst one can say about it is that one can no longer trust the efficacy, not merely of this tree-ring proxy, both before and after the decline, but of the other tree-ring proxies as well since they may possibly be confounded by the same uncertainties as the former.”

    Incorrect. The ‘decline’ started late – the proxies tracked the instrumental record reasonably until mid-20th century. If the proxies were so untrustworthy, why was there a century of correlation?

    “there are no rulers in climate science.”

    Maybe you should learn about thermometers.

    Lastly, on dubiousness – you and daddy dave made the same mistake in missing my point. Let me reiterate: ‘Each individual dubiousness is small(ish), and not necessarily correlated with each other (ie they don’t ‘add up’“. Yes, if you can say one probability depends on another (ie they all have to be certain for the system outcome to be certain), the certainty is 59%. But my point is that you can’t assume that!

    Jarrah

    December 26, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  101. Put it this way, the emails have not caused any existing model or projection or analysis to be changed.

    Again, right – insofar as we knew the warming movement was fraudulent beforehand anyway.

    C.L.

    December 26, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  102. Name the fraud CL, the one that “we” know

    rog

    December 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  103. “Put it this way, the emails have not caused any existing model or projection or analysis to be changed.”

    How would these emails change an existing model or set of projections? Trenberth in his statement admits that these models cannot account for the what has happened over the last ten years. That referring to internal natural variability amounts to arm-waving when no physical mechanism is posited, and that in the absence of such a model attempts to geoengineer are perilous because we could not actual say whether or not they have been successful.

    “So their impact is only political ie various armchair experts claiming a “gotcha” moment for political gain.”

    Nonsense; you cannot pretend that the likes of Pielke Snr, von Storch, Zorita, Curry, Douglass, Christy, Spencer, Lindzen, etc. are ‘armchair experts’ and the like. It also indicates that beyond the ad hom, you have nothing to add.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  104. How would these emails change an existing model or set of projections?

    They could easily change hypotheses or projections if they had some methodological smoking gun. However, they don’t. The leaking of the emails has had precisely zero influence over the science and the policy. The real debate is elsewhere.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm

  105. “Perhaps you missed the ‘10am’. And I chose it deliberately – 10am from day to day leaves a different shadow, so is an imperfect proxy. I’m happy to admit my analogy, like all analogies, is inherently flawed. I stand by my assertion that yours is worse.”

    I saw the “10am”. What you continue to misunderstand is that I was not analogizing the proxy but the truncation of the data that ill-suited the thesis the scientists were presenting. If this occurred in a medical study you wouldn’t be defending the principal scientists and other medical scientists wouldn’t be arguing that this is business as usual. You have merely asserted that my analogy was worse, you haven’t explained why?

    “Incorrect. The ‘decline’ started late – the proxies tracked the instrumental record reasonably until mid-20th century. If the proxies were so untrustworthy, why was there a century of correlation?”

    Yes, they more and less correlate for a 100 years having largely been previously calibrated with the instrumental record and this proxy record diverges for the last 50 years. So for a third of its length it is uncorrelated with temp., which suggests that the correlation between 1850/1880-1960 was spurious.

    “Maybe you should learn about thermometers.”

    Thermometers indeed measure temperature, but temperature is probably a poor measure of climate change and thus still a proxy. What you really want to measure is the accumulation of energy (Joules) on the earth. That is why ocean heat content is probably a far better measure.

    “Let me reiterate: ‘Each individual dubiousness is small(ish), and not necessarily correlated with each other (ie they don’t ‘add up’“

    Lets agree that we can neither assume that they are or are not necessarily correlated with each other. This really doesn’t improve your position since you’re the one who is presenting a positive thesis; not myself.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm

  106. Incorrect. The ‘decline’ started late – the proxies tracked the instrumental record reasonably until mid-20th century. If the proxies were so untrustworthy, why was there a century of correlation?

    one explanation is the late 20th century is hotter and the proxy doesn’t properly capture hotter temperatures which is a big problem because the reconstruction is meant to show temperatures weren’t hot in the past.

    drscroogemcduck

    December 26, 2009 at 6:01 pm

  107. Jarrah, you screwed up the probability math and now you’re just trying to cover it up.

    The fact is these emails present the strong argument that the entire data, data collection and calcs need to be carefully audited and verified.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  108. “They could easily change hypotheses or projections if they had some methodological smoking gun.”

    THR, rather than making general statements please specify, if only for arguments sake, what sort of “methodological smoking gun” you’re imagining would alter current hypotheses or projections? Failure to do so suggests that this claim is only a diversion.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 6:06 pm

  109. The onus is on you, db, to show that these emails mean anything at all outside a tearoom or two at the University of East Bumcrack. I’m suggesting that they don’t, and I really can’t think of any impact they’ve had (or will have) except to the excitable rump that is the Right.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  110. Name the fraud CL, the one that “we” know

    One Fraud? One closely aligned fraud was the systematic attack on the structure of peer review and their attempts to monopolize the entire process.

    Hey but don’t let me tell you that, Rog. Let the MIT forum explain how academics at the top of their profession are disturbed by the goings on..

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm

  111. THR:

    The emails and the data prove that the entire process has to be verified and audited….

