It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
I notice Barry Brook has an article up discussing his debate with Monckton. I have not yet watched the footage but according to Brook his own collegues tactic of attacking Monckton on credentials wasn’t a crowd pleaser. Perhaps it is better for you that you didn’t participate JQ.
I wouldn’t have expected to please the crowd. If I had participated, it would have been to point out that they were making fools of themselves. In the current climate(!), association with the political right automatically makes you stupid, since anyone intelligent enough to think rationally is driven out (see Malcolm Turnbull).
“You’re associated with the policital right, this automatically makes you stupid!”
As a debating tactic, this may prove to not be a persuasive argument. Especially when the subject is the rigourousness or otherwise of some scientists.
I’m pretty convinced that a standard debate is a pretty poor way of working through an issue. There are too many tricks which essentially penalise thoughtfull points and promote grandstanding. I would personally prefer to read a written debate spread over a period of time, allowing the debaters to stop, think, research and then respond.
@Ken Miles
If that were the format then the denialists would have to eventually produce some evidence to back up their claims instead of throwing bombs and running for cover. I’m still waiting to hear some evidence NASA scuppered their own satalite. After all anyone who is old enough to have worked in a large organisation knows there is always a paper trail. Conspiracies that would have to involve more than a small group of people to remain secret will usually be blown. Of course if you are paranoid sociopath then you are free to believe anything.
@Michael
It’s a problem that the delusionists share with flat earthers, anti-vac’ers, 911 truthers, creationists etc.
@Steve at the Pub
Just think of Sarah Palin…
Can somebody link to the claim that NASA destroyed their own satellite to hide data. I’d like to read it in context.
It also seems that Monckton has quietly dropped some of his most contentious (and always incorrect) claims about the “climate” during the last decade. I guess the combination of last year being a sunspot-free (or as near as) year which signals a solar minimum, and yet the global temperature put 2009 as tied for third hottest year on instrumental record (1880 to present). All but one of the 10 hottest years since 1880 are from the last decade to 2009. That one year is 1998, which is *not* the hottest year on record.
A simple sort of the global temperature (anomaly) data file at NASA makes this stark. For the record, here are the last 30 years of global temperature anomaly data, sorted from smallest to largest anomaly. Format is row number, year (YYYY), and anomaly value (relative to 1951–1980 mean global temperature).
Note that from row 21 to row 30 are all but one of the years from the last decade; only 1998 gets in from two decades ago. Also note that 1998 was the fifth hottest year on instrumental record, and only held the record of hottest year until 2002, when it was tied for first place (in 2002). Therefore the moronic claims of entering a cooling period – said in a manner that implies it is an extended period – are blatantly false.
Where are the journalists set to challenge the Abbott’s Monck? The have got to drop the complacency and force Monckton to justify his claims rather than letting him get away with the grossly incorrect ones. At least MediaWatch had a shot tonight.
It comes from a reporter reporting on a climate skeptics meeting in Melbourne. Not much context, but it is hard to find a non-crazy way of explaining this quote:
”Not greatly to my surprise – indeed I predicted it – the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data”
Source
@Steve at the Pub
You quote a sentence of your own creation. Typically delusionist behaviour. Drink up. Paradise awaits in Catatonia. Paradise for you; peace for us.
@Donald Oats
Not that it detracts from your well made point, but you include data which are not within the last thirty years. I think these are the correct figures:
1982 .05
1985 .05
1984 .09
1986 .13
1992 .13
1993 .14
1980 .18
1989 .20
1994 .23
1981 .26
1983 .26
1987 .26
1996 .29
1988 .31
1999 .32
2000 .33
1991 .35
1990 .38
1995 .38
1997 .40
2008 .43
2001 .48
2004 .49
2006 .54
2003 .55
1998 .56
2002 .56
2007 .57
2009 .57
2005 .63
Those interested in climate wars, hockeysticks, the Wegman Report, nd what was rally going on:
see McIntyre&McKitrick Part 1 for background, and then Part 2, today, as various interesting facts are discovered.
