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
    September 28th, 2010 at 22:21 | #1

    US temperature adjustment appears to be unnaturally slanted on the warm side, in hockey stick style.

    http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1998uschanges5.gif

  2. jakerman
    September 28th, 2010 at 23:45 | #2

    Actually most of the temperature rise is unnatural. As is the shrinking of glaciers, the rise in sealevel, and the warming forcing of biological response.

    An improper bias (due to factors such as growth of trees around temperature stations producing shading and transpiration cooling etc) are quantified and adjusted according to published procedures [1].

    [1] http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data

    BTW

    The cooling bias if anything persists:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Guest-post-in-Guardian-on-microsite-influences.html

    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/18/correcting-for-bias-in-the-surface-temperature-record/

  3. el gordo
    September 29th, 2010 at 06:27 | #3

    The game is almost up Janet, Jones et al. are now recognizing that natural, large scale factors are forcing global changes. In a remarkable interview with Harrabin (BBC) the CRU leader steps back – Watts and C3 have the full story.

    Natural variability is everything and the CO2 gravy train is slowly coming to a halt.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013487bd8bc5970c-pi

  4. el gordo
    September 29th, 2010 at 07:05 | #4

    Stephen McIntyre has made the New Stateman 50 and comes in just below Angelina Jolie. Technically speaking, its not a bad place to be.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keeper

  5. el gordo
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:00 | #5

    Jakerman

    The Atmoz article was interesting, technical but readable. Might take it away and get the other viewpoint.

  6. Alice
    September 29th, 2010 at 10:51 | #6

    Pleased to see Bob Katter vote for Slipper. I hope thats not all the “cane” Bob Katter gives Tony Abbott and the Nationals who have done very little for country people for decades and who ran down free market road with John Howard.
    Katter really makes Barnaby Joyce look like the bootlicking fool he is.
    Whilst I was disappointed at first that Katter didnt join Oakshott and Windsor…the more I think about it…

  7. Chris Warren
    September 29th, 2010 at 11:38 | #7

    el gordo :

    Natural variability is everything and the CO2 gravy train is slowly coming to a halt.
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013487bd8bc5970c-pi

    More F’n stupidity from this fellow.

    He did not have the integrity to admit that his chart was artificially created by the dirty trick of vertically shifting later data down by 0.3 degrees!!!.

    See the original at:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

    Of course if you flatten one set of data like this, but leave the co2 rise un adjusted – the correlation weakens.

    Bloody fool.

  8. el gordo
    September 29th, 2010 at 12:24 | #8

    The Hadley plot is impressive.

  9. hrvoje
    September 29th, 2010 at 23:48 | #9

    Hi John,
    I am curious to know what you think of MMT (modern monetary theory)? Surely you’d have an opinion, or have you blogged about it before. Quick search ‘mmt’ on this side gets no result.

  10. Mike
    September 30th, 2010 at 00:11 | #10

    Once again I am reminded of the unscientific nature of most AWG “skepticism”, with the “magical natural cycles explain all” line of argument.

    For starters why there “should” be a correlation between CO2 and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems rather odd. Since the CO2 increase is due to man (and I can’t think of any reputable scientist who disputes this) it seems like the most pointless of graphs.

    Not that original source that Chris pointed out is any better. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that something which oscillates back in forth around zero isn’t able to cause a sustained rise in temperature, it might add variability to the year to year or decadal trend but it can’t cause the trend over longer time periods.

    And lastly of course is the “magic” part of the natural cycles, in which any cycle, without consideration for how much heat it moves around and therefore how much effect it could actually have on global temperatures, is claimed to be able to explain the temperature record.

  11. jquiggin
    September 30th, 2010 at 06:21 | #11

    @hrvoje
    I must admit to being fairly ignorant of these ideas, though they were mentioned by Steve Keen at the Conference of Economists the other day. I am generally sceptical of the idea that macroeconomic policy can be based on monetary reform.

  12. Chris Warren
    September 30th, 2010 at 11:13 | #12

    @Mike

    Lets not get too tangled up in a canard from a twit.

    SST data is not the key to the magnitude of global warming as it is buffered by underlying seawater, to a depth of miles, and there is considerable mixing in top layers.

    In any case acidification is proximate evidence for warming as solubility of CO2 increases with temperature (carbonic acid).

    Just because a fool cannot use their own references properly, does not mean that the original references are useful or relevant in themselves. Only fools follow fools.

