The switch from ‘scepticism’ to an overtly anti-science, and anti-scientist, position has paid some dividends for the advocates of delusional views on climate change. Although the only wrongdoing in the CRU harassment/hacking campaign was that of the hackers and their allies (more on this soon), the false charges of scientific fraud got much more media attention than their refutation, and the early responses to alleged FOI breaches (including that of some pro-science writers such as George Monbiot) failed to recognise of the deliberately vexatious misuse of FOI by the anti-science group. In this context, the discovery of a genuine error in the 1700 page IPCC Fourth Assessment Report regarding projected changes in glaciers could easily be spun into something much bigger.
It seemed for a little while as if the delusionists had scored another win, when Phil Jones, the scientist who has been most viciously target by the hackers/harassers gave an honest answer to a deliberately loaded question prepared by them and put to him in a BBC interview
BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods…
This was headlined by the Daily Mail as “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995?.
But, now it looks as if this is starting to backfire. Anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in statistics knows that “statistically significant” has a special meaning which bears almost no relationship to the usual sense of the term “significant”, and this fact is beginning to sink in.
The statement “there has no statistically significant warming since 1995” can better be stated as “if we ignore all the data before 1995, we don’t have enough data points to reject, with 95 per cent confidence[1], the hypothesis that the observed warming since 1995 has been due to chance variation”. That isn’t true if you replace 1995 with 1994 or any earlier date going back to 1970. It’s clear that those who dreamed up this talking point knew enough stats to realise that they were being deliberately deceptive, and that ignorant “sceptics” would read the statement as saying “no significant warming since 1995”. They were right and the talking point ran through the delusionist commentariat and blogosphere at record speed.
The only problem is that such an obvious lie can be, and has been called out, and is essentially impossible to defend, except by an admission of culpable ignorance or gullibility. Here’s The Economist (not exactly zealous on climate change) responding to the original Daily Mail article (h/t Tim Lambert)
This led to a Daily Mail headline reading: “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.”
Since I’ve advocated a more explicit use of the word “lie”, I’ll go ahead and follow my own advice: that Daily Mail headline is a lie. Phil Jones did not say there had been no global warming since 1995; he said the opposite. He said the world had been warming at 0.12°C per decade since 1995. However, over that time frame, he could not quite rule out at the traditional 95% confidence level that the warming since 1995 had not been a random fluke.
Anyone who has even a passing high-school familiarity with statistics should understand the difference between these two statements.
And here’s Brad DeLong skewering Russ Roberts as the lyingest economist alive, then downgrading the charge to one of reckless gullibility when it became clear that Roberts had relied on a Daily Mail headline, thereby making a complete fool of himself.
Looking at the responses of ‘sceptics’ to this episode we can distinguish four or five sets (depending on your views about set theory)
1. Those who originally designed the “no significant warming” talking point. Members of this set are deliberate liars playing on the ignorance and gullibility of their target audience. As far as I can tell, the first to put this line forward was Richard Lindzen of MIT, who put it up in early 2008, tied to the cherry picking “no warming since 1998” claim (see here). Lindzen certainly has the training to know how dishonest this is. More recently, it’s been pushed by Lord Monckton and others, who may perhaps fall into set 2.
2. Those who quoted the question and answer, and took “not statistically significant” to mean “insignificant”. Members of this set have demonstrated, first that they don’t know basic statistics and second that, despite claiming to “make up their own minds” about climate science, they haven’t bothered to acquire even the most basic knowledge necessary to such a task. At a minimum, members of this group are lying to themselves, in the same manner as other exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect
3. Those who relied either on the Daily Mail headline, or on the second-hand versions propagated by members of set 2. Members of this set have demonstrated both a high level of gullibility and ignorance of the basic data on climate change, which clearly shows a substantial increase in temperatures since 1995 (whether or not this is statistically significant). Again, they are lying to themselves if they think of what they are doing as “making up their own mind”. Here’s
a graph of the data.
4. Those who recognised the dishonesty of the Daily Mail line, but stayed silent out of loyalty. As far as I can tell, most of those on the delusionist side with even basic statistical knowledge (McIntyre, McKitrick and Wegman for example) have kept quiet, in McIntyre’s case linking to the BBC interview without comment and letting his audience draw the necessary silly inferences. If anything remotely comparable had been put forward by a supporter of mainstream science, they would have been all over it.