    I can’t understand why people simply ignore the process that I have and others like me are suggesting ought to occur.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  112. THR, let me reiterate d_b’s question: what would constitute a smoking gun, if not the climategate emails? Or to put it another way, let’s imagine a climategate email or file that doesnt exist, but if it did, would blow the lid off the whole thing.
    Or another way: what’s your criterion for proof/disproof vis a vis climategate?
    .
    The reason I ask is, I personally can’t actually imagine a more damning or incriminating set of documents. Please expand my horizons.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 6:47 pm

  113. disclaimer: of course, I ask rhetorically and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but even so, since there’s a divide in this thread between those who consider climategate to be a smoking gun and those who do not, it’s nonetheless a legitimate question in its own right.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  114. The reason I ask is, I personally can’t actually imagine a more damning or incriminating set of documents.

    Well, pick up a hash pipe or take a stroll on the beach, as that imagination of yours isn’t doing much.

    If we found out that some oncology researchers with an anti-tobacco stance had engaged in (arguably) dubious scientific practices, this would not magically make tobacco safe. This analogy applies here. To the extent that there’s any smoking gun, it’s for the scientists alleged to have behaved badly, not for the science itself.

    If you had AGW proponents across the board hiding evidence of worldwide cooling, for instance, or of ice caps re-freezing, then you’d have grounds to change entire hypotheses. Instead, we have a talking point of the increasingly irrelevant right being trotted out yet again, despite the fact that it proves all of nothing.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  115. It proves we need to verify the data, data collection and the methodology used to interpret the data.

    The peer review process in this area of science is shot to peices.

    In fact anyone that relies on the peer review argument in climate science ought to be looked at with a jaundiced eye from now on.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  116. Impossible. Peer review is used in virtually every discipline of science and the humanities, and few people will have the technical knowledge to actually sift through the papers and work out what’s legit.

    THR

    December 26, 2009 at 7:01 pm

  117. Why?

    Cyd

    December 26, 2009 at 7:05 pm

  118. “The peer review process in this area of science is shot to peices.”sic

    Exactly how?

    More hot air from the expert on hot air

    rog

    December 26, 2009 at 7:09 pm

  119. Rog:

    Take the “sic” and shove it up your venomous ass, you deranged loon.

    Ask the MIT academics, you buffoon.

    http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/730

    when you’re finished with that read this:

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/23/climategatekeeping-jones-reviews-mann/

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  120. Exactly how?
    .
    the climategate emails show that in climate science, the peer review process was corrupted, editorial boards were stacked, editors with divergent opinions (such as sceptics) were ostracised and frozen out, journals that published sceptical articles were blacklisted. etc.
    .
    and by the way, that isn’t standard practice in other scientific disciplines.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm

  121. More hot air from the expert on hot air

    Yea, that’s right, you moron. Like you still remain silent when people ask you how you concluded that nuclear energy is co2 unfriendly. You moron.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 7:18 pm

  122. Impossible. Peer review is used in virtually every discipline of science and the humanities, and few people will have the technical knowledge to actually sift through the papers and work out what’s legit.

    Not really. Peer review in climate science is now no longer credible.

    Statisticians can easily verify best fit analysis. You don;t have to be a climate scientist for that. In fact James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and the infamous Doc. Pachauri are not formally trained in climate science.

    (The head of the IPCC increasingly appears he’s is so conflicted that anything he says on this subject has no worth).

    There needs to be verification.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 7:23 pm

  123. JC, you are not “formally trained in climate science” yet this has not been an obstacle to your “informed opinion”

    Youtube junk is not evidence

    rog

    December 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  124. Come to think of it JC, do you hold any qualifications?

    Perhaps you would like to submit yourself for “peer review”

    rog

    December 26, 2009 at 7:34 pm

  125. Rog:

    It appears you’re not formally trained in anything other than stacking bricks on a building lot let alone criticizing others who are not formally trained.

    It’s not “You Tube junk” you pathetic moron, it was a forum held by some senior academics at MIT.

    The fact that you think it is “junk” only suggests you’re overqualified as a building lot laborer.

    Moron.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 7:37 pm

  126. Rog:

    Come to think of it JC, do you hold any qualifications?

    Yea I do rog. I’d also note I’m not a failed builder like you.

    Perhaps you would like to submit yourself for “peer review”

    Now that’s a really smart comment.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  127. Peer review for jc would involve likeminded dudes saying to him, heh dude did your trading in absolutely nothing accrue you enough to emigrate?

    Cyd

    December 26, 2009 at 8:01 pm

  128. El Cyd:

    I’m sure you trying to convey something with that out-sized big mammal brained comment. But what exactly?

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 8:06 pm

  129. The emotionality of the Catallaxian climate denialists is a dead give-away.

    You low-energy dudes are driven, even repetitively ridden, by emasculated demagogy and your own fears.

    And you poor saps don’t even realise that.

    Cyd

    December 26, 2009 at 8:15 pm

  130. …heh dude did your trading in absolutely nothing accrue you enough to emigrate…

    The carbon trading “business” certainly got Rajendra Pachauri out of Uttar Pradesh.

    C.L.

    December 26, 2009 at 8:17 pm

  131. Wow, El Cyd. That’s one very deep and thoughtful comment.

    Troll.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 8:22 pm

  132. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone aptly and memorably described Goldman Sach and its equivalents as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” – an accurate description of neoliberalism in action.

    Which you defend.

