Bishop Hill on Sir Edward Acton and the PSC into Cru.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/25/acton-analysis.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/25/acton-analysis.html
What a hideous piece of work this is.
Refuting illusory allegations
When we look at the CRU sections we see firstly that they are denying strongly that they have fabricated primary data. That they haven't done so is unsurprising, because as far as I am aware nobody has ever accused them of such a thing. This looks rather like the politician's trick of refuting an allegation that hasn't been made.
To call this disingenuous would be an understatement. There has in fact been a concerted campaign of mud slinging at CRU (and others) with the implication that they have fabricated the temperature record. All the nonsense about station selection (eg from dodgy brothers Moscow think tanks and many other sources) has been for exactly that purpose. Hill is especially hypocritical and particularly nauseating in making this claim.
There is a lengthy section dealing with allegations that CRU has exaggerated global warming by manipulation or selection of data. Most of this is verbiage, which doesn't address the primary issues of the non-availability of the CRUTEM code and the question of how individual stations are chosen. Claims that the adjustments are explained in published papers and unpublished technical reports can be tested in seconds, and a brief perusal suggests that anyone who reads the cited documents will be none the wiser as to how the adjustments actually work in practice. We need the code not more empty words.
Rubbish. There are any number of papers outlining the methods used in compiling the major temperature records. As HADCRUT is in close agreement with the surface records compiled by NASA GISS and NOAA and also the satellite lower tropospheric record from UAH and RSS, the chance that it is significantly in error is very small. This is what is important - not this petty vendetta by small minded individuals against climate scientists.
The old zombie argument about station selection has been well and truly put to death with a stake through it's heart by now.
Different code doesn't help
There is an interesting point at section 3.4.8 in which it is claimed that "the different computer program used to produce the CRUTEM3 dataset has now been released by [the Met Office] with the support of CRU". This rather curious form of words - a "different" computer program - presumably refers to the code in which John Graham-Cumming has just found an error. As has been noted previously, this is not the adjustment code that everyone wants to see and is not even the actual code used by the Met Office to create the HADCRUT global temperature series. Again, this looks like smoke and mirrors rather than an attempt to get to the truth.
What nonsense is this? He's not interested in the latest version of the code which is publicly available? Why not? What truth does he want to get at? Does he have any interest in the currently published temperature record CRUTEM3? Apparently not. If one was interested in the truth about the climate, then surely the latest material is the best source. But no, he wants to tilt at windmills of days past, in the vain hope finding some mud to sling. The truth about the climate is the last thing his mind.
And the by the way, the possible mistake he refers to is a miscalculation in the error estimate bands for the record - it seems the the uncertainty may have been overestimated. No comfort for denialists there.
He then continues rambling on about hockey sticks. Anybody with any genuine interest in the truth would go to the NOAA Paleoclimatic Data for the Last 2000 Years site: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html and look at a large number of reconstructions (not only Mann's) and what a surprise - they mostly resemble Mann's 'hockey stick'.
Yes Hill is afflicted with a malady but it isn't "thought". Small mindedness would be a more apt description of his ailment.
The caliber of some of the more lunatic denialists in the war on science:
"It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide."
"Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!"
"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?"
""F**k off!!!
"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!"
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
"It is probably not to (sic) extreme to suggest that your actions (deceitful) were so criminal to be compared with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. It is called treason and genocide."
"Your mother was a goat f**ker!!!!!! Your father was a turd!!!!!!! You will be one of the first taken out in the revolution!!!!!!!! Your head will be on a stake!! C**t!"
"Did you want to offer your children to be brutally gang-raped and then horribly tortured before being reminded of their parents socialist beliefs and actions?"
""F**k off!!!
"Or you will be chased down the street with burning stakes and hung from your f**king neck, until you are dead, dead, dead!"
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
The Economist: Journalistic malpractice on global warming
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/
and the attached video does an excellent job of deconstructing the drivel about Phil Jones in the Daily Mail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=player_embedded
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/climategate_distortions/
and the attached video does an excellent job of deconstructing the drivel about Phil Jones in the Daily Mail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag&feature=player_embedded
rags2riches
Well-known member
- Messages
- 399
- Likes
- 135
Adamus
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,898
- Likes
- 97
i think the whole issue of reducing our CO2 output could be quite simple: the idea is to create a carbon market - not a small, exclusive market for energy firms governed by the state, but a carbon market for everyone. Absolutely everyone should be given a carbon credit card, and each year it gets topped up with a personal annual carbon allowance.
you would pay for everything you use with carbon credits at the same time that you pay with money.
absolutely everything would have a carbon price as well as a money price. it would form a chain of carbon credits from carbon consumer to carbon producer. the original producers of the CO2 would have to pay the government exactly the amount of carbon credits to represent the carbon they burnt and the CO2 they produced.