5. Those genuine sceptics who pointed out the dishonesty of the claim, and called out those on their own side of the debate who promoted it. Obviously, members of this set deserve some serious respect and attention in the future. Unfortunately, the intersection between this set and the set of “sceptics” in the currently prevailing sense appears to be the empty set[2]
So, a challenge to those who think there is a debate to be had here, as opposed to a series of silly talking points to be whacked down with greater or lesser success. Can you
A. Provide a coherent defence of the “no statistically significant warming since 1995” claim. To limit trollery, this should begin with a statement, in your own words, of the basic hypothesis testing framework in which this concept arises? ; or
B. Give an argument as to why anyone should pay any attention to those on the “sceptical” side who have formulated this claim, propagated it in some form or another, or allowed it to pass without comment?
I will award grades to the responses.
Diversions to other talking points, general delusionist rants and so on will be deleted.
fn1. “Reject with 95 per cent confidence” also has a special meaning, subtly different from “reject with 95 per cent probability of being right”, but the difference doesn’t matter much in the current context
fn2. Corrections on this point will be gratefully accepted and prominently publicised.
John Quiggin 
Geez, I don’t think I dare to make a comment on this topic.
It would just attract the usual.
But, now it looks as if this is starting to backfire. Anyone who has successfully completed a basic course in statistics knows that “statistically significant” has a special meaning which bears almost no relationship to the usual sense of the term “significant”, and this fact is beginning to sink in.
huh? This debate is about science and logic? No I don’t think so.
The lies and obfuscations are working fine.
No doubt some of the FOI requests were vexatious. However a lot of what was asked for was reasonable and should have been available. If you disagree perhaps you could articulate how FOI legislation should be redrafted.
TerjeP @3 Since you’re determined to go off topic please be specific; which particular requests were not vexatious.
And how does this change the fact that we’ve just had the hottest decade on record?
Lies, damned lies..and statistics. Lord Courtney 1895.
I’m calling for a return to topic by everyone. I will discuss FOI issues in a forthcoming post on Climategate.
When there has been no warming since 1995 it makes sense why nobody believes the globe is warming any more by anthropogenic forcing. Also, take note of the record cold weather at the moment, truly remarkable since it flies right in the face of the anthropogenic global warming “theories”.
@Rationalist
Grade: EPIC FAIL Comment: Can’t even read a graph when it is right there in front of you. Bonus fail points for reference to “current cold weather” based on localised snowfalls, when UAH satellite data shows warmest January on record.
Laughing out loud! – thank you for playing Rationalist, how do you do that?
@Sarah Palin Fan
Lies, damned lies..and anything that comes out of my mouth. Lord Monckton 2010
JQ Said;
“Tony, you’re almost there, and it will be interesting to see if you can make it all the way. As you say, the data for the 15 years or so since 1995 is ‘not enough’ to reject the null hypothesis of random variation[1]. But of course we have 40 years of data showing a rising trend (and a good explanation for trends earlier in the 20th century).”
Basically, you have cherry-picked the last 40 years of data because it indicates a rise over that period. Well John it is “not enough” either. You are playing with statistics and doing exactly what you accuse the ‘seekers of truth’ of doing. You need at least 1000 or 2000 years of accurate data to have ‘enough’ to reject the null hypothesis of random variation.
When you do not have an accurate time series of data that is long enough, you can not know if you have any significant, statistically or otherwise; warming, cooling or flat line; all you have is noise* (* hot air)
Going back the next 110 years of temperature readings can only be described as a fictitious reconstruct. Any meaningful temperature data covering the last 2000 years doesn’t even exist, as it has not even been measured at all and nor can it be reconstructed to a tolerance where conclusive evidence one way or the other can be drawn from it.
@Tony G
Grade: FAIL The claim “You need at least 1000 or 2000 years of accurate data to have ‘enough’ to reject the null hypothesis of random variation” is wrong, as can easily be checked by anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics. You appear to have made this number up, based on some imaginary theory of your own.
As the quoted statement by Jones shows, 15 years is almost enough, 20 years would be more than enough. And of course, we have more than 20 years since scientists starting looking seriously at AGW.
