A day ago, it looked as if Malcolm Turnbull could survive at least long enough to implement his deal with Labor, a deal that would deliver a drastically weakened emissions trading scheme with massive overcompensation of every possible big business interest. It would be marvellous to report that a popular uprising against rent-seeking lobby groups changed all this. But, in fact, Turnbull’s leadership has been rendered untenable by a Liberal Party base, and commentariat, that has entered a state of collective insanity in which the most absurd conspiracy theories are taken as a starting point for reasoning. Over time on this blog, I’ve seen even seemingly sensible commenters of a libertarian or conservative cast of mind succumb to this tribalist lunacy. The handful who have resisted (hi, Tokyo Tom) are increasingly regarded as “beyond the pale”.
From delusional beliefs on climate science follow equally delusional beliefs on political strategy, symbolised by the 37 votes for a Kevin Andrews spill yesterday and by the apparent certainty that, assuming Turnbull holds his ground, a majority of Liberals will vote for the delusionist candidate, Tony Abbott
Amazingly, even the editorialist at the Oz, whose columnists have uniformly promoted delusional conspiracy theories recognises the hopelessness of such a stance. as the Oz says
In truth, there is nowhere for Coalition members to go on this issue, other than to support the amended and improved bill and claim as their work the concessions they have wrung from the government. The introduction of a cap-and-trade ETS has been bipartisan policy for more than two years and it is supreme folly for rebels within the Liberals to believe they can go to an election as the destroyers, rather than the enablers, of such a scheme.
There may be room for the Nationals to argue against an ETS in the bush, but it is politically naive to think that voters in the inner-city areas of Melbourne and Sydney would welcome such regressive policies from their MPs. How exactly would Mr Abbott, for example, propose campaigning on this issue in seats such as North Sydney and Wentworth, where Liberal voters are determined to see action on climate change? Having a bob each way on the issue will not go down well with voters who have followed the debate and who expect, as Mr Turnbull says, responsible political parties to take responsible action
There is no reasoning with lunatics, and my attempts to do so have gone nowhere. At this point, we just have to hope that they will remain, as they are at present, in the minority, and that they can be kept as far as possible from political power.
There’s no guarantee that sanity will prevail. As the conman in Huckleberry Finn says ‘Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” But, as I recall, he ends up tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
John Quiggin 
@paul walter
Paul, if that was directed to me, I have no idea what you are talking about.
As I have said, my original purpose was to raise something that JQ might not be aware of. I have no interest in discussing or debating the meaning and sub meanings of words here or anywhere else. You either believe what SANE suggests is useful or you don’t.
I believe it is, it seems JQ believes it isn’t or doesn’t apply in this situation.
Nothing more to say, really.
just been watching “Onesiders” this morning. I almost never watch TV so I found it pretty odd. I was astonished that the three other panelists never once took Bolt to task as he repeatedly asserted that “the science” showed that the Earth was cooling/global warming was a hoax. While I am open to the suggestion that Bolt is a Labor mole destroying the party from the inside, I think it’s pretty pathetic that the ABC can find nobody who takes themselves seriously enough to go on that show and actually point out that 2+2=4. I don’t know who the other three people were but they must have been chosen for their laziness. Furthermore my neighbour has gone on holidays so I collected their “Sunday Mail” and read it. I can’t believe anyone would read this, let alone pay $2 for it, as it is mostly advertisements, and the print and texture make it unsuitable for wiping. However they did have a two page spread about how popular Hockey is and how voters believe the ETS is being “rushed through” according to a Galaxy poll (I used to do these actual polls calling people up at dinnertime for Galaxy, and most “policy” questions are worded to elicit the pavlovian response desired by those commissioning it. The place also did a poll commissioned by Macdonalds after the movie “Supersize Me” came out with “questions” like “Are you aware that the film’s depictions of Macdonald’s Chicken McNugget making process are inaccurate?”).