Ken – thanks. It is a concerning claim but is that the only reference for it? If it is the basis for doing a serious character job I’d have hoped for a bit more. For instance is this a case of a sarcastic banter having a dig at NASA, ie a form of humor, or is it a serious claim? A lot rides on how the journalist took it.
@John Mashey
Yes. ‘Facts’ are ‘discovered’.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge ‘discovered’ facts through the medium of opium and produced some fine work. But will McIntyre and McKitrick’s ‘facts’ sell as well as Twilight or Harry Potter?
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
A joke taken out of context you thinks?
TerjeP a few questions for you.
1. Should Monckton be expected to provide evidence for his claims that climate scientists are involved in a massive conspiracy?
2. Do you think AGW is a hoax? If so what evidence do base this belief on?
3. if you do think AGW isn’t a hoax, then is it a serious issue?
4. Do you think people like Monckton are helping the debate?
The denailists have a wonderful advantage in this debate by not having any substantial body of work or process to defend. They can even have contradicting claims and not be expected to answer for them. I think it is time you get off the fence once and for all on this issue.
Who remembers 1999? well our capitalists do because this was when the DOW reached 10,000.
Now, 2010, it is less. [ DOW ]
Presumably the stock market indicies are not indexed to inflation, so a 10,000 level today is not worth as much as 10,000 several years ago.
And they keep piling money in – the fools.
@zoot
Well caught. I meant that the “top 30 years” instead of “last 30 years” in my post. My data are the hottest 30 years from the 30th (rather stupidly numbered “1” by me being in a bit of a hurry) continuing down the list to the hottest year, which was 2005 (the final entry).
I could have done that a smidge better 🙂
@zoot
And my top 30 hottest years are taken from the full instrumental record, ie 1880–2009, which is why we differ on the first few (ie coolest of the 30) years.
Cheers,
Don.
Michael,
1. I think the claim is that the UN I using AGW to try and grab powers akin to being a global government.
2. No.
3. It doesn’t keep we awake at night or cause me to worry about my kids. However it is worthy of public debate.
4. Not the scientific debate but they do add something to the public debate.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Thanks for you reply. On point 1, is there evidence for this claim? The implication of this claim is that climate scientists are involved in falsifying data to support the creation of a world government. On point 3, is it because you doubt the predictions made by climate scientists about the effects of claim change on the Australia continent?
Chris,
Have a look at the value of what is probably the most anti-capitalist state in the world.
Just a hint – single data points just are not that useful. You pointing to the Dow (an index no-one actually trading pays any real attention to – just reporters) is just as useful as me pointing to the DPRK.
@Andrew Reynolds
There are plenty of other indicators of capitalist failure, but delving into them generally involves exceeding the attention span of most bloggers.
However, like increasing per capita debt, and ratchetting unemployment, the DOW crash is a symptom of a deeper crisis tendency, first (I think) identified by Marx.
when you asked for ideas for the debate ,my simplistic suggestion was
“don’t lose.”
it seems i’m not the only simple minded one around.
coalition don’t care about veracity,it’s all about not losing.
@Andrew Reynolds
The point made is true. The US stockmarket as a whole has gone sideways, in nominal terms, for the past ten years. As it has gone sideways, in nominal terms, prices have continued to go up. These facts seem to be emotionally unpalatable to you, hence your irrational outburst? You wouldn’t be a market worshiper by any means? That would make Chris a blasphemer in your eyes.
Freelander,
I am not aware of how anyone can “worship” the results of decisions by millions of individuals subject to resource constraints, but I am sure you have a populist response that would show otherwise.
Various markets have traded down, sideways, backwards, upwards, forward and, I am sure, in a snake-like pattern with cherries on top for millenia. I am not sure how one measure of a part of one market (and even that not a good measure) proves anything at all in a general case about markets. Perhaps you can enlighten us.
“I guess the combination of last year being a sunspot-free (or as near as) year which signals a solar minimum, and yet the global temperature put 2009 as tied for third hottest year on instrumental record (1880 to present).”