If you would like to retry, please start with a statement of the theory of hypothesis testing as requested.
Terje, given that you’ve commented off-topic, and have previously posted quite a few links to the work of the Climategate hackers, I’d be very interested in your response to the substantive question. For the moment, you appear to be in Set 4.
@Rationalist
Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics
Who said I wasn’t generous to our weirdos. Gotta throw them a bone sometime.
Maybe you need another subset classification for group 4 – those that don’t actually reject any of the science specifically and occasionally claim to accept it, but still drop in the occasional vague sentiment about skepticism being healthy etc or more research needs to be done as a reason for not supporting any attempt to tackle the issue.
LOL… at Ratio’s EPIC FAIL grade!
@Fran Barlow
Off topic… but I have often wondered about Christians. OK, they believe in this God thing. That’s bad enough. But they also believe that this God thing engineered that his only [begotten] son would end up nailed to a cross. And believing that they then choose to worship this God thing. Don’t figure?
John – I had not read the Daily Mail article previous to you linking it here. I’m not sure if I’m on record anywhere as saying so but I did cringe when I watched Q&A a week or so ago and a guest from the IPA tried to quote Phil Jones as saying that there has been no warming since 1995. Having read the original BBC article my feeling was that Phil Jones was being misrepresented on Q&A (possibly deliberately but probably out of ignorance). I also suspect that the BBC question was designed to expose him to such misrepresentation. However I’m not overly sympathetic toward Phil Jones because my reading of his past behaviour is that he is quite happy to misrepresent the intentions of others and to play games with the truth. So excuse me if I don’t rush to his defence.
For the record I think the clear trend from the published data is that the earth has warmed over the past century. I don’t have any loyalty pact with anybody where I pretend that this isn’t my view. I’m not part of some organised movement with a mission to claim the world isn’t warming by using statistical tricks. In any case I’m not even influencial on this issue. I’ve parted with the political parties of the Australian right on issues before (disagree with the Iraq war, given hindsight I disagreed with the Howard gun laws, I was critical of the Kevin Andrews law on euthenasia, I don’t agree with mandatory detention of asylum seekers, I’m against the war on drugs). And I’m not against disagreeing with them again. I’m also happy enough to say that the Greens currently seem to have the least stupid climate change policy on the table, except they want it to be interum only. If the libs were to clearly favour the decriminalisation of nuclear power then that would be a trump card in my book.
I think there are some chinks in the temperature data and that those chinks need to be properly explored. I think there is a problematic culture of obstruction around any such exploration by sceptics. The data as it stands does show a warming trend and I’m not expecting any revision to that trend but there have been mistakes found previously and there should be more rigour in the handling of this data.
Ultimately though this isn’t about me. I’ve tried to point this out before but people seem to want to kick me regardless. The AGW thesis is losing traction in the broader community. Your current tactics (ie as an advocate of the AGW thesis) needs to be revised. I don’t think that declaring the debate over is working, nor is the ridiculing of forums that remain open to debate productive. What do you think?
p.s. As to which of your boxes I fit in I’d say none of them. If you insist in classifying me into one of these boxes then you will have to do it yourself. However I am flattered that you care.
I don’t think we should support “any attempt” to do something. Only attempts that are likely to balance the costs and the benefits and avoid the risks of creating other significant problems. If your benchmark is that we should all accept “any attempt” then you are setting the standard pretty low. It’s a bit like suggesting that the home insulation program was a good idea because the government had good intentions. I’m glad people have good intentions but I’m not going to support them on that basis.
Many of the skeptics/deniers seem very passionate about global warming – regularly commenting on blogs, news websites, writing to members of the Liberal party etc. Why is it that these people are so passionate? What motivates them? Is it skepticism about a scientific debate? I think it is something else – opposition to action on climate change – the same thing that motivates the Minerals council. This is what the members of the four or five sets have in common.