@jquiggin
It is what John Schellnhuber said at the the “4 Degrees and Beyond, International Climate Science Conference”
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
We probably agree more rather than less on the topic of being transparent with data provenance and open access where possible. I’ve encountered research articles in which an inner sanctum knew the labyrinthian twists and turns back to the original data, but for a knowledgeable new-comer it requires a lot of phone calls, emails, and sleuthing. Even then some things are just lost to circumstance. Now back in the 80s or early 90s I can appreciate how several major impediments to open access existed, including permanent storage costs for big, possibly one-off, datasets, slow internet (we still used sneakernet back then for just that reason), political troubles between countries (eg Russia and Australia prior to the end of Communism – scientists still worked together, but data didn’t necessarily enjoy glasnost, shall we say), etc.
In today’s world, where a 100MB regular update to a particular OS is no longer a cause for raised eyebrows, and where even my pockets can afford multiple Terabyte disk storage, it shouldn’t be a concern for academic researchers any longer. A webpage with a few links, or embedded links in the research article itself to direct people to the relevant data, is sooo easy now it is a no-brainer.
So there you go Terje, we share some common ground here 🙂
But, I think 58 FOIs in 5 days is a bit more than just coincidence. Further more, when M asks for something, is given a reasonable response, including being told where and how to get the data in question, then further repetitions of asking for that same data is perhaps not as reasonable? As far as I’m aware, the CRU scientists that initially dealt with M in 2002 thought they had provided him with what he needed/wanted, to the best of their ability. M felt otherwise. Accounts differ.
My level of trust in M is low due to the Lonnie Thomson affair. Lonnie and his team(s) regularly took field trips into truly life-threatening country-side, namely the death-zone up in the mountains all over the globe. They lost at least one life doing this. Then along comes M and does what he does. His uninformed claims about Lonnie with-holding data and his subsequent attacks upon Lonnie’s reputation, and by extension his various teams, was unwarranted and unfounded. Others may see it differently, but that diminished M in my eyes, and irrevocably.
As far as I can see, the issue with CRU and M over the years is just a continuation of his M.O. from earlier stoushes with Lonnie Thomson.
Serious question: of all of the “issues” M has detected in climate science data, how many of them increase the evidence of recent global warming, as opposed to how many of the “issues” decrease the evidence of recent global warming? I’ll take a guess based entirely on ignorance that the first category is exactly 0.
@Donald Oats
oops Don LOL whats a little exaggeration between friends eh?
Only 58 FOI requests ? Well then, tell Terje I have no doubt it was a conspiracy after all. And if Terje wants to ask who the conspirators were tell him I have no idea – conspirators generally dont advertise their activities, but Id sure to know. Likely media organisations behind them I suspect and that is likely Murdoch inspired. Just another unpleasant M word.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje – “what do you mean by rednecks?” You know what I mean by rednecks Terje. But just in case Ill post the wiki for you (its Sunday – are you sleeping in?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck
Ive never really noticed before Terje but have a close look at your photo – I detect just a little redness under the jaw line. Have you been out in the Sun lately?
Alice – I note that you answered my least significant question with a non answer. However my more significant question remains and it is as follows.
First you said regarding FOI requests:
When I challenge this you immediately said:-
So is it “organised” or “disorganised”. Is it just “rabble” or is it “concerted”?
Please decide.
McIntyre isn’t the author of the 58 FOIs as far as I know. Perhaps you know something I don’t know.
JQ As I said I only saw the comment attributed to you. Thats what led me here.
I think you can seethat I didn’t realise what an out and out troll I was being trying to evoke comment.
I clearly should have read the definition of troll before I tried my hand at commenting myself.
The aspect of trolls making a comment to evoke an emotional response has particuarly given me pause. I didn’t realise I was doing that, and how irritating it must be to people trying to converse on a thread.
MEMO TO SELF:
Read Quiggin blog…Good
Comment on Qiggin blog ..Bad
@Philomena
What a lovely poem. Lawson was on to their like. Dont worry Philo – we will stain the wattle red in parliament yet and the detritus of JHs regime he left behind will soon be leaving too.