    Cyd

    December 26, 2009 at 8:24 pm

  133. You’re right, El Cyd. I should be getting all my financial news and editorials on such matters from the Spanish Financial Daily… Rolling Stone Financiaro Del jorno.

    That’s an excellent point of course, but what does that have to do with the thread, Fred.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 8:27 pm

  134. “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” – an accurate description of neoliberalism in action.

    LOL.

    Personally…. I would have used octopus and the better description. Squid sounds so puny in these matters.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm

  135. …a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money…

    A near perfect description of COP15.

    C.L.

    December 26, 2009 at 8:33 pm

  136. an accurate description of neoliberalism in action.

    El Cyd… Goldman Sachs political donations have favored the Demo(lition) party in the past 20 years.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000085

    You Troll Cydney.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 8:35 pm

  137. “Personally…. I would have used octopus and the better description. Squid sounds so puny in these matters.”

    Just proves you’re a stupid, illiterate Philistine. Go read Jules Verne 20000 Leagues Under the Sea and get back to me.

    Cyd

    December 26, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  138. Cyd sweeps in, ignores the entire debate, and starts throwing ad hominem insults. Sorry, dude, it won’t work. fuck off back to realclimate.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 10:35 pm

  139. in fact, Cyd embodies the whole nasty, dishonest, ad hominem, bullying tactics of the climate thugs. Exactly the same tactics revealed by the climategate emails.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 10:39 pm

  140. “The onus is on you, db, to show that these emails mean anything at all outside a tearoom or two at the University of East Bumcrack.”

    As I thought, THR; I simply asked you to provide an example of what you think might constitute a “methodological smoking gun” that could be contained in these emails that would alter current hypotheses or projections. I did not ask you to prove that they didn’t. But my honest request at the least smoked out your claim that they don’t as nothing more than a diversion.

    “If you had AGW proponents across the board hiding evidence of worldwide cooling, for instance, or of ice caps re-freezing, then you’d have grounds to change entire hypotheses.”

    The AGW hypothesis does not rest on warming or cooling per se, or on ice thawing or freezing per se, since they can do either of these things naturally, but upon the thesis that GHGs (in particular, CO2) dominate the climate. There is, contrary to what Jarrah says, NOT a preponderance of evidence which suggests that the climate is sensitive to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. We do have evidence currently that the earth is not warming for at least the last eight years and this is contrary to the AGW thesis which suggests that at the rate at which we are emitting GHGs the surface temp should be increasing 0.2 C/ decade; it isn’t. Do these emails indicate a conspiracy to avoid discussion of this inconvenient fact in the public eye? Certainly the discussion between Tom Wigely and Ken Trenberth does.

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1056&filename=1255550975.txt

    Does this constitute ‘smoking gun’? Probably not. Is is thus trivial? not at all. What it constitutes is a failure to communicate the uncertainties that they discuss privately to the general public.

    So far as peer review in climate science is concerned we have the following experience recounted by Douglass and Christy involving the reception of Douglass et al (2007) paper:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    These are not isolated experiences; they are in fact par for the course in this area.

    dover_beach

    December 26, 2009 at 10:56 pm

  141. Cydney:

    I’m not reading jules Vern again, I’ll be reading Rolling Stone Financiario Del Jorno for financial news and related opinion, seeing it’s the authoritative newspaper in the finance world. lol

    Dads is right, piss off back to Realclimate and let the George Costanza lookalike scare you to death.

    jc

    December 26, 2009 at 11:04 pm

  142. if they were isolated experiences, you’d see other climate scientists telling us that they’re isolated experiences.
    Does anyone know of a single climate scientist who has either denounced the behaviour or explained that this is not an example of how business is done in climate science? I thought not.

    daddy dave

    December 26, 2009 at 11:11 pm

  143. the climategate emails show that in climate science, the peer review process was corrupted, editorial boards were stacked, editors with divergent opinions (such as sceptics) were ostracised and frozen out, journals that published sceptical articles were blacklisted. etc.
    .
    and by the way, that isn’t standard practice in other scientific disciplines.

    Not true. It’s standard practice across the board, give or take a bit. How many papers from a Keynesian or (gasp!) Marxist perspective do you think get published in neoclassical journals? How many dissenters get onto the editorial board? It’s like that in every discipline.

    THR

    December 27, 2009 at 1:01 am

  144. THR:

    Well perhaps it’s time to look at other methods than peer review if what you’re suggesting is endemic and systemic corruption in the peer review process.

    The compliant seems to be that the peer review in climate science has been essentially monopolized in such a politicized way that little to no distention was allowed otherwise scientists would be embargoed from publishing no matter how the worthy the research.

    It got to the stage where it has been described that if a paper was ever published against the orthodoxy criticism would be published and the right of reply wouldn’t which runs counter to the spirit of the culture and this is but one example.

    the entire process is a mess and the emails suggest a little more than boys will be boys caper.

    And by the way I think AGW is potentially a problem although it’s a long term one.

    jc

    December 27, 2009 at 4:00 am

  145. If you are correct THR (and I suspect you are not) then you have destroyed the authority of all peer reviewed research. We might as well use anonymous reports on the web as the source of knowledge..