Peter – if it was an esoteric debate with no policy implications then yes I think most people would ignore the issue. However it isn’t. I actually think there is no one simple thing driving the sceptical side of the debate. John wants to attribute it to tribalism and I think there is an element of that. However tribalism isn’t unique to the sceptical side of the debate. People on both sides of the debate are following various individuals and mediums and effectively abdicating some of the thinking. I don’t think tribalism is sufficient to explain the hoard of sceptics. But I’m not much good at explaining the recent surge in scepticism either. I was kind of resigned to being a part of a disagreeable minority until recently. I think perhaps what is happening is that now that their are real policy cost implications on the horizon a whole bunch of people that were formally disengaged from the process have suddenly become engaged and their is now something of a mismatch between elite opinion and public opinion.
p.s. I don’t think this is being driven by anti-science sentiment as John suggests. Most people are pro-science, at least in an abstract sense.
Well said Terje. You cop a lot of flak here but continue to write in a calm, logical way.
Keep it up!
@chrisl
But “pro-science, at least in an abstract sense” is pretty weak, if it involves being against the actual science that occurs.
I think Terje actually is something of an example of what Michael was referring to in calling for another category: the habit of responding to points where the “skeptics” are obviously wrong by admitting that on this point they’re wrong, but there are other “chinks in the data,” and a “problematic culture,” (no specific examples given) which make the theory of global warming somehow not to be acted on. And of course even the refuted points sneak back in with the claim that “the broader culture” is being convinced by them, which means people disagree about global warming, which somehow means that there’s some sort of problem with the science.
Whoops. That was supposed to be a reply to TerjeP, not chrisl.
@latinist
You can use the same nitpicking strategy to criticise “ALL” realistically implementable attempts at mitigating AGW. If one cent is misappropriated, misallocated or poorly implemented by a half-wit then you can hold the entire scheme in contempt. If just one scientist writes an inappropriate comment in an email then that is enough to hold the work of thousands of others in suspicion. The status quo is of course privileged and needs no such scrutiny to be justified “it just is”. There’s nothing like your own version of purity to provide intellectual succour.
Latinist – I’ve advocated action not inaction. I think we should legalize nuclear power and shift the tax burden onto CO2e emissions from power stations and transport. This is not inaction. In summary it entails action. Finally you might want to note that this does not entail inaction but action. As in not doing nothing.
Michael – I have not disparaged the work of thousands of scientists. I have been critical of a few.
(Sorry to go off topic) TerjeP I’d be grateful if you could share with me some links you have seen on the home insulation scheme. I’m curious to learn about the merits or lack of, of the scheme but most of the reporting I have seen doesn’t refer to much in terms of substantive data. In a previous comment you referred to an article you had read that stated people with insulation didn’t have lower power consumption or something to that effect.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
TerjeP – I didn’t categorise you or claimed you said anything. I suggested a category based on people I have meet and read in the media – Maybe you inadvertently categorised yourself by responding ;-). I’m glad you support action btw.
The comment I made about holding the work of thousands of scientists in suspicion is the effect of a disproportionate amount of comment and exposure the emails got in the media and the commentariat banging on about them. The emails in the larger scheme of things were pretty trivial (although damaging and embarrassing for those involved).
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
I should also clarify that I find people on the left and the right fall into the implemenation nitpicking category. If you insist on holding out for the perfect ETS or carbon tax totally free of political compromise or industry kickbacks then your intentions might be pure but the results will be the same – perpetual inaction.
Terje, it looks to me that you generally support denialist attacks on climate science; I don’t recall any real condemnation of publishing stolen emails and using them to smear scientists’ reputations despite the lack of real substance contained within them – like with Pr. Jones “…he is quite happy to misrepresent the intentions of others and to play games with the truth”. You appear to sympathise more with those doing the attacking than the great many scientists doing their jobs honestly (including Jones) and to the best of their ability. And whilst you state you agree the data shows warming, you appear to think there is legitimate cause to doubt the veracity of that data – “as it stands” and “I think there are some chinks in the temperature data” – whilst offering support to those doing the attacking – “a problematic culture of obstruction around any such exploration by sceptics”. Sorry but I think Pr. Q probably pegged you right. I, for one doubt you are sincere in accepting climate change as a serious issue requiring a serious response. I even suspect that your support for the nuclear option – one with little likelihood of acceptance any time soon – isn’t so much about solutions for climate change as about taking a shot at one of the chinks in the position of mainstream leftish politics.
I checked and, according to this source, Terje is right to say nuclear power is illegal in Australia. It was banned by the Howard government in 1998. I’d be happy to support repealing the ban, since it would make no difference either way and might get this silly talking point off the table.
