Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)

Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)

September 28th, 2010

It’s time (past time in fact), once again, for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpit, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. el gordo
    October 3rd, 2010 at 17:24 | #1

    This is a blog peopled by idiots, that’s why I’m here.

  2. Alice
    October 3rd, 2010 at 18:11 | #2

    @el gordo
    el gordo – what can I say except that Im not an idiot and you are here to disseminate climate science sceptic rubbish )Ive been counting your links.

    Maybe its time we both went to the sandpit to slug it out. How many sceptic links have you dropped here now? So much for sustainable production or doing the right ting by our grandkids…with people like you around who just get in the way, make empty political noise and hinder real progress.

  3. Tony G
    October 3rd, 2010 at 20:16 | #3

    Alan said @ 48;

    “Got anything from a peer-reviewed climate scientist”

    What is all the crap about peer review. A jury is a form of ‘peer review’ and I noticed they abolished the death penalty because the ‘peer review’ system has some pretty fatal flaws.

    Critics believe that peer review has a built-in bias against highly original works and results because reviewers (as do people in general) tend to be more tolerant of works and results that are consistent with their own views (AGW) and more critical of those that contradict them (skeptics). It should be kept in mind that history is replete with examples of innovations that were originally ridiculed by their peers because they contradicted the common wisdom of the day. The bias by academics against highly innovative work may be in part a result of the fact that they have vested interests in maintaining the status quo (AGW) after having spent many years or decades supporting it.

    Moreover, it has been suggested that peer review is not always good at detecting fraud, particularly in the case of articles submitted to scientific journals. One reason for this is that the reviewers often do not have immediate or full access to the data on which the articles are based (except perhaps in fields such as mathematics where it is easy to provide the data and attempt to replicate the results). This is especially so with the fraudulent AGW data put up for review by the scammers Mann & Jones.

  4. Alan
    October 3rd, 2010 at 21:06 | #4

    Sorry, Tony G, you don’t get to call Mann & Jones scammers. They have been before parliamentary committees and scientific reviews. No case to answer.

    And your case against peer review is nonsense. Capital punishment was not abolished because of jury problems but because it is completely ineffectual.

    What you are actually saying is that rightwing fabrications do not have to meet the same standards of review that you demand of actual scientists. I can see why you people would argue that way. Your scientific claims have not done well in this forum or anywhere else.

  5. Tony G
    October 3rd, 2010 at 21:41 | #5

    “Sorry, Tony G, you don’t get to call Mann & Jones scammers. They have been before parliamentary committees and scientific reviews. No case to answer.”

    Alan you can delude yourself they have ” No case to answer”, but they are scammers. Oxburgh’s report is more value as toilet paper and you can sprout disinformation about Mann & Jones if you want, but the fact remains their work is crap no matter what label people like you want to put on it.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/14/oxburgh_climategate_report/

    As for the the Muir Russel review it totally discredits the IPCC’s SPIN on things.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/07/muir-russel-review.html

    Go to any pub in Australia and you will find many people who know the truth; AGW is a fraud.
    You have a closed mind Alan the science is far from settled.

  6. Nick R
    October 3rd, 2010 at 23:09 | #6

    Yeah Alan, stop deluding yourself. If you want the real truth you should go ask some bloke in a pub, not read peer reviewed science research and the findings of the British parliamentary inquiry.

  7. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 00:26 | #7

    @Nick R

    I know. I’m shattered to learn that I have a closed mind because I question fabricated evidence. Eninstein’s papers on relativity were all peer reviewed. Now, because of my closed mind I guess, I had always thought of Einstein as at least a tad innovative. But now that I’ve been instructed on the evils of peer review by a shining intellectual light like Tony G I will have to review my ideas.

    BTW, it was the parliamentary committee, not Lord Oxburgh, who found that Jones ‘has no case to answer’ and Lord Oxburgh was only the chair, not the sole member, of the scientific review. The later independent review, which did not include Lord Oxburgh, reached similar conclusions to the parliamentary committee and the scientific appraisal.