@Sarah Palin Fan
Pretending to be dumb as Sarah Palin fools no one.
So if you do actually have a comment spit it out, get it over with, and let others tear you to pieces.
Ritual sacrifice on a Sunday morning has a certain appeal.
Terje writes “if they routinely published their data and methods they would not suffer so many FOI requests”.
Terje I have asked you twice already “if you can point to any underlying data that is missing (from the public domain) in explaining the latest IPCC report and any of its recommendations – can you please highlight this”.
This is the third time that I have asked you this.
Alternatively, just read the “where’s the data?” post at RC. If you don’t understand this post – then just post over at RC requesting clarification on your lack of understanding in this regard.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Terje – it is a concerted effort to deluge CRU and that makes it a conspiracy and not only that it is deliberate interference in an attempt to disrupt their work. Here it is for you
“Between 24 July and 29 July of this year, CRU received 58 freedom of information act requests from McIntyre and people affiliated with Climate Audit.”
“58 FOI requests in five days!
So why won’t CRU comply?
According to Heffernan:
Jones says that he tried to help when he first received data requests from McIntyre back in 2002, but says that he soon became inundated with requests that he could not fulfill, or that he did not have the time to respond to. He says that, in some cases, he simply couldn’t hand over entire data sets because of long-standing confidentiality agreements with other nations that restrict their use.”
http://mobile.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/11/23/the_case_of_the_hacked_climate_change_e_mails_part_2/index.html
Unquote – A deluge. A deliberate obstructionist denialist deluge. At attempt to hinder and hamper scientific work. As I said before. Shame shame shame. There is nothing pretty in these tactics at all.
@jquiggin
JQ I am sorry that some of my comments have bothered you.
The reason I do not always engage with the substance of your posts is that, by and large, I agree on most issues. Certainly on the core of the AGW matter and about the uselessness of the Federal opposition.
But I think that sometimes you go too far in overstatement and exaggeration of your position and that of the other side. Examples are your blanket condemnation of all sceptics as venal and deluded and such.
That makes your entourage happy but does not contribute insight and understanding. I think I said it was the language of a politician, not of a scholar. If you think that offensive, I withdraw.
On the CRU emails, even George Monbiot saw that they were damaging to the participants and to science, even though they did not weaken the AGW case.
You seem to believe that any concession just gives comfort to the enemy.
I always seems to me that the interesting discussions are around the margins of an issue, not at the centre where usually there is nothing to discuss.
It would be a pity if the blogosphere went the way of talk radio and the shock jocks. Someone making a statement and his or her followers shouting “Right on!’ and jumping on anyone who expresses any reservations. Andrew Bolt and Tim Lambert are just about there.
I thought that because of your background discussions here might be better.
Catallaxy is not exactly a model of decorum and good language but I think there is a wider range of opinion there than here. And the contributors, though broadly libertarian, do certainly not agree on everything.
When the climate scientists are releasing results that politicians then use to justify massive public expenditure, then surely common sense dictates that those results be fully and transparently verified.
If that had been done, there would have been no need for FOI requests.
I have to agree with Paul here. I can’t understand why this information is treated as proprietary information.
Take the Quarterly Journal of Applied Econometrics. Maybe not as prestigious as Econometrica, but it is nevertheless a very good journal.
On submission I believe you must hand in your data and any source code required for non off the shelf data analysis.
‘c. Data. Authors of accepted papers are expected to deposit in electronic form a complete set of data used onto the Journal’s Data Archive, unless they are confidential. In cases where there are restrictions on the dissemination of the data, the responsibility of obtaining the required permission to use the data rests with the interested investigator and not with the author.
Authors are also encouraged to provide whatever other material is needed to ensure that their results can be replicated without excessive difficulty. This might include computer programs or technical appendices that are not part of the paper itself.
Full instructions for users of the Journal of Applied Econometrics Data Archive are available at http://www.econ.queensu.ca/jae/author-instructions.html. Authors of accepted papers are strongly recommended to read these instructions carefully.’