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 5:48 am

  146. DB says that there is “NOT a preponderance of evidence which suggests that the climate is sensitive to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    That is simply not true, there is a preponderance of evidence and this can be proved

    Ignorance is no argument

    rog

    December 27, 2009 at 7:21 am

  147. THR: It’s standard practice across the board
    .
    peer review is useful to the extent that it is not corrupted. The more corrupt, the less useful.
    .
    rog: That is simply not true, there is a preponderance of evidence and this can be proved
    .
    There are plenty of credentialed, established scientists who don’t agree. In that respect, it’s not like convincing someone that the Earth goes around the sun or that ESP doesn’t exist.

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 8:47 am

  148. Rog, you’ve links to an article, by the infamous Oreskes, that is principally about a purported consensus (she rigged her survey by asking the following question “Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why?”) among scientists and whether what she purports is a ‘consensus’ could be wrong, rather than about the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2. We know that, without feedbacks, the climate would warm by about 1 C from a doubling in CO2. That demonstrates no great sensitivity. Catastrophic AGW depends on the speculative assertion that there are positive feedbacks that would magnify this 1 C warming by a factor of 2-6 which gives us the range of climate sensitivities in the IPCC AR4 from 2-6 C for a doubling of CO2. There is no preponderance of evidence that shows that these speculative estimates are accurate; nothing in the Oreskes article suggests this either.

    I’d be interested in reading, if you pointed out to me, the section in that article that you believe refutes what I’ve said either in this comment or in my previous one; failing this, I’ll conclude that your last sentence was an instance of self-disclosure.

    dover_beach

    December 27, 2009 at 8:57 am

  149. Now you are outright lying DB

    Oreskes search terms were “global climate change” which includes the for, against and dont know scientists.

    Benny Peiser attempted to duplicate the search but changed some of the search terms. It was later found that he had included editorials as “scientific papers” and he had to recant his earlier position

    some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 “reject or doubt” category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

    rog

    December 27, 2009 at 9:31 am

  150. “Now you are outright lying DB

    Oreskes search terms were “global climate change” which includes the for, against and dont know scientists.”

    You really do shot from the hip, rog; sadly your pistol never leaves the holster and you manage only to harm yourself.

    I wasn’t referring to the search term she used but to the question she asked in order to distinguish between the said articles once they were collected as either endorsing or refuting the AGW thesis. The question I quoted above appears in the article you linked to on the bottom of page 71.

    Now, answer the question asked, or is it going to be more diversionary nonsense?

    dover_beach

    December 27, 2009 at 10:10 am

  151. The people who think that there is human-induced climate change would help their cause to achieve credibility if they (a) dissociate themselves from the folk who inflate the problem (b) call to order those who use scare tactics, (c) acknowledge that sources like the BBC, ABC, SMH and the ALP do not give correct information on the number of respectable scientists who are skeptics, (d) accept that the climategate revelations have revealed some deep problems in the scientific debate that are not going to go away soon.

    Rafe

    December 27, 2009 at 10:58 am

  152. If you are correct THR (and I suspect you are not) then you have destroyed the authority of all peer reviewed research. We might as well use anonymous reports on the web as the source of knowledge

    I don’t agree. Where did people acquire this broad notion that the ‘peers’ who review papers are unbiased automatons, who recognise good science every time they see it?

    THR

    December 27, 2009 at 11:34 am

  153. I can’t follow THR – are you saying that peer review meanings nothing or that it is, as frequently claimed by the AGW crowd, the only recognised endorsement of quality in research?

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 11:48 am

  154. Where did people acquire this broad notion that the ‘peers’ who review papers are unbiased automatons, who recognise good science every time they see it?
    .
    scoff at idealistic notions of ethical conduct and fair play if you like. Sure, if you hold any group of scientists or others up to some Platonic ideal they’ll fall short.
    However, by and large the peer review process has kept human jealousies and corruption to a minimum, over a long period of time.
    That’s why it’s so respected.
    But not any more. Thanks to our global warming lunatics, the peer review process will always be viewed with a more sceptical eye. That may not be a bad thing.

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 11:49 am

  155. Indeed, Rafe, I know of scientists who are uncomfortable at the exaggerations and overstatements but won’t say so publicly for fear of being accused of giving comfort and support to the enemy.
    I can’t remember the origin of “no-one on the left was his enemy” – it seems to be applied in this matter. “No statement or claim about climate change can be doubted”.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 11:53 am

  156. I can’t follow THR – are you saying that peer review meanings nothing or that it is, as frequently claimed by the AGW crowd, the only recognised endorsement of quality in research?

    Basically, I mean it isn’t perfect. This imperfection isn’t just limited to AGW research – it’s the same across the board, more or less. Like I said, each discipline has journals that tend to hold to the mainstream, and it’s almost impossible for anybody to get papers published without fitting their work into the parameters of the powers that be. Science is never immune from politics, and almost never occurs in a purified form, devoid of petty human bumbling. I’m not saying that we should abolish peer review, but rather, understand its limitations.

    THR

    December 27, 2009 at 1:18 pm

  157. let’s say you’re right, THR.
    It’s still not okay. Just because it happens “across the board” isn’t a defense against a specific accusation of malfeasance in a specific field. If we learn that physicists have been suppressing and blackballing some rival theory to, oh let’s say the existence of ‘dark matter’, then we might start to wonder if dark matter really exists. The complaint that this happens all the time won’t alleviate our new-found skepticism.
    .
    I’m not saying that we should abolish peer review, but rather, understand its limitations.
    .
    I agree with that.