Monkton isn’t going to buy that claim.
@Andrew Reynolds
I am afraid I do not have such great powers that I would be able to enlighten you about anything. That said, why would I wish to enlighten you about claims I have not made.
Please go away and perform your socially useful function. Losing your client’s money.
Freelander,
Fortunately, I leave that up to my clients to do. You really do not know what a risk manager does, do you? As for socially useful, there are many other things I do as well. Attempting to help those ignorant of the real world being one of them.
This is not always appreciated, but that does not put me off.
@Andrew Reynolds
“Attempting to help…” but you are not equipped to do this you poor sad delusionist. But please don’t let that put you off trying as you are a source of levity.
I can reassure you that I am not that poor, Freelander. I will let you imagine the rest.
still banging the same drum andrew, i wonder if you’ll be like a 1970’s communist, still celebrating the idea 40 years after its turned into mass murder,
anyway, here is Goldman Sachs turning its attention to looting the world economy because looting the US economy just doesnt represent a challenge anymore
If Greek banks, as the rumors goes, indeed sold Greek protection, and, as the rumor also goes, Goldman was the bulk buyer, either in prop or flow capacity, it is precisely Goldman, just like in the AIG case, that can now dictate what the collateral margin that Greek counterparties, and by extension the very nation of Greece, have to post on billions of dollars of Greek insurance. Let’s say Goldman thinks Greece’s debt recovery is 75 cents and the CDS should be trading at 700 bps, instead of the “prevailing” consensus of a 90 recovery and 450 spread, then it will very likely get its way when demanding extra capital to cover potential shortfalls, since Goldman itself has been instrumental in covering up Greece’s catastrophic financial state and continues to be a critical factor in any future refinancing efforts on behalf of Greece. Obviously this incremental margin, which only Goldman will ever see, even if the CDS was purchased on a flow basis, will never be downstreamed on behalf of its clients, and instead will be used to [buy futures|buy steepeners|prepay 2011 bonuses|buy more treasuries for the BONY $60 billion Treasury rainy day fund].
In essence, through its conflict of interest, its unshakable negotiating position, and its facility to determine collateral requirements and variation margin, Goldman can expand its previous position of strength from dictating merely AIG and Federal Reserve decision making, to one which determines sovereign policy!
anyone been following the low-profile bankers meeting in Sydney?
turns out it was organised by the bank for international settlements, a personal favorite of mine
here’s why
members of the BIS board of directors are individually granted special benefits:
* “immunity from arrest or imprisonment and immunity from seizure of their personal baggage, save in flagrant cases of criminal offence;”
* “inviolability of all papers and documents;”
* “immunity from jurisdiction, even after their mission has been accomplished, for acts carried out in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings;”
* “exemption for themselves, their spouses and children from any immigration restrictions, from any formalities concerning the registration of aliens and from any obligations relating to national service in Switzerland ;”
* “the right to use codes in official communications or to receive or send documents or correspondence by means of couriers or diplomatic bags.”
* “immunity from jurisdiction for acts accomplished in the discharge of their duties, including words spoken and writings, even after such persons have ceased to be Officials of the Bank;”
* “exemption from all Federal, cantonal and communal taxes on salaries, fees and allowances paid to them by the Bank…”
* exempt from Swiss national obligations, freedom for spouses and family members from immigration restrictions, transfer assets and properties – including internationally – with the same degree of benefit as Officials of other international organizations.
* The buildings or parts of buildings and surrounding land which, whoever may be the owner thereof, are used for the purposes of the Bank shall be inviolable. No agent of the Swiss public authorities may enter therein without the express consent of the Bank. Only the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative shall be competent to waive such inviolability.
* The archives of the Bank and, in general, all documents and any data media belonging to the Bank or in its possession, shall be inviolable at all times and in all places.
* The Bank shall exercise supervision of and police power over its premises.
* The Bank shall enjoy immunity from criminal and administrative jurisdiction, save to the extent that such immunity is formally waived in individual cases by the President, the General Manager of the Bank, or their duly authorised representative.