Paul Williams writes: “When the climate scientists are releasing results that politicians then use to justify massive public expenditure, then surely common sense dictates that those results be fully and transparently verified.
If that had been done, there would have been no need for FOI requests.”
Paul, I ask you: if you can point to any underlying data that is missing (from the public domain) in explaining the latest IPCC report and any of its recommendations – can you please highlight this.
Alternatively, just read the “where’s the data?” post at RC. If you don’t understand this post – then just post over at RC requesting clarification on your lack of understanding in this regard.
Mark Hill, read the “where’s the data?” post at RC. If you don’t understand this post – then just post over at RC requesting clarification on your lack of understanding in this regard.
OT: I would put part of this in “Weekend Reflections”, but I didn’t spot it for this weekend. Sorry.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
You’re correct, I wasn’t meaning that M was responsible for all 58 FOIs in 5 days, rather that 58 in 5 days for a research group – any group – is beyond what I would consider simple coincidence. A bit of looking into it by the FOIA would have to be expected on the basis of the shear volume in such a short time.
On him I’m done.
Just in case you hear a rumour going round that data sources are hidden away from public view – nasty scientists – Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate, and the rest of the team, are assembling a list of links to data sources. It is rather surprisingly called RealClimate Data Sources. Note that much of the data (including code, docs, etc) has been available for some time, even for years. Already people are spreading the word that the data has just been made available now, because of CRU. Well, the web page has, but the data has been available from the relevant individual sources all along.
But then we get this entirely bizarre take on the new “Data Sources” webpage:
Oh brother, I’ve just seen a post demanding even more: thanks, donQ, having been dealt with so politely by Gavin in several previous emails by donQ, testily asking for the code. Here is donQ’s gratitude:
It makes one sing…
Don, you can lead a horse to water…
The point never was that any underlying data is missing (from the public domain) in explaining the latest IPCC report and any of its recommendations.
The point is that the so-called “skeptics” have no interest in engaging with it.
On the issue of FOI requests people may find this saga, complete with letter exchanges between the protagonists, both informative and entertaining.
It does not deal with climate denialists but a related subspecies namely creationists in the ongoing saga of creationism versus science.
The link is to Pharyngulas discussion of the event and I would recommend folks read the letter exchanges.
Here is Meyers introduction:
“For a quick outline of the saga, read this summary at A Candid World; basically, Andy Schlafly has been demanding every bit of data from Richard Lenski’s work on the evolution of E. coli, despite the fact that Schlafly doesn’t have the background to understand it and doesn’t have any plan for what he would do with it if he got it. Lenski has been polite and helpful in his replies; his first response is a model for how to explain difficult science to a bullying ideologue. Now his second response is available, and while he has clearly lost some patience and is unequivocal in denouncing their bad faith efforts to discredit good science, he still gives an awfully good and instructional discussion”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/lenski_gives_conservapdia_a_le.php
I’ve just worked out what’s really going on with all the FOI requests! The ‘skeptics’ have hit upon a way to get tuition in stats and climatology without paying any of those expensive course fees, going through annoying enrolment procedures, or risking a failing grade on their (no doubt impeccable) academic transcripts.
Why do all that, when you can just file FOI requests to get the world’s best scientists to give you free tuition! First you make them give you all the data. Then you make them give you the tools they used to analyse the data. Then you make them explain to you exactly what the tools do. Then you make them explain how to use the tools. Then you make them explain how to interpret the results…
(By which I mean to say – these guys deserve very large and sparkly haloes for spending so much time and effort trying to educate the wilfully ignorant. I would have lost patience a very long time ago).
@Ken N
Denial of AGW does not admit of polite discussion of rationally debatable differences. It is explicable only by payola or ideology. The issue is way too serious for civility to trump truth.
Donald, Iain,
I take this to mean that both sides of the debate within the field then are capable to discuss assumptions, methodology, validity, etc. of the modelling. As an outsider, they don’t seem to be doing that much.
Does Schmidt’s stuff entail the CRU stuff they said they will release now?