It would be best denominated in grammes. So even a mars bar would cost you, say 10g off your carbon credit card.
If you needed more, you could buy more on the open market. if you had some to sell, you'd get the money for them from somebody who bought them off you at the prevailing price.
The government would allocate a new round of carbon allowances every year. To begin with, you would get more than you need, and for the first five years or so the whole process would be given a chance to settle in.
Admittedly the most difficult task would be to work out exactly how much CO2 was produced. But it is just a problem of estimation and arithmetic - not rocket science.
And then the government could gradually gradually reduce the allocation given out, or even increase it if it was found that the estimations were dodgy or the effect on the economy was too harsh.
The reason why I think this would work is:
(1) the political party wouldn't lose any votes installing the system because at the beginning, the carbon allocation would be more than needed on average so most people wouldn't be too hassled by it
(3) it won't get people's backs up because nobody is telling anyone what they can or can't do - it's their choice where they spend their carbon allowance.
(2) it allows the market to find solutions to the problems: for instance, if it turns out that people just never will give up on those winter strawberries flown in from SA, well they won't have to, as long as they can come up with the carbon credits for them - if in fact flying strawberries across the world is such a big deal per punnet of strawberries. So no more wondering who to believe about it - the carbon cost will appear on the label that you have to pay, and if you think it's too much, you can go somewhere else for it.
Isn't this just totally pragmatic or am I missing something?
you would pay for everything you use with carbon credits at the same time that you pay with money.
absolutely everything would have a carbon price as well as a money price. it would form a chain of carbon credits from carbon consumer to carbon producer. the original producers of the CO2 would have to pay the government exactly the amount of carbon credits to represent the carbon they burnt and the CO2 they produced.
It would be best denominated in grammes. So even a mars bar would cost you, say 10g off your carbon credit card.
If you needed more, you could buy more on the open market. if you had some to sell, you'd get the money for them from somebody who bought them off you at the prevailing price.
The government would allocate a new round of carbon allowances every year. To begin with, you would get more than you need, and for the first five years or so the whole process would be given a chance to settle in.
Admittedly the most difficult task would be to work out exactly how much CO2 was produced. But it is just a problem of estimation and arithmetic - not rocket science.
And then the government could gradually gradually reduce the allocation given out, or even increase it if it was found that the estimations were dodgy or the effect on the economy was too harsh.
The reason why I think this would work is:
(1) the political party wouldn't lose any votes installing the system because at the beginning, the carbon allocation would be more than needed on average so most people wouldn't be too hassled by it
(3) it won't get people's backs up because nobody is telling anyone what they can or can't do - it's their choice where they spend their carbon allowance.
(2) it allows the market to find solutions to the problems: for instance, if it turns out that people just never will give up on those winter strawberries flown in from SA, well they won't have to, as long as they can come up with the carbon credits for them - if in fact flying strawberries across the world is such a big deal per punnet of strawberries. So no more wondering who to believe about it - the carbon cost will appear on the label that you have to pay, and if you think it's too much, you can go somewhere else for it.
Isn't this just totally pragmatic or am I missing something?
Your marbles perhaps?
The ruinous cost. The impossibility of accuracy in a scheme such as this. The practicalities of implementing it in the developed world, let alone countries like India and China. The extraordinary level of intrusion that would be involved.
And one final thing - the fact that our CO2 emissions are all but irrelevant to the climate.
Edit:
This is by far the best part - it really does need highlighting.
"(3) it won't get people's backs up because nobody is telling anyone what they can or can't do "
WTF?
Adamus
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,898
- Likes
- 97
Well, that's your opinion. There are also other valid reasons for phasing out dependence on fossil fuels.
The point I'm trying to make is that most of the reaction and rejection of any attempts to mitigate climate change come from the fact that people just don't like the lefties and enviros and eco-freaks preaching about what they should or shouldn't do. Proposed solutions almost always resemble some kind of central planning, which the lefties see as warranted and everyone else as intrusive.
This way, where individuals have the choice where they are going to cause their allowance of CO2 emissions, is less objectionable.
I'd certainly agree with that, and for what it's worth I think that it will happen much sooner than people think.