    At mid-depth (700-1100 metres) temperatures have warmed 0.1 C ["Science" (295) p1275]

    Human induced CO2 from fossil fuels is the whole problem, warming is only part of the issue. Other effects apart from temperature also impact on the ecology.

  13. Chris Warren
    September 30th, 2010 at 11:13 | #13

    jquiggin :
    @hrvoje
    I must admit to being fairly ignorant of these ideas, though they were mentioned by Steve Keen at the Conference of Economists the other day. I am generally sceptical of the idea that macroeconomic policy can be based on monetary reform.

    I don’t think economists can even define what they mean by “money” these days.

  14. Mike
    September 30th, 2010 at 12:21 | #14

    @ Chris

    Don’t worry mate, I know EG’s form and am not planning on getting into a pointless argument with an ideologue. I just find it humorous/sad that many “skeptics” never seem to ask themselves how much their favourite cycle actually affects the radiative balance of the planet (if at all), which is of course, the critical factor.

  15. el gordo
    September 30th, 2010 at 12:27 | #15

    The new Royal Society guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

    In the trade they call this ‘quote mining’.

  16. jakerman
    September 30th, 2010 at 12:50 | #16

    EG glad you can name your technique. Can you explain why ‘quote mining’ is considered poor practice?

    Then can you explain why you proudly practice it?

  17. el gordo
    September 30th, 2010 at 14:59 | #17

    ‘The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.’

    The slip-up or inadvertent comment is what journalists thrive on to get the real story. It is poor practice, but we have to live and it’s better than working in the cannery.

  18. Alan
    September 30th, 2010 at 15:06 | #18

    @jakerman

    el gordo cannot explain anything. You will probably get a quote about quote mining.

  19. jakerman
    September 30th, 2010 at 15:18 | #19

    I note EG you did not explain why it is considered poor practice. Care to answer this?

    Also note we are not talking about a “slip up or inadvertent comment”. We are discussing concious minded quote mining.

  20. el gordo
    September 30th, 2010 at 15:24 | #20

    There is noting wrong with quote mining, as long as the quote is accurate. A good example is when David Rose went head to head with Mojib Latif.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/11/mojib-latif-slams-daily-mail/

  21. Jim Birch
    September 30th, 2010 at 16:34 | #21

    A glucosamine study was discussed on RN’s Health Report this week. Pod or transcript available but this quote gives a succinct summary of the benefit and harm ledger:

    Norman Swan: So the bottom line is if you’ve got arthritis and you’re taking glucosamine or chondroitin you’re unlikely to be doing yourself any harm apart from wasting your hard earned money.

    Peter Juni: Indeed.

  22. jakerman
    September 30th, 2010 at 17:12 | #22

    How quickly EG turns on himself, firstly he accurately writes:

    quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.’ [...] It is poor practice, but we have to live and it’s better than working in the cannery.

    Then when feeling the need to defend his actions he flips and makes a mockery of himself:

    There is noting wrong with quote mining, as long as the quote is accurate.

  23. Alan
    September 30th, 2010 at 17:36 | #23

    We now have the full quote (PDF) from the Royal Society, not the quote mined from el gordo’s house of mirrors:

    There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate

    The paper concludes:

    is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

  24. Alan
    September 30th, 2010 at 17:38 | #24

    Grrr, the first quote ends with ‘responses’ and the second begins with ‘There’

  25. el gordo
    September 30th, 2010 at 18:40 | #25

    Very perceptive, jakerman. Now here is an example of a journalist trying to get Meteogroup’s Frank Abel to mention CAGW, but he seems reluctant. More a warmist than an alarmist.

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/29/weatherman-slaps-down-newsman-todays-extremes-nothing-new/

  26. jakerman
    September 30th, 2010 at 19:53 | #26

    Very perceptive, jakerman…

    Not especially, just basic adherence to accuracy and honesty.

    Now care to answer my question, why is quote mining poor practice?

  27. Alan
    September 30th, 2010 at 20:03 | #27

    Surely, el gordo, it would be more interesting to know why you quote mined the Royal Society report to give the impression that it supports your view when in fact it does the exact opposite. Please note that running away and changing the subject is not a defence to your intellectual dishonesty.

  28. el gordo
    October 1st, 2010 at 06:18 | #28

    The Royal Society has been too involved in this emotive issue and will need to avoid hyperbole in the future, to retain some semblance of credibility.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/30/the-royal-societys-toned-down-climate-stance/

  29. jakerman
    October 1st, 2010 at 08:20 | #29

    El gordo, I can see it is an uncomfortable question for you to address. But blatant hand waving and distraction only make it look worse.