Mark,
“Schmidt’s stuff” is obviously a central link to data (already in the public domain) that is used in creating reports such as IPCC AR4.
Many studies have been made substituting public domain data in lieu of the (relatively small) amount of intellectual property data on climate change. There is no meaningful difference in the results, conclusions or recommendations.
One side of the “debate” is very capable at discussing “assumptions, methodology, validity, etc. of the modelling”. This is also called science.
@iain
Gosh iain, I don’t know what data is missing. Do you?
We do know that there have been complaints that data and methods were not available to verify results. Eg Phil Jones’ alleged email to Warwick Hughes in 2005.
We do know that were data has been, possibly inadvertently, released, that the results don’t appear to be robust. Briffa’s Yamal series for instance.
We do know that the raw data, when adjusted and analysed by IPCC affiliated scientists such as those at CRU or NZ’s NIWA show warming trends, but the nature and reason for the adjustments, and the method of analysis has not been fully explained.
We do know that the raw data does not show the same warming trend in some cases.
We have the emails that appear to show collusion to subvert peer review and avoid FOI requests.
Before forking over my $1100 for the Turnbull/Rudd/Wong ETS, I’d like to be more certain that it’s really necessary and will be effective.
Transparency is the only way to achieve this. Even the Australian electorate, who were prepared to give Rudd a go, won’t buy a pig in a poke like this.
John,
Can you start charging people to comment on your blog? This would remove many of the useless comments and thus make more efficient use of your readership’s time.
Further to Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate post. Why, in the circumstances, put up what amounts to a smokescreen that will win blog arguments with the likes of me, but will be scrutinised line by line by people with expertise in data analysis?
Surely, for a topic so important, he should be making it easy for people to see his side of it, by addressing particular issues. And if the data is already so available, why put up his data link only now, if the issue is so vexatious? He could have defused the whole thing years ago.
Intrigued with an earlier coment from Gerard, regarding “Onesiders”and that infantile clot Blot, because of Dagget’s comments in a detailed post last week, concerning Queensland ABC’s non-reporting of Queenland Labor’s deceitful privatisation moves.
The comment, involving Greens candidate James Sinnamon, was that that privitisation was not “newsworthy”. I beleive the two incidents highlight the level of censorship and self censorship at the ABC, but many other incidents involving misreporting or ignoring of real news and the way much of the news is spun at ABC and SBS, shows an increasing harmonisation with dumbed down Murdoch/ TDT/ ACA/ shockjock tabloidism.
No wonder so many are ill informed until it’s too late. God bless corporatism?
@iain
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. ”
From Times on line {http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece}
I’m probably risking being cut off here, but I couldn’t resist asking iain if he could point out where in Gavin’s links we can find this “lost” data?
Paul Williams,
All your concerns have been addressed in the posts and comments sections over the past week at RC. I suggest you read all the information over there first. Then ask questions, on that blog, if you missed the answers to your questions.
The data (and the links) have been publicly available for years.
The issue is that people like you continue to ignore the data and then make strawman attacks that the data is missing or fabricated.
Paul Williams
I’ll do you the courtesy of believing that you actually wish to test for yourself the basis of the AGW argument. In that case, you don’t need a degree in statistics, nor the expertise to extract a signal from a mass of noisy data. You just have to have an appreciation that science offers a connected understanding of physical phenomena.
Have a read of the non-technical literature on why the underlying processes have to be just so for the universe to function the way it does (two good books on this I have come across are David Deutsch “The Fabric of Reality” and, more amusingly, James Kakalios “The Physics of Superheroes” – both in paperback).
Then ask yourself “what would an explanation of the effects of increased CO2 involve that did not include warming?”. An explanation, that is, that did not ignore the laws of thermodynamics. It is the inability to come up with any such explanation that confines climate sceptics to the internet rather than the peer-reviewed literature.
Wow, just wow. Ken N who blogs at Catallaxy has a go at me, asserting that the comments on my blog are just like those at Andrew Bolt’s. This sort of thing seems to be SOP for the Catallaxians. See this previous example where Jason Soon claimed that I was just like Graeme Bird. Perhaps you could support your claim with an example?