John, perhaps you yourself should give a basic rundown on what “significant at the 5% level” actually means in the context of frequentist statistics. Perhaps you feel it is too elementary but Paul Krugman on his blog often devotes time to very basic first year discussions about Keynesian economics.
It would also be a good place to introduce some Bayesian criticisms of frequentist statistics. Why should we not use any prior information? Why should the null hypothesis be that there is no warming trend? Why is a 5% cuttoff appropriate? There was clear warming before 1995, and we are continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, so we ought to have a strong prior belief in warming even before we get to the recent data. A Bayesian would say that the past 15 years reinforces our already strong belief about a warming trend.
While I am certainly somewhat sceptical of the AGW theory, I will openly admit that no statistically significant warming is not a valid talking point.
I would like someone on the left to explain to me as to why they do not see nuclear power as a real solution to the supposed global warming and instead advocate a roll back of the industrialisation of western society.
By not rejecting the null hypothesis this does not say anything about the validity of the null – the null being that there is no trend in global temperatures since 1995. All that can be conclude by not rejecting the null, is that there is insufficient evidence to suggest there is a trend in global temperatures since 1995 at the 5% level of significance.
Indeed i beleive that i have read somewhere there is in fact sufficient evidence to conlcude there is a trend in global temperatures since 1995 at the 10% level of significance.????
Basically what i was trying to say above was that a statistical test procedure cannot prove the truth of the null hypothesis. When we fail to reject a null, all the test can establish is that the info in a sample of data (in this case temperaturs from 1995) is compatible with the null.
@Sam
The level of significance is related to the concept of a Type 1 error. Basically when we reject the null hypothesis we risk what is called a type 1 error. A type 1 error occurs when the null hypothesis is true but we reject it. There is also such thing as a type 2 error – this is when the null hypothesis is false and we decide not to reject it. Now the key concept is that the probability of a type 1 error is the level of significance of the test.
To my knowledge it is for no other reason but convention that 5% level of significance is chosen.
To your question about why the null should be no warming trend. The null hypothesis is usually stated in such a way that if our theory is correct, then we will reject the null hypothesis. A null is the belief we will maintain until we are conviced by the sample evidence that it is not true, in which case we reject the null. In this case climate change scientists are trying to find evidence in support of their theory.
@E.M.H
I’m neither for or against nuclear power. I would also support repealing the law banning nuclear power if ti would remove the talking point. I’m in favour of pricing pollution and letting the market respond. I doubt nuclear power is competitive or practical in Australia but I’m happy to be proved wrong. A question for the pro-nuclear group is how would a nuclear power plant be insured? What kind of timeline do you for see for getting something like a pebble bed reactor operational in Australia?
By the way John, I see nothing mathematically wrong with your statement (referred to in [2]) about the empty set. However, talk of a null intersection between set 5 and the set of sceptics is unnecessary. All you need to say is that set_5 is an empty set. It follows trivially that Φ ∩ A = Φ ∀ A.
Also, set_5 really must be Φ in order for your statement to be true because
set_5=”the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense that also have some additional property (in this case being intellectually honest),”
so clearly
set_5 ⊂ “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”
and
set_5 ∩ “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”=set_5.
Thus if set_5 ≠ Φ your statement is incorrect.
In conclusion, set_5=Φ is both a necessary and sufficient condition for your statement to be true, so you should have just used that.
EMH, my questions were rhetorical. I am familiar with the rationale of frequentist statistics, however I believe that there are many times when it is not appropriate. Bayesian statistics is much more useful here since we have a lot of prior information. It is just a shame that so many people think frequentism is all there is when it comes to statistics.
@Sam #39
Woops! My unicode seems to be playing up there.
By the way John, I see nothing mathematically wrong with your statement (referred to in [2]) about the empty set. However, talk of a null intersection between set 5 and the set of sceptics is unnecessary. All you need to say is that set_5 is an empty set. It follows trivially that ? ∩ A = ? ? A.
Also, set_5 really must be ? in order for your statement to be true because
set_5=”the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense that also have some additional property (in this case being intellectually honest),”
so clearly
set_5 ? “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”
and
set_5 ? “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”=set_5.
Thus if set_5 ≠ ? your statement is incorrect.