    How about you just answer the question, why is quote mining poor practice?

  30. el gordo
    October 1st, 2010 at 10:07 | #30

    To break the back of the CAGW consensus its important to expose the lies and deceit, so I’m happy to quote people out of context if it fits the story.

    Keep in mind the quotes are legitimate, but obviously in a moral sense its poor practice.

  31. jakerman
    October 1st, 2010 at 10:23 | #31

    Quite telling el gordo, you are:

    happy to quote people out of context if it fits the story

    And the story you wish to manipulate the facts to fit is anything that will help:

    break the back of the CAGW consensus

    You recognize this is immoral, yet you fail to acknowledge that it is illegitimate. Let me help you understand why quote mining is illegitimate. Firstly ask you know quote mining is:

    a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

    The need to do this in order to shoe-horn into a preconceived narrative under lines the fragility and lack of real support for your preferred narrative. If you need to distort the author’s meaning of quotes to fit a narrative, your narrative is weakened not strengthened.

  32. Donald Oats
    October 1st, 2010 at 10:28 | #32

    Quote mining is the practice of selective quoting, including the choice of start and end of the quoted text, with the intention to deceive the reader. The deception is usually of the variety that makes the quoted person seem to support something that they actually do not, or vice versa.

    E.G. see EG.

    AGW is a scientific question that has been amply supported by observations, both instrumental and paleo – the paleo concerning the constraints upon sensitivity. Not one of the alternative ideas has scientific credibility, and most other ideas can be ruled out comprehensively. Quote mining is often used to imply quite the reverse state of the science, and that is where the quote miner has crossed the moral line from valid scientific argument to intending to deceive; the cost of deception in this case is that it might further delay whatever corrective action is still available to humans.

    EG stick to scientific arguments and you might garner some respect, but quote mining (to “disprove” AGW) is just sheer lunacy.

  33. el gordo
    October 1st, 2010 at 12:42 | #33

    Okay, let’s stick to scientific arguments.

  34. jakerman
    October 1st, 2010 at 13:34 | #34

    We’ll see if el gordo can change to adopted this approach [stick to scientific arguments]. And if he can, we’ll see for how long.

    Note el gordo, link spamming with misleading intros does not fit with sticking to scientific arguments.

  35. Nick R
    October 1st, 2010 at 14:01 | #35

    Scientific arguments are great but arguments about the science from non-experts are a waste of time. Lets not get these confused.

    A non-expert (such as myself) can offer a superficially plausible argument that is entirely spurious, but where a solid understanding of the subject matter is required to understand why.

    Most people who take the AGW hypothesis seriously only do so as they have correctly assessed that this is the expert opinion on the matter. Tony G and el gordo will struggle to gain traction with educated people unless they can have an impact on expert scientific opinion. That AGW skeptics do not even appear to be trying speaks volumes about their lack of conviction.

  36. Nick R
    October 1st, 2010 at 14:05 | #36

    The other option for the AGW skeptic is to argue that they could never influence real science as real science is involved in a massive conspiracy including many thousands of scientists and all scientific boards of international standing. The plausibility of this argument needs to be assessed against the plausibility of of the alternative, which is that the AGW hypothesis is genuinely supported by the research.

  37. Alan
    October 1st, 2010 at 16:09 | #37

    el gordo

    We would love to stick to scientific arguments. It is your intellectual dishonesty, your willingness (and I quote your own words), to quote people out of context if it fits the story that prevents scientific argument.

  38. el gordo
    October 1st, 2010 at 21:00 | #38

    Joseph D’Aleo and Don Easterbrook have this paper doing the rounds. What they have to say reinforces the theory that we can expect two decades of cooling.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf

  39. Alan
    October 1st, 2010 at 21:43 | #39

    el gordo

    Perhaps you could find something peer-reviewed rather than the output of climate skeptic belief tank

  40. jakerman
    October 1st, 2010 at 21:56 | #40

    El gordo there is no theory that we can expect decades of cooling, there are just claims made in discredited social science journals like E&E.

  41. el gordo
    October 1st, 2010 at 21:56 | #41

    This is the gist of it.

    ‘Temperatures fluctuated between warm and cool at least 22 times between 1480 AD and 1950 (Figure 10). None of the warming periods could have possibly been caused by increased CO2 because they all preceded rising CO2.’