Catallaxy has the worst comment section of any blog that I’m aware of. It’s the last home of the trolls who have been banned from every other Australian blog. I used to comment there, but I gave up when it stopped being possible to have a reasoned discussion there.
Just to clear up a minor error Paul, James Sinnamon is actually an independant. @paul walter
Excellent point Paul Walter!
However, Gerard has already won “blog comment of the week”:
http://www.springhillvoice.com/evenmorelatestmedia.html
@iain
Why can’t we discuss it here?
@Peter T
“Then ask yourself “what would an explanation of the effects of increased CO2 involve that did not include warming?”. An explanation, that is, that did not ignore the laws of thermodynamics.”
JQ has already declared an end to the global warming debate (about 650 comments on that one) so it would be impolite to re-open it.
This is a thread on the politics, and my opinion is that the public won’t buy an ETS unless they are confident that there is a good reason for it, which, given recent events, seems to require a lot of openness on the part of those whose work underpins the politics.
@Paul Williams
This is where disinformation is rife, Paul: the attack has focussed upon situations where the adjustment for a move has added a positive adjustment. How they are calculated is methodical, but not the point here.
The point is that common sense kicks in as people read the story about how the adjustment is positive, and they draw the correct conclusion that all other things being equal, this lifts the temperature at that moved site. They then apply common sense again and go, “Wow! I recently heard that some CRU researchers had fraudulently changed data. These guys have done it too! Get the rope someone, and come with me…”
Aside from the matter of cognitive bias of inappropriate association and thereby incorrect inference, our common sense reader is not informed of the other fact: there are other sites where the adjustment is negative for a move, sometimes by as much as 0.5C. Oops.
Let’s go on a witch hunt for the negative adjustment fraudsters too. Or would that wreck the delusionista’s purpose in life.
@Donald Oats
says ” I wasn’t meaning that M was responsible for all 58 FOIs in 5 days, rather that 58 in 5 days for a research group – any group – is beyond what I would consider simple coincidence.”
Of course its not a co-incidence. It was a conspiracy.
and I am with Jennie’s post that we no longer give the denialists trolls air space, breathing space, argument space…
Their arguments are garbage. Capital L delusion. That means SPF, Ken and Paul Williams.Idiots and they want to perpetuate the myth that there is an argument over climate science. There is no argument. None. They will die a natural death like all the flat earthers that came before them in history.
Cut off the air guys, give them no O2 and plenty of Co2, and expose them for what they are. Trolls. Measly measly backward obstructive destructive Trolls.
Goddam Hockey,
Things were lining-up so well. A mad monk with a bloody knife heading the Liberals, dogs barking behind him, but, alas, now it appears a new camouflage, in the person of Hockey, is to be applied, under the direction of Howard.
I suppose the Abbott/Minchin attack on Turnbull was too good to last. How will they cope with a angry backbenched Turnbull in their party-room. Maybe the ALP Right could give Turnbull a safe seat, or do you have to parley with Gareth Evans or Mark Latham to get this?
This probably cripples Australian participation at Copenhagen as unfortunately a rightwing minority will be so violent and disruptive, that the majority will vote against itself to achieve peace. And so by this device, the termites chew their way through the body politic, bringing the whole lot down in the long-run.
@Paul Williams
Paul – sign up elsewhere in the blogosphere and peddle your barrow load of bulldust elsewwhere as well. Seriously most in here are over your agenda and over your rubbush arguments and so is the electorate. You want to help the freaking conservatives. Go back and tell them you got kicked in the behind at JQs, people are mad and they need to get their act together to have a fighting chance in any forthcoming election. Either you want to help your party or you want to support them to sink into the dark ages. What use are you? Thats the question you need to ask yourslef before you come in here with your troll arguments and patter.
Go home and do your homework and dont be an fool. Yes Im grumpy. Still grumpy.These people drive me crazy. They keep popping up every few weeks like hallucinogenic mushrooms out of cow***t, try to appeal to those who want a dream instead of reality, and want to tell us they have the vision (like hell they do).
My bet is Turbull stays and the party grows an brain.
@Jennie L
Im with Jennie. Ive lost patience a long time ago too. Why shoud climate scientists have to rush around and use upo their time hacving to private data by way of FOI requests to idiot destructiven trolls and anto AGW skeptics. Can it.Repeal the FOI laws and tell them to p**ss off.
Why should they supply their data. Lets make it a market for the data (they should love that – why the hell do they think they can use “get it for free laws” as its a public good – the denialists dont subscribe to public goods -) and offer to sell the data to the jerks.
Make them pay for it. Why should they get it for free under FOI. ?? Then lets see how many FOI requests there are.
In my previous comment, my purpose is merely to demonstrate that we are all easily fooled if we quickly read through a news “story” or hear a 30 second soundbite on the radio. It’s almost impossible to stop common sense from doing this to us, unless we deliberately take time out to analyse what we’ve just read/heard, and to think about the scenarios that haven’t been mentioned. If we are in a rush or on the way to work with the car radio on, it isn’t that likely we will go “Waiiitt a minute…”. To chuck in another scenario, maybe my explanation is incorrect because the adjustment process is not actually the same as my explanation, or the implicit explanation given by the news story. This scenario means going off and looking into the original research articles to see how these adjustments are made. That is what should be – and is – public. The data is also available anyway.
This is what scientists mean when they talk about scientists being sceptical: it is more about deliberately disrupting the person’s subconcious, default cognitive actions of common sense thinking, and using a more systematic analytical type of thinking. It isn’t about rejecting theories or data out of hand, but about being cautious not to fall for common sense thinking patterns.
Like everyone else, I’m better than average at this 😛
Shocking spelling. Sorry but they annoy me no end these idiots and utter creeps bogging down scientists with FOI requests. They need to take a hike for a long time.
Paul Williams,
We have discussed it here.
Go to last weekend’s thread.
The concern for me is if the science or economics is sloppy.
You can accept human activity as the sole driver of climate change, but a lack of accurate analysis can result in sub optimal policy.
Closer to the topic, my concern is that if Nick “The Knife” Minchin and his gang of gerbils do derail the ETS, it won’t see light of day until the election. Then they will trot it out as an alternative election platform (modified to be consistent with Copenhagen, of course), scrape in, and have another round of reviews, inquiries, consultant reports, etc, all to keep the do-nothing strategy kicking along. I have never thought that Howard would honour his ETS if re-elected, and I don’t see evidence that Nick “The Knife” Minchin, Barnaby “Carbuncle” Joyce, or Tony “The Rabbit” Abbot, or for that matter Eric “Aidan” Abetz will do anything beyond effectively bury it.
If Labor is unable to take the CPRS to Copenhagen, then it should reconsider the entirety of the package, and redo it from the ground up to better conform with the outcomes of Copenhagen. Perhaps it isn’t too late to consider the Hansen option of a Cap and Dividend system, whereby the redistribution is more beneficial to emissions-reducers than to emissions-nondecreasers. Which is as it should be. BTW Fran Barlow has pointed out this Cap and Dividend before. She’s got the link; I can’t remember anymore.
@Mark Hill
Yeah right Mark Hill sure “the concern for me is if the science is sloppy”. Who are you to judge? Id trust CRU over your concern (concern troll) any day of the week. That is not your concern. Your concern is raising doubt for an agenda that has no science.
Mark Hill’s avowed econometric and “utilitarian-above-all” policy preference always but always ends up as a vote for the Machine, the market, the Man.
His bent is always objectively anti-human, anti-women, and anti-democratic.
He’s an archetypal self-described “libertarian” right wing shill who has nothing useful to offer society now, or in the future.
@Philomena
Im with you Philo – Marks just another troll. Mark Hill sounds like Uncle Milton. JQ have you frisked him for sock puppetry and aliases?