In conclusion, set_5=Φ is both a necessary and sufficient condition for your statement to be true, so you should have just used that.
Feel free to delete my #39 John.
One more try!
By the way John, I see nothing mathematically wrong with your statement (referred to in [2]) about the empty set. However, talk of a null intersection between set 5 and the set of sceptics is unnecessary. All you need to say is that set_5 is an empty set. It follows trivially that Φ ∩ A = Φ ∀ A.
Also, set_5 really must be Φ in order for your statement to be true because
set_5=”the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense that also have some additional property (in this case being intellectually honest),”
so clearly
set_5 ⊂ “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”
and
set_5 ∩ “the set of sceptics in the currently prevailing sense”=set_5.
Thus if set_5 ≠ Φ your statement is incorrect.
In conclusion, set_5=Φ is both a necessary and sufficient condition for your statement to be true, so you should have just used that.
@Michael
With the exception of this remark:
I’d endorse your position on nuclear power. I am also neither for nor against nuclear power. I’d be very happy for the best suite of technologies (evaluated with adequate reference to all matters of utility, opportunity cost, timelines etc) to be rolled out. If, controary to my strong suspicion, what are currently called “renewables” can do an adequate job at acceptable cost on an aggressive timeline for emissions reductions without the substantial support of fossil fuels or nuclear power, then that would be marvellous.
OTOH, if these can’t meet these criteria and nuclear can, then I’m for including nuclear in the mix.
I’d favour an industry wide scheme in which the “excess” was covered by the industry — say the first $50 million per 1Gwe plant or multiple thereof and anything above that covered by the state out of the funds raised for CO2 abatement.
This is a political question rather than a technical one. If we started tomorrow with a well-settled technology on a brownfields site(s) we could have one (or many) up and running within 5 years, even allowing for bona fide environmental assessment processes. The Russians are probably going to have their IFR running within that time frame.
Politically though I see little prospect before 2025 and maybe even 2030. The parties are at Mexican standoff.
EMH Grade: PASS. Your explanation of Type I and Type 2 error in the classical hypothesis testing framework is about right, as is your application to the bogus claim of “no significant warming”. For full credit, draw the obvious inference about the credibility of the many “sceptics” who have either propagated or swallowed this nonsense.
On nuclear power, I looked at this not long ago. Contra Fran, I concluded that
Having said that, I request that we end this off-topic discussion and return to the subject of the post.
The null hypothesis test is very weak when applied to mean global warming. IMO, it is irrelevant, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping many, including scientists. It is a useful diagnostic to determine whether a signal may be operating above so-called random values of chance but not sufficiently robust to provide attribution of cause.
Climate is multi-causal. These drivers operate on different timescales. Internal variability also operates on different timescales. Stationarity within an annual time signal assumes there is one signal with red (randomly distributed) noise.
This does not describe global warming. Even the noise is organised on short (several years re ENSO), to multi-decadal timescales (North Atlantic Oscillation etc). The 30 years of the WMO for standard period is really a heuristic to manage this based on length of instrumental records and now on the fact the time series is clearly not stationary.
The 1:20 for the null hypothesis is also a heuristic. So we know the null hypothesis is not applicable to the global warming signal, except very loosely. So Phil Jones’s answer means very little – he should know that. And everyone who wants to prove it means something else – couldn’t give a rat’s arse* about what it means.
*This is a scientific term for the square root of -1
@Freelander
Given a choice between a Christian proselytising from a position of faith and an atheist proselytising out of petty small-mindedness give me the Christian everytime.
That would entail an acceptance that they were stolen. Leaving aside my luke warm enthusiasm for intellectual property rights I’m still left with the question of whether this was a leak or a hack. If it was a hack then who do I condemn given that nobody has been caught? And whilst my political philosophy is that theft should be illegal my moral philosophy is more nuanced and less pure than that. If the file had fallen into my hands and I had recognised the significance then I would probably have leaked it via somethink such as wikileaks. However I’m not into hacking networks.
Michael,
As requested please find below the link to the article which questions whether insulating homes reduces energy consumption. Obviously it reduces heat loss in winter and heat gain in summer but this isn’t the full story. Physics is not economics.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/woolly-claims-on-insulation/story-e6frg6z6-1225834522839
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
thanks for the link