It is not. You should make an effort to educate yourself about the science. The radiative forcing due to CO2 has been directly measured by satellite measurement of outgoing longwave radiation and ground based measurements of downward radiation. This is established in multiple scientific papers. The net effect of this is to add energy to earth's atmosphere, land surface and oceans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
It's an interesting idea, but I think it would very very difficult to administer. Considering the amount of international trade in the modern world, you would need all major economies to implement it simultaneously and in a verifiable way. It would require a separate carbon "pricing" for all good and services on the planet.
It is also too indirect - you need to put a cost on the emission of CO2 where it is generated. The further you go from that the more the scheme becomes dependent of perfection in market mechanisms which really do not exist. There must be a direct cost on emitting CO2.
This is not to say that I believe cap and trade is ideal or anywhere close to it. I think you need a whole range of measures from regulation (eg building regs for energy efficiency and micro generation) to taxing carbon to direct public expenditure.
The grim reality is that the longer real action is delayed, the more individual lifestyles will be affected. Start now, and most people will hardly notice any adverse difference at all. Leave it 20 years and the size of the time widow to take effective action has become so small that increasingly draconian measures will be the only option.
PS: regardless of the noisy rantings of right wing "libertarians", most people want good government not less government. Just ask anybody in any civilized country that has universal health care (on a variety of different models) and despite whatever shortcomings each individual system may have, if they would swap it for the US laise fare system. Not bloody likely!
Last edited:
chloe_wong
Junior member
- Messages
- 14
- Likes
- 0
hope the world will be better and better, not worse and worse.
Adamus
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,898
- Likes
- 97
But what's the choice? To have teams and teams of expert groups all trying to put forward their own ideas about what government action needs to be taken? Try to work it all out, individual issue per individual issue? I see a huge duplication of effort.
If the whole issue is trusted to the market, specifically this carbon credits market I'm suggesting, there is a huge opportunity for synergies and serendipitous mechanisms occurring.
It would be easy enough to implement it alone in the UK like this: all imports just like all other goods would have a carbon credit price. In the case of imports, the government would collect the credits at the harbour warehouse or airport. Governments seem to be good at collecting - like taxes and duties.
What your sentence is telling me is that I didn't get the idea across fully. The companies that dig the fossil fuel out of ground or the gas or the methane coming out of the **** end of cows have to pay the carbon credits for it in kilos and tonnes direct to the govn, just like duty on an import. They then have to recoup those carbon credits by putting the carbon credit on the label when they charge for the goods they produced, whatever it is. Otherwise they have to buy the carbon credits on the market. And if they can't afford that, they go bankrupt.
I think personal carbon credit allowances would allow us to get a good handle on it, and I think it would allow much more fine tuning at source - the amount of allowances allocated. The market price of carbon credits on the carbon credit exchange would probably fluctuate for reasons that not even the sharpest economists could foretell.
You said it would require a seperate carbon pricing for all goods and services on the planet - and that's true, but to implement it, the state only needs to impose it on the fossil fuel extraction at source. It is then down to the companies selling their products and services to work out how they are going to get the carbon credits that they use. At the end of the day, the credits will all come from individuals, which to me is the beauty of it.
A lot of pessimists complain that climate change represents too many challenges in too many diverse areas for society to deal with - but I think this would work well. Perhaps I'm too stoked by the idea to admit any shortcomings, but I honestly can't see any better alternative.
ps Chloe, I think most people hope that
Ingot54
Well-known member
- Messages
- 403
- Likes
- 62
On what authority Craig?
Education? Or brainwashing?
Or "anyone opposing the science has to be an idiot?"
Is that right Craig?
Would you stake your life on it?
Could you produce evidence in a court of your OWN measurements and personal findings, or are you accepting what science is telling you?
Remember it is just 8 years ago that science decided to tell us it is OK to consume the cholesterol contained in common hen's eggs, after decades of scaring us out of eating them because they were bad for our hearts.
Are you sure you still want to base your position 100% on science?
Why are scientists allowed to wield so much power in your head, Craig?
Why do you not question what you are fed by the vested interests?
Why are other respected scientists taking a different/opposite/contrary view?
Are they stupid denialists too?
Your credibility is up for grabs mate, and so far I do not see too many embracing your brand of fear-mongering poison. The alarmists are on the back foot alright, and here and there there are green shoots of their rebuilding their position on AGW.
Before Copenhagen, it was all momentum - all urgency - all "act now or perish", but here we are, 10 weeks later, and all signs of urgency, momentum and perishing have all-but fled from the psyche of the common man.