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm

  158. Just to set the record straight, all the 928 peer reviewed studies that answered to ‘‘global climate change” were further examined to see if they could refute the claim ‘‘Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why’’?

    None could and others have tried and failed.

    rog

    December 27, 2009 at 4:08 pm

  159. the models are busted, rog. They predicted that the earth would warm between 2000 and 2010, which it didn’t. They “tried and failed” to predict climate trends. End of story.

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  160. d_d I’ll accept that a long term projection can accommodate variations from the trend for some time so I don’t believe the stall in warming necessarily disproves the theory. but if it goes on…
    On the other hand it makes nonsense of the attempts to attribute specific weather events to AGW.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  161. The “trend” has been occurring since the last Ice Age. There is nothing extraordinary happening other than that a collection of lefty wealth redistributionists, modernity-hating Greens, bourgeoise-accommodating politicians and egoistic pants-wetters (like Malcolm Turnbull) have decided that at this moment in geological time, we’re faced with an imminent “crisis.” What warmenists have said about reefs, hurricanes, the hockey stick, polar bears and – yes – the actual temperature of the planet over the past decade – are all either proven lies or demonstrably false scare campaigns. Now, thanks to ClimateGate, we also know that warmenism is junk science. Happily, the major emitters of carbon “pollution” don’t care what whitey Luddites want and will go on pursuing their own industrial revolutions for decades to come. Eventually, Western politicians will give up trying to convince their citizen taxpayers that they should gift the world’s corrupt Third World tyrants with “climate debt” cash and the whole phenomenon of warmening hysteria will fade away. The people of the near future will look on warmenists the way we look on phrenologists. They’ll laugh at a generation so strung out and gullible that its “scientists” and “leaders” solemnly discussed what to do about termite farts – before gathering in Copenhagen where they “agreed” to lower the planet’s temperature by two degrees.

    C.L.

    December 27, 2009 at 6:13 pm

  162. I hope you are right C.L. I really don’t know.
    My father took me to a phrenologist many years go.
    Don’t think it made any difference to anything.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 7:00 pm

  163. When it comes to providing evidence of “proven lies” CL is suddenly speechless.

    Using CL’s lofty standards the Holy See are just another bunch of egoistic pants-wetters

    “One should take advantage of the crisis to try and develop these renewable-energy sources to the maximum, which in the long run will reap incomparable rewards.”

    Lets not mention the pink shoes

    rog

    December 27, 2009 at 7:33 pm

  164. As a last ditch, after been beaten up into a blubbering idiot, Rog resorts to someone’s religious beliefs.

    Rog of course is the failed “building lot scientist” that thinks nuke energy is “carbon unfriendly”

    jc

    December 27, 2009 at 7:42 pm

  165. Shorter CL: I’m terrified and I need a new religion.

    Cyd

    December 27, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  166. moderator: it seems that Rog and Cydney are the same person. Is double trolling allowed?

    jc

    December 27, 2009 at 7:55 pm

  167. The Anti-Warmenists Alarmist Yobbos (AWAY) have a great future one can see. Not.

    Their total membership comprises cranky old charmless retro men if this blog is representative of these strange endangered critters.

    Cyd

    December 27, 2009 at 8:05 pm

  168. Nah, Cyd, unless you can engage sensibly please go away.
    There is a discussion to be had but it’s more complicated than you suggest.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 27, 2009 at 8:19 pm

  169. Still waiting for an actual argument beyond fear.

    Cyd

    December 27, 2009 at 8:23 pm

  170. Rog Cydney seems to get his financial information from Rolling Stone so he must be getting his climate science from from Crikey.

    jc

    December 27, 2009 at 8:26 pm

  171. “Just to set the record straight, all the 928 peer reviewed studies that answered to ‘‘global climate change” were further examined to see if they could refute the claim ‘‘Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why’’?

    None could and others have tried and failed.”

    Rog, all of those 928 papers were not concerned with addressing the question: “Global climate change is occurring, and human activities are at least part of the reason why?” so it is obviously a misrepresentation to say that they tried and failed to refute such a ‘claim’. And when you look at that question/ claim you find that a paper that was focused on aerosols or land cover change and thus unconcerned with GHGs would nevertheless affirm the thesis as described simply because it accepted that the earth’s climate changes and that humans may be partly responsible for such a change. The study is thus in other words a ‘travesty’.

    dover_beach

    December 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  172. Still waiting for an actual argument beyond fear.
    .
    I’m assuming you read this thread, so there’s really no excuse for “waiting for an actual argument.” For heaven’s sake, is this the kind of specious drivel we have to put up with from Greenists now? You’re a moron, Cyd. Worse, you’re a nasty, condescending, insulting moron. A moron with a superiority complex.
    The worst kind!

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 9:11 pm

  173. So, you agree with me. You have no arguments beyond juvenile ad homs.

    What does that say, do you think?

    Cyd

    December 27, 2009 at 9:12 pm

  174. Cydney:

    you get your finance news from Rolling Stone.

    “What does that say, do you think?”

    It supports Dad’s last comment about you.

    jc

    December 27, 2009 at 9:16 pm

  175. I’m terrified and I need a new religion.

    This is a classic East Anglian switch. Warmenism is a new religion and warmenists themselves are the terrified. But that’s warmenism: subvert the truth, rince, repeat – then call it a “consensus.”