  42. jakerman
    October 1st, 2010 at 22:49 | #42

    So what? that’s not a theory.

  43. Mike
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:18 | #43

    And what scientific journal is this “magical natural cycles explain all” argument published in?

  44. el gordo
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 | #44

    AGW is a theory.

  45. October 2nd, 2010 at 11:50 | #45

    @el gordo

    AGW is a theory.

    Which, for those who grasp the meaning of “theory” in scientific discourse (as opposed to common or lay parlance) does not at all diminish its significance for public policy. Something in science that becomes “a theory” has already been accepted by those in the field as the best explanator of the observed phenomenon(a) to the exclusion of others.

    cf: Maths (theorem)

  46. Chris Warren
    October 2nd, 2010 at 11:52 | #46

    @el gordo

    More stupidity.

    Of course El Nino and southern Oscillation correlate with sea temperatures.

    If you use real data at :

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    you will find the annual average minimums of 1955 (-1.24) and 1975 (-1.14) have not been equalled or matched since.

    So the trend shows warming underpinning other fluctuations.

    Also the recent annual average maximums of 1987 (+1.29) and 1997 (+1.26) were never reached in the past.

    So the trend again shows warming underpinning other fluctuations.

    Only fools get tangled up in the other fluctuations – which are normal and can be expected.

    You are one such fool.

  47. el gordo
    October 3rd, 2010 at 14:44 | #47

    ‘Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory.’

    Jennifer Marohasy 3 October 2010

  48. Alan
    October 3rd, 2010 at 15:21 | #48

    Got anything from a peer-reviewed climate scientist, el gordo? Field biologists that used to work for the IPA do not really count. BTW, you really should learn how to hot-link. Unless, of course, you think the presence of ‘hot’ in the word proves that it was invented by evil climate scientists.

  49. Chris Warren
    October 3rd, 2010 at 16:14 | #49

    el denialist gordo :
    ‘Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory.’

    Denialists currently seek attention from climate science to the extent that many consider it an annoyance – not a joke.

  50. Alice
    October 3rd, 2010 at 17:14 | #50

    @el gordo
    El gordo – you fool quoting Marohasy who is unknown outside her employment by the IPA.
    Please go away and join your friends elsewhere. This is not a blog peopled by idiots.

  51. el gordo
    October 3rd, 2010 at 17:24 | #51

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

  52. Alice
    October 3rd, 2010 at 18:11 | #52

    @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.

  53. Tony G
    October 3rd, 2010 at 20:16 | #53

    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.

  54. Alan
    October 3rd, 2010 at 21:06 | #54

    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.

  55. Tony G
    October 3rd, 2010 at 21:41 | #55

    “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.

  56. Nick R
    October 3rd, 2010 at 23:09 | #56

    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.

  57. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 00:26 | #57

    @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.

  58. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 06:30 | #58

    @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??.

  59. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 07:55 | #59

    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.

  60. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 08:26 | #60

    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

  61. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 11:05 | #61

    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.

  62. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 11:34 | #62

    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.

  63. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:01 | #63

    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.

  64. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:02 | #64

    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.

  65. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:19 | #65

    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.

  66. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:37 | #66

    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.

  67. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 12:37 | #67

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

  68. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:25 | #68

    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.

  69. October 4th, 2010 at 13:42 | #69

    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.

  70. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:42 | #70

    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.

  71. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 13:50 | #71

    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?

  72. jakerman
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:00 | #72

    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.

  73. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:00 | #73

    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?

  74. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:14 | #74

    @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.

  75. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:19 | #75

    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.

  76. October 4th, 2010 at 14:20 | #76

    @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.

  77. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:23 | #77

    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.”

  78. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:25 | #78

    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.

  79. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:27 | #79

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

  80. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:32 | #80

    @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.

  81. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:33 | #81

    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.

  82. Nick R
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:38 | #82

    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.

  83. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:41 | #83

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

  84. Alan
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:45 | #84

    @Alice

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

  85. Tony G
    October 4th, 2010 at 14:47 | #85

    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.

  86. October 4th, 2010 at 15:31 | #86

    @Alice

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

    {/pedant}

  87. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 15:52 | #87

    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!

  88. October 4th, 2010 at 19:30 | #88

    @el gordo

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

    Yes, and you are several of them.

  89. October 4th, 2010 at 19:41 | #89

    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.

  90. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 19:44 | #90

    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

  91. Alice
    October 4th, 2010 at 20:06 | #91

    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!

Comments are closed.