Doesn't that speak volumes about a good advertising campaign? Doesn't it tell you how well big money, a few personalities (even non-personalities like Al Gore) some fear and emotion, can get the public in a grip that will make them putty in the hands of the manipulators.
It has worked well in the past for political leaders with an agenda, and I have no doubt it will be used again. Herd mentality is something that develops, and once momentum is gained, the frenzy knows no bounds. The herd will do anything to ensure survival - anything except think for themselves.
People like Dcraig who read a little, set up their own website, and thus lock-in their position to maintaining the Al Gore lies, are doing far more damage to society than global warming ever will. They are spreading F-E-A-R like a plague, in the guise of "doing something". They have a vested interest in an outcome which if it ever gets legs, will be impossible to control - it will control US.
http://www.news.com.au/world/family-massacred-over-global-warming-fears/story-e6frfkyi-1225835900133
You see, the world has, since creation (which Dcraig emphatically denies and labels "creationists" with the same derogation as his "denialist" favourite tag) been experiencing rising and falling temperature flux. Science is not telling us anything here - history is.
What I find abhorrent and totally repugnant, is his claim that somehow a miniscule increase in measurable CO2 has something to do with a fraudulently manufactured "record" that shows us a correlation between man-made CO2 emissions, and a concocted temperature record.
Dcraig defends the frauds from UEA, who conspired to manipulate data (fact) to make it appear that temperature and CO2 are linked.
Science has shown it agrees with the historical record - that of a planet which experienced multiple times higher CO2 levels than we had today, yet had not only NO rising temperatures, but in fact much lower temperatures (middle ages for example).
Further, the rising and falling of global temperatures continue today as they always have - cyclical and rhythmical, as the earth "breathes".
People with an agenda merely cloud the issue with their "little white lies" designed to confuse folk who see a little bit of the story, and wonder if they should swallow the rest of the story.
History will place people like Dcraig in the group right beside Piltdown Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
These people took a little bit of history and built an entire story on it!
Only it was a hoax!
A hoax the world embraced eagerly, and emphatically as "evidence" of an evolving human species, as opposed to a specific stand-alone species that did NOT evolve. In short, those that could not handle that they may have been created, seized on the "evidence" to the contrary, only to be proven greater fools as news of the hoax emerged.
Dcraig is playing right into the hands of these very clever manipulators, who have invested very large sums of money on ensuring the world gets a new tradeable carbon tax.
This is from Goldman Sachs' own website:
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/servic...ness-initiatives/trading-and-cap-markets.html
Yes - Goldman Sachs, who are "doing God's work": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece (Would you trust your daughter in that man's hands? Why not? He's "doing God's work!")
Dcraig, it should be known, has no more qualifications than you or I have. He is an armchair climatologist, with his "degree" coming from access to Google and the Internet, and an acid tongue with which he attempts to silence any detractors.
Dcraig does not answer legitimate questions himself - he ignores them totally, unless he can Google a link and post it as justification for his position. He calls people conspiracy theorists, paranoid and narrow minded if they dare oppose him.
He has to.
His web site will fall over if AGW falls over.
Now watch for his response - as he predictably attempts (again) to put people down who oppose his views. He will "feel sorry" for his detractors, and/or belittle them or their views.
Meanwhile, the world will warm a little, then it will cool a little ... like it has since creation.
Where will you put your trust?
Is this the same D Craig? http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/
Attachments
Ingot, your posts consist entirely of political ranting and personal attacks upon myself. You would if you could destroy any science that reveals evidence that is with odds with your world view. You and your type are the modern equivalent of the medieval church.
The evidence for human induced global warming is clear and unambiguous and documented in thousands of published scientific papers by scientists working in many independent institutions across the world. No national academy or professional scientific body or scientific society of international standing disputes the reality of AGW.
If you wish to discuss or intelligently question any particular line of evidence, I am more than willing to do that with reference to the published science. But I have no interest whatsoever in your political obsessions.
And no, that blog has nothing to do with me. First time I've seen it in fact.
The evidence for human induced global warming is clear and unambiguous and documented in thousands of published scientific papers by scientists working in many independent institutions across the world. No national academy or professional scientific body or scientific society of international standing disputes the reality of AGW.
If you wish to discuss or intelligently question any particular line of evidence, I am more than willing to do that with reference to the published science. But I have no interest whatsoever in your political obsessions.
And no, that blog has nothing to do with me. First time I've seen it in fact.