    C.L.

    December 27, 2009 at 9:39 pm

  176. Is Cyd actually Adrien? Adrien quoted that exact journalist at Rolling Stone (Matt Taibbi) – in glowing terms – last year.

    C.L.

    December 27, 2009 at 9:43 pm

  177. I see former Howard disciple, Rog, has switched from ridiculing the “Holy See” (when Mary Mackillop was canonised) to quoting it with touching reverence on the subject of renewable energy. But that’s the dishonest trollery we’ve come to expect from the man who argued here recently that windmills are now able to replace nuclear power stations. The pope has also said repeatedly that attempts to manage natural ecology will fail unless humanity respects “human ecology” in relation to such genuine crises as abortion. As this is never mentioned by warmenist clerics like the corrupt railway engineer who heads the IPCC, we have to assume that official warmenism is failing the Benedictine test. And Rog, harnessing solar to power the world’s smallest state (44 hectares) is analogously worthless vis-a-vis conventional industrialised countries. Also Rog, the “Holy See” is not the same thing as “the Vatican.” The former elucidates and propounds doctrine for the salvation of souls (and, as such, will have nothing dogmatic to say about theories relating to the temperature of the planet); the latter came into existence in 1929 and is a state/bureaucracy prone to the same fashions of international politics and diplomacy as its counterparts.

    C.L.

    December 27, 2009 at 10:00 pm

  178. You have no arguments beyond juvenile ad homs.
    .
    uh, you come in here, throw ad hominems around; and announce that no arguments have been made, despite the presence of many arguments. That indicates stupidity. It wasn’t an ad hom.
    .
    Is Cyd actually Adrien? Adrien quoted that exact journalist at Rolling Stone (Matt Taibbi) – in glowing terms – last year.
    .
    No, Adrien’s witty and often has interesting things to say. Cyd’s just a troll, and not a very entertaining one either. I honestly suspect that Cyd is of high school age, bored and trapped at home with his parents in bad weather.

    daddy dave

    December 27, 2009 at 11:55 pm

  179. CL covers up his erroneous “the church has no policy on climate change” gaff with more pompous bullshit.

    You should be a gardener CL

    rog

    December 28, 2009 at 8:08 am

  180. Hey JC, it’s not my religious beliefs that are easily ridiculed, its CL’s curious amalgam of polemics

    Just for the record, according to those who should know the Vatican is the Holy See

    The Vatican State or Vatican City is a place and not the same as the Vatican.

    rog

    December 28, 2009 at 8:23 am

  181. “As Nick Minchin indicated the AGW lobby are watermelons who scheme to deindustrialise the world.”

    Yep. Industrialization is going great guns in Africa, Iraq, Greece, Poland, Bangladesh, Chechnyna, Solomon Islands, Haiti, Burma….

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 9:17 am

  182. Peggy, what point are you trying to make? Is there one?

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 10:59 am

  183. Rog:

    CL’s beliefs are pretty mainstream for a Catholic. There’s no shock or surprise there. However like every other loser- when you have nothing else left because he’s cleaned your clock- you go after his religious beliefs.

    Perhaps we ought to do the same with you and the fact that you’re a failed builder in what is perhaps the biggest boom industry in a generation. Rog, how the hell can any builder fail in the last 20 odd years. You really have to be one dumb mother…..ker.

    Pretty soon I guess you’ll be blaming the banks like Mr. Fractional Reserve does for your personal failings.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 11:05 am

  184. Who asked you JC? you nubtall

    rog

    December 28, 2009 at 11:38 am

  185. Oh that’s right, i should ask you first before I post a comment, rog, you freaking loser.

    And by the way, nutball is a word I have been using you describe you, homer and the rest of the hardline nutcases here. Try and be a little more original and get your own terms of abuse, Rog, you nutball.

    .

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 11:45 am

  186. JC claims ownership of “nutball” – how appropriate.

    rog

    December 28, 2009 at 11:47 am

  187. No Rog, I claim that you’re not even smart enough to come up with your own terms without plagiarizing other people’s.

    It’s another marker indicating you’re a loser in life in more ways than one.

    You still haven’t explained how you went broke in a 20 year building boom which is an accomplishment only the chosen few are able to achieve.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 11:54 am

  188. You still haven’t explained that nuclear energy is “carbon unfriendly” which in itself is a comment rich is stupid.

    That would go close to being the most stupid comment of the year and rivals “skanke ho” in the rich tapestry of human stupidity.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 11:59 am

  189. The gaffe was yours, Rog. The Church has no policy, no dogma, no docrine on global warming. Catholics are free to think whatever they like about it. Cardinal Pell won’t be excommunicated for his views on the subject. Nor will Tony Abbott. Yet again, you’ve been caught lying. And no, “the Vatican” is not the same thing as the “Holy See.” The former – the principal diocese of the Universal Church – elucidates and propounds doctrine for the salvation of souls (and, as such, will have nothing dogmatic to say about theories relating to the temperature of the planet); the latter – the common parlance shorthand for a polity that came into existence in 1929 – is a state/bureaucracy prone to the same fashions of international politics and diplomacy as its counterparts.

    Interesting that both Steve and Rog now admit that warmenism, for them, is a religious subject.