* The assets of the Bank may be subject to measures of compulsory execution for enforcing monetary claims. On the other hand, all deposits entrusted to the Bank, all claims against the Bank and the shares issued by the Bank shall, without the prior agreement of the Bank, be immune from seizure or other measures of compulsory execution and sequestration, particularly of attachment within the meaning of Swiss law.
a private bank made up of private banks that are without doubt a law unto themselves
@smiths
You sound like a denialist? What does the word “intervention” mean to you?
So how much blood was shed as European capitalism imposed itself onto the New World? It is not possible to find a worse campaign of mass murder than visited on Aboriginal tribes in North America, Africa, and Australia although the massacres of Chinese Boxers, and Indian nationalists comes close.
Your backside is sitting on land stolen from original owners through mass slaughter.
By the way – how many Moslems have capitalist armies in the Middle East killed as of today? I’ve lost count.
How many did the capitalists kill and maim, and how many countries were destroyed in World War I and II.
How many innocents did the capitalists kill with their bombing of Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki?
whoa there chris, i was responding to andrew reynolds one-eyed free market mumbo jumbo that hasnt changed for three years,
i used the communists as an example of a group of people in the west, who stuck to their ideology despite all evidence suggesting the reality in russia was proving to be a massive horror,
i was not attacking socialism as an idea and on the other side i am not against relatively free markets
i also think it in-accurate to say that capitalist armies attacked the moslems or the native south americans,
the average british person at the height of empire lived in poverty, and the average american soldier killing people in iraq comes from the bottom of the ladder in america
my whole point in my occasional excursions here, is that concepts like America or Britain as sovereign capitalist countries attacking other sovereign countries is infantile,
there is a trans-national oligarchy that associates together and profits together,
the allegedly Moslem leaders of Saudi Arabia of Afghanistan are as much a part of the looting and aggresion as Tony Blair and Obama are
Michael – I’m happy to look at evidence but I’m not going to chase it down at the moment in regards to the UN. I will however share my perspective because you asked.
It does seem likely to me from recent revelations about the IPCC that several people have worked the processes to engineer a particular political outcome. Part of this may have been mere incompetence, some of it due to misplaced sence of purpose but it also seems quite likely that the accumulation of new powers is also a driving incentive for some (personally and ideologically). Some of those involved in pushing for power for the mere sake of it are there on the pretext of being scientists but I don’t think it would be very fair to suggest that most scientists are part of a conspiracy.
I think that every organisation, be it a private corporation or otherwise, there is a capacity for good people to act toward bad ends without individually setting out to do so. What matters are the incentives and structures in place often much more so than the moral inclination of those involved. I think the IPCC is structures to ensure that we are given a bad prognosis and there are incentives to filter and interprete information so as to align with that agenda. The IPCC is a collabrative team effort but it tends to co-opt peers rather than ensure rigorous independent review. IPCC reports are not peer reviewed documents.
I think that the world could so with a wikipedia style compendium of climate science knowledge but I don’t see much value in the IPCC concept of a unifies global reporting body that attempts to create a single authorative statement on the state of climate science. I think the whole power structure is fundamentally wrong. We don’t have a single authorative intepretation of biblical texts or use a UN enforced dictionary of the English language and there is no UN commitee reporting on the state of evolutionary theory. On these matters authority to interprete and report is earned through reputation non political decree and it remains constantly in contention. The authority of the IPCC stems from politics not reputation so ultimately this is an organisation that will be driven to protect political interests not reputation.
p.s. When people say that the IPCC is part of a conspiracy to creating world government I think they get the broad sentiment right even if they get the specific substance wrong. I think all organised human endeavour contains a bias towards centralising power and control.