    None of that, of course, will shift Tony G one inch. He’ll just head down to the pub for further proof of his own rightness.

  8. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 06:30 | #8

    @Nick R
    Real originality resides in the pub and not only should we should ask the blokes in the pub about climate science but we should believe them as well because all peer reviewed evidence is biased according to Tony G. The blokes in the pub are completely original and innovative (especially after a few beers).
    LOL Nick R – so this is what the right wing view on science has come to??.

  9. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 07:55 | #9

    News flash: Guy in Pub tells highly trained scientist how to do his job.

    Not only are years of study and research needless according to Tony G, but peer review is likewise no good. Tony’s alternative? Blog science! Thanks for your assertions Tony G.

  10. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 08:26 | #10

    Tony G writes [1]:

    And stop lying, you know perfectly well they haven’t finsihed with Jones’ fraud yet as per Alans link @ 38
    ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’
    Jones is a fraudster and such AGW is founded on fraudulent figures.

    [1] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268274

    I.e. in Tony’s world, Jones is a fraudster because Tony falsely believes that the Scientific Appraisal Panel is yet to bring down its findings. And Tony knows what the Panel will conclude better than those investigating the facts.

    So after Tony pronounce guilt based his ill informed prejudice, and citing the Scientific Appraisal Panel (of which he’s also ill informed) what is Tony G’s response when panel brings down finding that do not fit with Tony’s prejudice:

    Oxburgh’s report is more value as toilet paper

    Who would have thought? [2]

    [2] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/25/sandpit-259/comment-page-2/#comment-268283

  11. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 11:05 | #11

    Ha I think we are all more innovative and original after a few beers :)

    Sometimes I suspect that Tony G might not have a strong opinion on AGW but just likes being contrary. It is hard to see that he seriously believes that Jones and Mann engaged in fraud when he is clearly in possession of such strong evidence to the contrary.

  12. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 11:34 | #12

    Ha I am LOL you and Jackerman are funny

    “The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of
    the published research were correct.”

    It has been concluded from the panel and the reviews, that in the IPCC ‘s delusional ‘climate science’ there are basically only 2 peers; Jones reviewing Manns fraudulent temperature reconstructions and Mann reviewing Jones fraudulent work; it was also found that they can’t produce their data so 3rd parties can replicate their work. Their work is a fraud and anybody who denies this is perpetuating a lie.

    Jackerman and nick we all know your kind of science is ” not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were [are] correct.” but unfortunately for you and your kind the average man in a pub bases his decisions on what is correct, not on a fraud.

  13. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:01 | #13

    Whoops, Tony G’s guy in the pub forgot to give him the full quote.

    This review was undertaken by the University of East Anglia to evaluate the CRU’s research and whether the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data. The panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.

    I do thank Tony G’s guy in the pub for the link. I look forward to his special explanation for why the conclusions of the House of Commons review, the Oxburh review, the Muir Russell review, the Penn State review and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency review all reached broadly the same conclusions. Picking one at random, the PBL identified a couple of additional errors, but still found:

    Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change. There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change in the future pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at higher global average temperatures.

  14. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:02 | #14

    Last para should appear as a quote from the PBL study. I may have been spending too much time with the guy in the pub.

  15. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:19 | #15

    The House of Commons review, the Oxburh review, the Muir Russell review, the Penn State review and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency review were all “not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.” so it is understandable “they all reached broadly the same conclusions”; considering they were not concerned whether “the published research [was] correct.” they had other concerns. i.e. perpetuating a fraud.

    all reached broadly the same conclusions.

  16. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:37 | #16

    How is your allegation of fraud consistent with the UEA review’s finding (boldface mine):

    We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganized researchers who were ill?prepared for being the focus of public attention.

    The reviews (apart from the PBL review) were not appointed to validate the science, but to look for evidence of fraud. They found none. I know that disturbs your worldview. but it’s really more than faintly silly to claim

    (1) reviews appointed to find fraud found no fraud;

    (2) reviews not appointed to validate the science did not validate the science;

    therefore (3) the failure to validate the science proves precisely the fraud which the reviews rejected.

    Moreover you still have to squirm your way out of the PBL review’s conclusion, evidently you did not read it the first time so I will repeat if for your benefit:

    Our findings do not contradict the main conclusions of the IPCC on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability related to climate change. There is ample observational evidence of natural systems being influenced by climate change on regional levels. The negative impacts under unmitigated climate change in the future pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, with risks increasing at higher global average temperatures.

    And finally, if you are going to denounce as corrupt any conclusion that disagrees with your guy in the pub, please let us know so we’ll know your actually discussing the arcana of some conspiracy theory rather than any rational question.

  17. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:37 | #17

    @Tony G
    Tony – your bloke in the pub argument has not even been reviewed by other blokes in the pub.

  18. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:25 | #18

    Alice, I was there on friday and ‘the consenus’ was overwelming; AGW is a fraud.

    Alan, maintaining a ‘deceitful pretense’ is fraud, regardless of what ‘spin’ you put on it. You state yourself the enquiries”were not appointed to validate the science,” your science is a fraud so obviously if you are not going to look at or “validate” ‘the science’ you are not going to find ‘the fraud’.

    Alan, just admit that if you acheived your goal of increasing public sector revenue to 100% of GDP it would have no effect on climate, so stop maintaining this ‘deceitful pretense’ that it will.

  19. October 4th, 2010 at 13:42 | #19

    We have tended to assume that Tony G’s “bloke in the pub” was a guy in a public house — a place for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Perhaps he’s referring to a bloke in a publishing house, like The Heritage Foundation or CATO or AEI of some other filth merchant think tank.

    Doubtless they would indeed say that it’s all one big conspiracy (them not us) to force innocent polluters to pay for the right to treat the biosphere as an industrial sewer and to store their effluent in living tissue oops pay for greedy scientists who just want government grants to help make Al Gore even fatter and take away our guns and finance lazy third worlders to live like us while bringing down western civilisation in a Marxist revolution to honour Gaia that returns humanity to the conditions of the pleistocene era while taxing us all even more.

    Like TonyG, they know “the truth” after all. Those blokes in the pub — you can’t fool them.

  20. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:42 | #20

    Sorry Tony G that is not what I stated.

    You may care to work a little on your reading comprehension before you embarrass yourself further. I stated that the reviews, apart from the PBL review, were commissioned to investigate fraud, not validate the science. The fraud reviews all rejected the fraud allegation. The PBL review, which was commissioned to validate the science, um validated the science.

    You reject the fraud inquiries because they did not validate the science and therefore, in your view anyway, prove the fraud. You also reject the science review, presumably, although you do not say so, because it did not validate the fraud.

    I have no goal to increase public sector revenue to 100% of GDP. I have never stated on this blog or elsewhere that my goal is to increase public sector revenue to 100% of GDP. That is merely another of your lies. Or did you hear it from the guy in the pub?

    As for your claim that I am maintaining a ‘deceitful pretense’ sic you are giving yourself away. If all claims that global warming is occurring are a deceitful pretence, then there is simply nothing to discuss. However, when looking for deceit we might wonder why a proven fraud, such as yourself, should be trusted with or without peer review.

    I do not say ‘proven fraud’ lightly. I say it because you have repeatedly posted claims, as at #12, where you give a partial quotation that gives the exact opposite impression of what the full quote says.

  21. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:50 | #21

    Tony G I am interested in why you feel so sure that AGW is a fraud. Do you think that the various inquiries show evidence of fraud, or that the panels themselves are involved in the fraud by covering it up?

    Jones and Mann are certainly not the only scientists to be studying climate change. Do you think that (almost) all climate-related scientists are actively involved in fraud, or that only some are and the rest simply persist with the status quo for professional advantage?

    Lastly I am sure that you would agree that (while they may or may not be true) claims of conspiracy require very strong evidence. Do you think that you evidence is really strong enough? For example if I were to claim that the Sept 11 attacks were orchestrated by the Bush administration and produced evidence as strong as your own, would you be convinced?

  22. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:00 | #22

    Tony G accused Jones et al of fraud then writes off the findings of the inquiries because they were too focused on the question of whether fraud had occurred.

    Tony’s prejudice is that Jones et al are fraudsters. When confronted with the facts [1], Tony G flip flops to the other side of his face and complains that:

    [1] http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/28/monday-message-board-on-tuesday-11/comment-page-2/#comment-268508

    “The Panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.”

    Being of the certain persuasion that he is (prejudiced closed minded and less than honest), meant that Tony G did not mention that the inquiry was focused on:

    This review was undertaken by the University of East Anglia to evaluate the CRU’s research and whether the conclusions represented an honest and scientifically justified interpretation of the data. The panel was not concerned with the question of whether the conclusions of the published research were correct.

    I.e. Tony G accused Jones et al of fraud then writes off the findings of the inquiries because they were too focused on the question of whether fraud had occurred.

  23. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:00 | #23

    OK Alan & Nick, lets agree to disagree on AGW, it is obvious I do not share your blind ‘faith’ (my middle name really IS thomas), but answer me this;

    At what proportion of GDP do public sector revenues need to be before they start demonstrating a control of the climate?

  24. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:14 | #24

    @Tony G

    No. You’ve made repeated claims of fraud. The documentary record does not support those claims although you have deceitfully tried to claim it does. Apparently you have an aprioristic belief that the ethics of climatologists are as unimpressive as your own.

    You do not get to change the subject to some furphy about the proportion of GDP. The object is not ‘to demonstrate a control of the climate’. The object is to avoid dangerous dangerous climate change. There is no direct relationship between the public sector share of GDP and the level of dangerous climate change.

    I suspect in your mind there is, but that is only because you have persuaded yourself that climate change is an evil socialist plot.

  25. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:19 | #25

    An interesting question Tony, but I think a better one is simply how much will it cost? I have read a few papers and reports on this (including on this blog) and it seems that around 1-2% percent of GDP is a fairly reasonable figure to mitigate AGW. Of course it may be considerably higher (or lower) but we should pursue action until the marginal benefit equals the marginal cost, whatever that may be.

    Just to place the figure of 2% per year in context (using an example given here by JQ) if per capita real economic growth is 2% per year then it means that mitigating climate change will cost around a year of economic growth. Thus in 2050 we will have 2049 living standards. This doesn’t seem to burdensome to me.

  26. October 4th, 2010 at 14:20 | #26

    @Tony G

    Tony’s post here would be called non-responsive in a court of law. He alleges both fraud, and then a determined campaign to cover up fraud by a number of investigative bodies set up to examine whether fraud had taken place, adduces no evidence at all for either claim and then tries “let’s call it a draw” since those denying fraud are moved by “blind faith”.

    Truly, Tony lacks a functioning irony app otherwise he could not have made this claim.

    Then he decides in true Gish Galloping style, to move the goalposts from his baseless and refuted defamation of people who actually have both integrity and expertise to an entirely different proposition, which, precisely because he is a witting propagandist for the filth merchants or a simple dupe he also specifies inaccurately.

    Really, one need look no further than the spruikers and delusionals on this question to see why policy will never be framed by such folk.

  27. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:23 | #27

    The claims of AGW fraud are well documented, I say there is a fraud you say there isn’t, lets just leave it to the people who froze thier balls off last winter to decide for themselves.

    “There is no direct relationship between the public sector share of GDP and the level of dangerous climate change.”

    So implementing a carbon tax is based on a fraud? as there is no relationship between tax “and the level of dangerous climate change.”

  28. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:25 | #28

    Sorry Alan/Fran, I didn’t mean to reinforce the idea that changing the subject was analogous to a draw. In this case it clearly is not.

  29. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:27 | #29

    Nick demonstrate a nexus between 2% of GDP having any influence on the climate?

  30. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:32 | #30

    @Tony G
    says “Alice, I was there on friday and ‘the consenus’ was overwelming; AGW is a fraud.”

    Tony – I think you stayed a bit too long in the pub.

  31. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:33 | #31

    The claims of AGW fraud cannot be well-documented. You have been trying to document AGW fraud in this thread and all you’ve produced is a spectacular exercise is circular reasoning based on partial quotations.

    I did not say there is no relationship between a carbon tax and avoiding dangerous climate change. I said there is no relationship between the public sector share of GDP and avoiding dangerous climate change. Most carbon tax proposals are designed to be revenue neutral, so they would have no effect on the public sector share of GDP. Current and proposed carbon trading schemes are more complex and I’ll leave that to people better informed than I am.

    Personally I’d support a revenue neutral carbon tax, although I think Prof Q supports a carbon trading scheme.

  32. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:38 | #32

    Tony G This is not my area of expertise but you can find the relevant literature quite easily. The Stern report contains estimates of this magnitude, as do a number of other reports that JQ has linked to in the past.

    Of course the figure of 2% is largely irrelevant. As I have said, we should pursue this (or any other policy) while the gains outweigh the costs regardless of the magnitudes.

  33. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:41 | #33

    @Fran Barlow
    LOL Fran. The only thing coming out of Tony G and his pub mates is more industrial sewerage.

  34. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:45 | #34

    @Alice

    I would have said hot air but I’d be accused of fraudulently exaggerating the temperature.

  35. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:47 | #35

    Alice, I know you do not like the Murdock press but I could be one of the 200,000 or the 2 million. (people around here will label me one of the 200,000.)
    http://www.news.com.au/alcohol-brain-injury-crisis-looms/story-e6frfkp9-1111114114784

    Anyway I am off to test the theory and to offend more people with circular reasoning.

  36. October 4th, 2010 at 15:31 | #36

    @Alice

    Yes, although if he were able to produce industrial sewerage through emesis, he’d be a fairly useful chap. ;-)

    {/pedant}

  37. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 15:52 | #37

    Well it has all been quite amusing Tony G – maybe you do have your uses in terms of recyclable hotel effluvia.. but I am now off to some fresh sand to see what hot air is emanating from el gordo!

  38. October 4th, 2010 at 19:30 | #38

    @el gordo

    This is a blog peopled by idiots, that’s why I’m here.

    Yes, and you are several of them.

  39. October 4th, 2010 at 19:41 | #39

    I found this amusing reading:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/i-should-never-have-joined-the-national-party-rob-oakeshott/story-e6frf7l6-1225933306142

    If I am to believe him, he was dumb enough in 1993 to be all three of the three wise monkeys. A staffer, who joins the NATS and runs a campaign who doens’t know they are conservative? Did he not have any friends who shared his want of conservative conviction who queried how he could be working for the NATS as a staffer, let alone a candidate?

    Nope. Luckily for him, I don’t believe him. Nobody is that thick. The more plausible hypothesis is that he was simply playing games with them to advance his career. He figured his chances in the ALP were zip and went about it another way.

    Sneaky. Mind you, the NATS are as filthy and sleazy a political organisation as there is, so they can’t complain. Big time Schadenfreude!

    If one believes what he says about his impulses now, he seems like a reasonable fellow. Were I a Lyne voter, he’d probably get my 2nd preference.

  40. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 19:44 | #40

    The strangest thing…
    Could someone please read the first entry for Blankfein (Wikipedia) on a google search of Blankfein and tell me Im not hallucinating?

    http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=blankfein&rlz=1W1ADRA_en&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=Blankfein&gs_rfai=&fp=cd3262fa7a261e2c

  41. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 20:06 | #41

    I mean this is just too bizarre – so I copied it here

    This is the first item that google pulls upn for a search on Blankfein

    Lloyd Blankfein – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Lloyd Craig Blankfein (born September 20, 1954) is the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of white collar crime institute Goldman Sachs. …

    Life and career – Goldman CEO – Politics – See also
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Blankfein – Cached – Similar

    I swear thats what it says…but it says nothing like that whe you click on the link!

Comment pages
1 2 8863
Comments are closed.