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  190. Of course the blame for actual recent and continuing deindustrialisation that has occurred in much of the world including within the great neo-liberal hothouse itself, the US, lies not as the post ridiculously suggests with greens, but their opponents, the neoliberal perpetrators of failed and discredited economic and financial policies implicitly defended.

    Amazing twisting of the historical record.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  191. Sinclair Davidson

    December 28, 2009 at 1:57 pm

  192. A Hayekian. Hilarious. You lose.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  193. MJ Perry is a Hayekian?

    Sinclair Davidson

    December 28, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  194. Peggy:

    Which rat hole have you climbed out of.

    Can you define neo-liberalism as these days it means pretty much everything anti-capitalists dislike.

    Question:

    Would you prefer the centralization of the means of production which seems to have always worked out for the best? (Lol)

    JC

    December 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm

  195. Go read Robert Manne in the current Quarterly Essay for the final intellectual coup de grâce to neoliberalism with especial attention to the insanity of applied Hayekian theory.

    I wouldn’t like to be MJ Perry. Academic dead meat.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm

  196. “I must admit to having no competence in economics whatsoever.”

    Robert Manne

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  197. Manne in the Quarterly Essay is dreadful. I was going to write about it but felt embarrassed at taking it seriously.
    Abstract: neo-liberalims is dead, because it lead to huge bonuses being paid to bankers. Don’t know what will replace it, but it will solve the climate problem.

    Also in the issue is a piece about how Rudd is your typical Australian by the political correspondent of the Byron Echo.

    I do suggest that you all read it – it’s not available online but it won’t break you to buy it – to check out the intellectual firepower of the Left.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 3:41 pm

  198. Dear lord, Peggy is sending me to Robert Manne for an intellectual demolition of market economics in favor of the centralization of the means of production.

    Peggy, I’m ROTFL.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 3:55 pm

  199. Yep it is brilliant. Mungo MacCallum’s piece is very good too but Manne’s is the masterpiece. It’ll be useful in the classrooms.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  200. yes but explain why you consider it to be brilliant, Peggy.

    There’s no point in telling us it’s brilliant unless you’re able to some how explain why you think that is the case- in that Manne, who he himself claims has no understanding of economics (see above), is able to thoroughly discredit market based economics for central planning.

    (Peggy and Philis sound awfully similar).

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  201. You need to be an economist to do that? Would’ve thought!

    You do have strange notions dude.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:08 pm

  202. no mention of central planning in the essay. Red herring. And why would there be? That’s all that Hayek offered y’think dude?

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  203. Mungo MacCallum!

    HAHAHAHA!

    The lefty brains trust: Manne, Ellis and Mongo!

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  204. Peggy:

    If you and Manne want to do away with market based economics you need to carefully explain what replaces it.It has to be a form of statism where the economy is run by central planners or heavy mandates like the fascists and nazis. There’s not another choice, peg.

    Do you need to be good at economics? You’d think so, no? Certainly you’d also have to take a second look at an argument presented by a person that admits he doesn’t understand economics.

    Peggy, not for nothing bu there have been tons of lefties putting up arguments against market based economics and anti-Hayek screed who would be embarrassed at the idea of using Manne as a reference point.

    Frankly they would feel embarrassed with you.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm

  205. Guess that’s why December QE’s already gone into reprint. Not surprising, Manne’s highly respected and popular.

    As I said, it’ll definitely be a text used in the classrooms next year.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:24 pm

  206. As I said, it’ll definitely be a text used in the classrooms next year.

    Like an lefty arts graduate teaching lefty slop to his humanities students will be something new and radical.

    Oh no! Please don’t. You’re too revolutionary, man.

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 4:30 pm

  207. Liberal Arts graduates…. lOl.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  208. I suggest we have a troll here, folks.
    Even our regular leftward-inclined commenters could not write approvingly about Manne on economics and keep a straight face.
    If the issue has gone into reprint it because many on the Right are reading it to see that there is little deep thinking happening on the Left.
    Kind of re-assuring, really.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  209. The Hayekian revolution died in the ass real quick didn’t it. What a fizzer lol.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  210. Peggy:

    Which Hayekian revolution are you actually talking about? There wasn’t one in the west.

    Government spending basically has progressed at a steady rate of increase over the past 30 years until now when it has made a significant jump.

    Peggy, you’re a turkey like Manne. You’re a delusional troll who thinks s/he’s found the Rosetta stones.

    Go away.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm

  211. Ellis, Mungo and Manne:

    The radical young faces of contemporary leftism.

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  212. Ken – it’s only a certain sort of rightist that is partial to groupthink. The Left has always been both more democratic, diffuse, variegated, in short, productive and ideas rich.

    The right reacts, the left innovates.

    Unfortunately, Hayek was all a certain sort of rightist had going intellectually and now he and his congregation are academically and intellectually dead meat.

    Pretty ugly really for members of that particular Church really, if ya want to be kind, given the season and all.

    LOL

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  213. Yep, that’s a troll.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  214. No kidding but is delusional/stupidity fast becoming currency in the left.

    Each leftie troll like Cydney, Phil and Peggy are racing to the bottom of the stupidity well. They’re literally jumping in head first in the stupid well without even bothering to find out how deep it is.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:45 pm

  215. C.L. I wish you hadn’t linked to those photos.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  216. umm, yes and who does the neoliberal right have that’s popular with the masses?