Gerard – thanks. However not quite as comprehensive as what I was alluding to. I think a comprehensive compedium on a single topic such as this is outside the scope of wikipedia and would require a devoted wiki. It may also require some alteration of the basic wikipedia rule set. However like wikipedia it should earn it’s authority rather than being annointed with it.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
The main purpose of the IPCC in relation to the science concerning global warming and humanity’s contribution, is to perform a process of review. This means that they set a cut-off date for acceptance of peer-reviewed scientific publications, then set the reviewers to establish the state of the art as at the cut-off date, an absolutely humungous undertaking. Clearly the choice of scientists who perform the major review function may affect emphasis but it shouldn’t affect the conclusions for the simple reason that the lines of evidence have been mainly pointing one way. In any case, the various drafts are themselves subject to line-by-line checking by numerous experts of differing persuasions, including some noted sceptics. Each working group has this process for their reports.
Of course the fact that the IPCC has the potential for affecting the highly profitable business of fossil fuel energy, means that NGOs are created for the express purpose of thwarting the IPCC meetings such as Copenhagen. For an inside look at how that works, Jeremy Leggett’s “The Carbon War” gives a petroleum geologist’s personal perspective as he represented environmental interests at the various IPCC meetings in the late ’80s and 90’s, until he gave up in disgust and created a Solar Energy company in the UK – which is still doing okay.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
So you are also part of the conspiracy? If that is so, who is being conspired against?
Political leaders don’t need a understanding Biblical text, academic studies of the English language or evolution. They do need an understanding of climate change.
The authority of the IPCC stems from politics not reputation so ultimately this is an organisation that will be driven to protect political interests not reputation.
Hardly.
Are you saying you want a “free climate-science compendium that anyone can edit?”
Which will then “earn” its authority… how?
not through the process of professional peer-review, obviously, since the dozens of scientific organizations listed in the link above are untrustworthy in your opinion.
maybe through the much more rigorous process of libertarian-blogosphere review perhaps?
@gerard
We could call that wiki “The Sarah Palin Chronicles”.
“When people say that the IPCC is part of a conspiracy to creating world government I think they get the broad sentiment right”
Consensus is conspiracy, even more so when it involves fraud.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I don’t share your perspective, but thanks for sharing it. I’m not knowledgeable in the exact workings of the IPCC, so I’m not going to defend it as being absolutely impervious to any political influence, but I’m not sure how important that is anyway. My earlier point is that it is a document and a process that is unified and more or less transparent. It is revised in each addition and it is a record that can be contested. The deniers aren’t held accountable in any comparable sense. Monckton made an insinuation about NASA sabotaging it’s own satellite. This if true would be a massive scandal. He should back it up with evidence or withdraw it. Plimer has runs on the board with similar although perhaps less outrageous claims he declines to defend.
As others have pointed out, powerful vested interests in fossil fuels aren’t sitting meekly on the sidelines. They are exercising their “free speech” by using their extensive resources. Again, they aren’t putting their case in any kind of contestable open way, they are funding think tanks to throw bombs from the sidelines.
I see AGW as being part of a general market failure to deal with the externalities of pollution, not the only one, but the biggest. My sense is that you are looking for diversions to delay dealing with the difficult implications AGW presents. I could be wrong.
So what are you trying to say here, Chris?
It seems to me that you’re implying that smiths is merely a running dog despite his quite explicit disavowals.
Maybe you think he just doesn’t realise that he’s a running dog, but in that case, what makes you any different to smiths?
@SJ
I am not sure what a “running dog” is. Please indicate how this concept gets into consideration.
It is not my thought. Where are these “explicit disavowals” and of what?
It is up to smiths to clarify its logic.
Maybe a “dead dog” could be more appropriate? I dunno?
Please explain. Should we leave sleeping dogs lie?
Chris, most of us are able to understand common words and phrases.
For example, I understood what smiths was saying, and I understood what you said in return. But it was also clear that you read something into smiths’ words that just wasn’t there. I thought you might have been reacting to something you might have read as code words or dog whistles, but you claim not to understand those either.
That’s quite OK, just checking. I won’t need to pay any attention to you in future.
(I don’t mind if you don’t understand any of this either, it’s just there for the benefit of anyone else who’s trying to work out if there’s anything meaningful in your responses).