    /crickets

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm

  217. You forgot the young face of radical leftism, CL.

    It’s a beaut.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  218. Peggy:

    You need to define what neo-liberal right is before you first want to begin a debate.

    What is it exactly?

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  219. It needn’t be a lefty troll jc. Perhaps an otherwise sensible person having a bit of fun on a rainy day.
    It’s not great parody, though, which needs a more elaborate teasing out of the absurdities of a political stance.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  220. What the hell is that stuff growing on Mungo’s face. Is there a medical term?

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  221. Ok, there’s Sinclair Davidson.

    Anyone else come to mind?

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  222. Yea, you’re right ken. It’s got to be someone doing a parody on a lazy day.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  223. It’s all in Manne’s essay JC, beautifully encapsulated.

    Run don’t walk to your nearest bookstore or get it delivered by limo like I did.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  224. Ok, there’s Sinclair Davidson.

    Anyone else come to mind?

    There was of course Kevin Rudd, the great self proclaimed conservative thinker before his two essays that destroyed 100’s of years of classical economic thinking.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  225. I’m running, running like a bat out of hell to the newsagent, peggy. I’m all puffed out. Quick get me a drink of water.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  226. Don’t be scared of reading a leftie like Manne. Y’know if you kiss what at first seems like a frog it can turn into a Prince. You’ve got to have the guts to kiss it first tho’. Rewards must be earned.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm

  227. Conservatives are not reactionaries. Big difference.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 4:58 pm

  228. So to recap.

    No-one has been able to come up with a single populariser of neo-liberal economics. And recourse has been made to … Kevin Rudd ffs!

    ah-huh.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  229. Got it.

    On my god, peggy is right. Despite the sweat pouring down my forehead into my eyes making it difficult to read, I ran to the newsagent demanded a copy of Manne’s opus and I’m frankly gobsmacked. Bobby Manne has destroyed Hayek, neo-liberalism in a few short sentences.

    Bobby truly is the Einstein of new age thinking… a master intellectual rolled in to a human body.

    In fact I’m proclaiming Bobby as the messiah.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm

  230. Peggy:

    So to recap.

    No-one has been able to come up with a single populariser of neo-liberal economics.

    “to recap” you have to define what exactly you mean by neo-liberalism?

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  231. Peggy:

    I was kidding about kev, you moron. It was meant as a joke.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:08 pm

  232. peg – there is not much need to popularise neo-liberal economics. The tangible results produced over the past 20 years by the Hawke-Keating reforms do not need to be “popularised”. They are there for all to see.
    The current almost-recession (called by Manne the Great Recession) will be a mere hiccough in the economic progress of Australia unless Rudd does something really silly and throws it into reverse.

    Ken Nielsen

    December 28, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  233. Jokes only work if other people think they’re funny JC. Elementary lesson of communication, story-telling and standup.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm

  234. Peggy:

    An elementary lesson in comprehension is also knowing when someone is pulling your leg. Fact is, dopey, you actually took the comment about Rudd seriously.

    Now that’s funnier.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm

  235. Hawke and Keating would be two of the most unpopular former politicians today…after Howard.

    Neoliberalism informed by historical blimps like Hayek, soon to descend into richly deserved obscurity, is viewed with distaste if not specifically repudiated by the majority of people everywhere in the world – and in this country specifically, today.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 5:21 pm

  236. Hawke and Keating would be two of the most unpopular former politicians today…after Howard.

    Peg.. are you free-basing on some crack/heroin concoction?

    The three are actually reasonably popular in their own constituencies.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm

  237. but anyways.. good enough, you and Bobby Manne have called the end of neo-liberalism and thanks for letting us know.

    See ya.

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 5:26 pm

  238. To recap. There are absolutely zero popularisers of neo-liberal economics extant in Australia today, whether academics, media commentators, generalists, public intellectuals. No one to counter Ellis, Manne, and Mungo MacCallum, for starters, or with anything even approaching their popular readership.

    None. Nada. Zilch.

    pegasus

    December 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm

  239. How was Xmas, Phil?

    dover_beach

    December 28, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  240. I can’t believe the modern left is reduced to getting excited by clapped-out humanities hack, Robert Manne. I guess when your Labor prime minister is a multi-millionaire (thanks to John Howard’s employment agency reforms), stalks the American president and appears outside church every Sunday, you take your inspiration wherever you can find it.

    But look, Peg, you have my official sanction to promote Manne’s ideas in your social studies class. It’s no biggie. Knock yourself out.

    C.L.

    December 28, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  241. I can’t believe the modern left is reduced to getting excited by clapped-out humanities hack, Robert Manne.

    Or perhaps Bob Ellis.

    Bob on Q&A…. asking penny Wong a “question”.

    BOB ELLIS: Are you aware of a device which is being trialled in Queensland where coal smoke goes into a bloody great pipe and then into a shallow lake, which is 30 hectares, in which grows a weed which eats 90 per cent of the filth and then it dies and it’s compressed into bricks, which then feeds the non-coal power? Are you aware of this one?

    PENNY WONG: Look, not of that specific technology.

    If this is what the left is throwing at the right all is Okay in the world.

    It’s worth reading the transcript or listening to bob in all in splendor.

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2570963.htm

    jc

    December 28, 2009 at 6:37 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: