James Hansen replies to the deceitful IBD editorial:

The latest swift-boating (unless there is a new one among seven
unanswered calls on my cell) is the whacko claim that I received
$720,000.00 from George Soros. Here is the real deal, with the order
of things as well as I can remember without wasting even more time
digging into papers and records.

Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty
Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights
of free speech. I made two or three attempts to contact people at
Freedom Forum, who I had given permission to use a quote (something
like “in my thirty-some years in the government, I have never seen
anything like the present restrictions on the flow of information from
scientists to the public”) on their calendar. I wanted to know where
I could get, preferably inexpensive, legal advice. Never got a reply.

But then I received a call from the President of the Government
Accountability Project (GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur
Award (including a moderate amount of cash — $10,000 I believe; the
award is named for the guy who exposed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre),
and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter
(temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had
an escape clause that I later exercised).

I started to get the feeling that there may be expectations (strings)
coming with the award, and I was concerned that it may create the
appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship for the
sake of the $. So I called the President of GAP, asking how the
nomination process worked and who made the selection. He mentioned
that he either nominated or selected me. So I declined the award, but
I continued to accept pro bono legal advice for a while.

The principal thing that they provided was the attached letter to
NASA. This letter shows me why scientists drive 1995 Hondas and
lawyers drive Mercedes. I have a feeling that the reader of that
letter had at least one extra gulp of coffee that morning.

Meanwhile Steinn Sigurðsson investigated the IBD claims himself:

So: Hansen got pro-bono legal advice, and possibly some media advice (though I doubt he needs that, he’ll have his own AddressBook of contacts) from GAP, which got some of its funding (about 15%) from OSI, including $100k specifically to assist Science and Engineering whistleblowers. The Soros Foundation, of which OSI is part, spend $400 million in 2006.

One can find all this online in 30 seconds through Google.

Yet IBD considers this a “threat to democracy” because these organizations seek to affect public opinion and “lack transparency”.

Do IBD op-ed columns attempt to affect public opinion?
The column was not signed, btw.

I thought Investor’s Business Daily approved of rich people being allowed to spend their money however they liked?

I should note that an additional seven seconds with Google showed that the Government Accountability Project didn’t just reveal their relationship to Hansen, they sent out Press Releases SHOUTING this fact to the world

Contrast this with NewsBusters (part of Media Research Center), who have helped lead the swift boating of Hansen. They sure seem to keep very quiet about the hundreds of thousands of dollars MRC has received from Exxon, don’t they?

Update: Robert McClure talked to GAP and OSI:

GAP’s president Louis Clark and Rick Piltz, director of GAP’s climate science watch program, say they helped Hansen in about February to April of 2006. Their 15-page grant proposal to the Open Society Institute in late July of that year had 15 lines that referred to Hansen, with seven lines recounting what they’d already done for him and two more that said they “remain available to defend Dr. Jim Hansen’s job and to offer legal advice upon request.” Said Clark:

This is happening because it’s much easier to attack the messenger than it is to actually deal with and come to terms with what his message is. Some people have a vested interest in not dealing with the concerns he has raised.

Clark had a minor correction to Hansen’s account: Hansen called them about representation after having been told he was nominated for the Ridenaur Award, rather than GAP calling Hansen to offer counsel.

Amy Weil, a spokeswoman for the Open Society Institute, e-mailed to say her institute is non-partisan and has never given any money to Hansen, adding:

However, OSI does support whistleblower protection agencies and we applaud Dr. Hansen for exposing NASA’s attempts to silence his call for prompt reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Comments

  1. #1 Eli Rabett
    October 3, 2007

    Hitler. Gotta put this thread out of its misery.

  2. #2 Jc
    October 3, 2007

    ELi says:
    “Gotta put this thread out of its misery.”

    Yea professor. seeing you were one of the first out the gate with the scorn and abuse. Two things:

    Is that how you act on campus, and

    would you allow the same abuse on you blog.

    Great form, professor Eli.

  3. #3 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2007

    By the way, this was pretty priceless:

    “He also figured out that soot in the atmosphere is acting, as a substantial warming agent and it is not just CO2 causing the problem.”

    Ho ho ho. indeed. Wonder what Jack Chick pamphlet the trolls learn their KLIMAT SIENS from?

  4. #4 Jc
    October 3, 2007

    Marian, you silly twat. It’s a fact about Hansens work. That’s one of the things he discovered.

    Any reason you find that comment unusual?

  5. #5 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2007

    I think trying to invoke the fascist so-called Godwin’s law is EXACTLY like something Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s during the Nazi period of World War II and the holocaust would have done!

    Some behavior from a so-called science doctor!

  6. #6 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2007

    I think trying to invoke the fascist so-called Godwin’s law is EXACTLY like something Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s during the Nazi period of World War II and the holocaust would have done!

    Some behavior from a so-called science doctor!

  7. #7 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2007

    I think trying to invoke the fascist so-called Godwin’s law is EXACTLY like something Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s during the Nazi period of World War II and the holocaust would have done!

    Some behavior from a so-called science doctor!

  8. #8 Marion Delgado
    October 3, 2007

    I think trying to invoke the fascist so-called Godwin’s law is EXACTLY like something Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party of Germany in the 1930s during the Nazi period of World War II and the holocaust would have done!

    Some behavior from a so-called science doctor!

  9. #9 Boris
    October 3, 2007

    I apologize for calling you guys a bunch of ducks.

  10. #10 Jc
    October 3, 2007

    Thanks Boris.

  11. #11 Tim Lambert
    October 3, 2007

    JC, Marion is amused because “soot in the atmosphere is acting, as a substantial warming agent” is not a fact. Soot in the atmosphere causes cooling.

  12. #12 Chris O'Neill
    October 3, 2007

    “What I love about Deltoid is Lambert of course. He brings up great topics that seem to flush out the angry, intolerant lefties from their burrows”

    The proof of this, of course, is the first comment of the thread.

  13. #13 Jc
    October 3, 2007

    Tim:

    Really?

    Not if he’s correct.

    http://www.geotimes.org/aug07/article.html?id=WebExtra080307.html

    I thought the question of it’s behaviour wasn’t questioned and understood it to be warming agent which was associated with Hansen.

  14. #14 Jc
    October 3, 2007

    And here’s me thinking the science was settled. I wonder if Eli could comment on these findings seeing he’s a resident gas guru.

    Eli,
    did you know about these experiments sggesting that soot at different elevations have varying degrees of behavioural charcteristics and it could change the status of current modeling.

    Marian? How about you Mr. Amusued.

  15. #15 mgr
    October 3, 2007

    jc:

    Regarding the article on soot and warming

    1–this is a regional phenomena, not global.

    2–the effect is not related to the effect aerosols have in reducing net insolation that early GCMs missed.

    3–In science, a single experiment is not convincing.

    4–The study even if true, does nothing to enhance or reduce Hansen’s standing.

    So what was your point?

    Mike

  16. #16 Gelbstoff
    October 3, 2007

    Dear JC:
    Regarding the soot article, I do not see your point. Perhaps you are getting confused with aerosols. Besides, I think that the effect of soot mentioned in this article is local, and soot does not have the residence time of CO2 or CH4.

    Gelbstoff

  17. #17 Jc
    October 4, 2007

    jc:
    Mike says:

    Regarding the article on soot and warming

    1–this is a regional phenomena, not global.

    So, err you’re saying there is Asian soot, European soot, Indian soot, Chinese soot. So soot takes on racial characteristics too? :-)

    3–In science, a single experiment is not convincing.

    Tell that to Marian. She was amused that I thought soot was a warming agent. She was certain in fact. These experiments demonstrate uncertainty and she ought to wipe her amused look off her face.

    4–The study even if true, does nothing to enhance or reduce Hansen’s standing.

    I never said it did. I praised Hansen. Marian picked me up on the fact that I thought it had been Hansen who claimed soot was a warming agent. The science groupie thinks that was a major sin. She also thought I was being silly to make the claim about soot/warming agent.

    These experiments show this may in fact be the case.

  18. #18 mgr
    October 4, 2007

    jc at 214:

    re: Reply to point one–playing the racist card, eh. Good rhetoric, poor logic. It would help if you actually read the Nature article. The article states that it is a regional phenomena, and that the chemistry of the soot over the Indian may be unique in comparison to that over the Himalayas. The soot observation is a competing explanation for the warming observed in the Indian subcontinent with global warming. It has potentially distinct policy choices separate from addressing reduction in GG emissions.

    re: reply to point two–none given. You therefore support Marion Delgado (a male, I should point out, stop misspelling his name) and Tim Lambert’s postion that you were wrong. This was the crux of my original post.

    re: reply to point three. More rhetoric, but the logic is that since you conceded point two, your response here is at best evasive.

    re: reply to point four. More rhetoric. You are the one suggesting that Hansen included this heating mechanism as an element in GGMs, and implied that he had it wrong. The issue has nothing to do with Hansen’s work, but is a well known corollary from the old urban heat island effect working on a larger regional scale that was never anticipated.

    My conclusion is that you are ignorant of basic climatology, and mendacious to boot. Good day.

    Mike

  19. #19 mgr
    October 4, 2007

    Two corrections to 215:

    GG should be GHG, and GGM should be GCM.

    Note to self, wipe glasses before reviewing post, or don’t post until after the eye exam.

    Mike.

  20. #20 Gelbstoff
    October 4, 2007

    Dear JC,

    Your answers to Mike have no substance. What is this non-sense about Asian vs. European soot? If you do not have a valid point, do not try to be funny. The rest of posting 214 makes even less sense. What is the “science groupie”? Oh, and you really need to learn to count. It goes: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This should be enough for today.

    Hello Mike, are you a climatologist?

    Gelbstoff

  21. #21 Jc
    October 4, 2007

    Mike says:

    ” The article states that it is a regional phenomena, and that the chemistry of the soot over the Indian may be unique in comparison to that over the Himalayas”

    So err Mike you missed my point? Was that deliberate or was it the eyesight problem?

    Here’s it is:

    Eli, did you know about these experiments sggesting that soot at different elevations have varying degrees of behavioural charcteristics and it could change the status of current modeling.

    I was criticsed for two things.

    That i had Hansen pegged as a 100% warmer and related to that that I had soot as a warming agent whereas both Tim and Marian had it as a cooler.

    Clearly that isn’t the case (cooling agent 100% of th time) in so far as this experiment may be indicating.

  22. #22 Jc
    October 4, 2007

    ” Your answers to Mike have no substance. ”

    Says you

    ” What is this non-sense about Asian vs. European soot? ”

    A joke.

    ” If you do not have a valid point, do not try to be funny.”

    Why not? You’re certaintly not offering a giggle, Mr. Mirthless.

    ” The rest of posting 214 makes even less sense.”

    Says you

    ” What is the “science groupie”? ”

    Like rock star groupie.

    ” Oh, and you really need to learn to count. ”

    I’m not bad actually , but I am very lazy.

    ” It goes: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. This should be enough for today.”

    Really? They were a copy of Mike’s numbered comments. It would have been confusing to renumber them.

    “Hello Mike, are you a climatologist?”

    I am. i did an economics degree then worked in the financial markets and went to climate science straight from there. I am setting up a website for people to get Phd’s in climate science. Would you like one, they’re free and you don’t have to sit for a test? Just email me and I’ll send you the certifaction. I’m doing it so people don’t feel left out as everyone is a climate expert these days.

  23. #23 Majorajam
    October 4, 2007

    Jc is to Deltoid threads what Agent Smith is to the Matrix. Only far far dumber.

  24. #24 mgr
    October 4, 2007

    Gelbstoff:

    No.

    I am primarily a historical plant geographer, and straddle the epistemological space between ecology and climate. My primary tool was pollen analysis, and I have training in geomorphology, systematics, tauphonomy, and climatology.

    In my attempt at a Phd, I worked on paleoclimate/paleo ecological reconstruction of the Great Basin, so I grounded myself in boundary layer climatology to develop a transient climate model. That makes me somewhat familiar with GCMs and GISS. One of my advisors was with IPCC.

    Marriage, age, and child abruptly ended that, and I am now so far afield from that I look back in nostalgia, and semi-lurk in these blogs. The better expert in this thread is Eli.

    Mike

  25. #25 mgr
    October 4, 2007

    jc at 218.

    I note that you read a summary on the web, and possibly not the best summary, of a technical article in Nature. I read the article. Your reasoning and presumptions are wrong on so many levels it is staggering.

    I already informed you that the article has nothing to do with GCM, or GISS for that matter. These are the topics at hand, they are what pertain to Hansen’s work. It has nothing to do with coal pollution at different elevations above the surface. So calling Eli out was pointless. Note that where the coal is obtained will result in soot with different chemical and physical characteristics.

    “That i (sic) had Hansen pegged as a 100% warmer and related to that that I had soot as a warming agent whereas both Tim and Marian (sic) had it as a cooler.”

    My immediate question–what does it mean when you fish for a bass, and you bring up a boot, that you originally were fishing for the boot?

    Hansen’s work is not the sum of climatology. For Hansen and GISS alone, soot can be considered a component of aerosol, and primarily has the role of scattering SW radiation. Tim and Marion were correct to call you on this. You can’t talk your way out of the fact that you were wrong.

    Any well informed person reading this blog would know that had GCMs not modeled the effect of aerosols as such, there would not have been as good an accord of the similations and the empirical, and therefore there would not be as great a sense of fidelity with the future simulations. So, you can’t get out of it based on ignorance.

    The global significance of aerosols, of which soot may be considered a component, is with scattering of short wave radiation. What the article addresses is a component of the soot over the Indian Ocean possessing unexpected physical properties in that it absorbs short wave radiation. The finding has no impact on the AGHG/global warming hypothesis and GCM modeling, except that rather than absortion and re-radiation at the surface, a portion of the absorbtion and re-radiation occurs in the troposphere. It implies a modest change to the energy budget, quite likely insignficant when levels of magnitude are considered. It is quite an unkempt economist that cannot comprehend this up front, but when you live under a rock maybe basic meterology and physical geography was dropped from your general elective program in high school and college.

    You owe Marion, Tim, and Eli an apology; hell, you owe the readers of this blog an apology for the waste of time. That of course assumes that your failure of comprehension is just an outcome of laziness rather than something genetic.

    Mike

  26. #26 gelbstoff
    October 4, 2007

    Dear JC,

    I do not feel compelled to be funny. You are providing all the entertainment. And no, there is no substance in your answers. Just one example- when Mike explained to you that the effect of soot was regional, not global, you had no other answer than to try to be funny. On top of that, you may be missing the bigger picture here -that the offending CO2 and soot(part of it) are anthropogenic. For this reason, I can believe that you are an economist. I also understand now your rant in previous postings about scientists not been qualified to make policy. Clearly, I disagree.

    The claim that you are also a climatologist appears vaporous. If memory serves me right, you have confused the IPCC with GCM models, chemical engineers with physical chemists, claimed that Hansen does not know the difference between climate and weather etc, and there is that pesky numbering problem…but my apologies if my memory is wrong. Nevertheless, I reject the idea that one has to have a degree or publications to speak intelligently about a subject. This is a common logical fallacy.
    I am not a climatologist, just a lowly oceanographer who works on NASA-funded climate-related research. I do not work for NASA anymore, I am now in academia. I do have, however, a couple of graduate degrees including a PhD and a few publications. So, I must pass on your very generous offer to get a PhD from you. But I do thank you!
    So, my dear JC, of all your postings, #83 is the most lucid. It is even fairly well-written, although it contains some questionable assertions. Do you care to revisit? Otherwise, I am loosing interest.

    Truly yours,
    Gelbstoff

  27. #27 Boris
    October 4, 2007

    “Clearly that isn’t the case (cooling agent 100% of th time) in so far as this experiment may be indicating.”

    Yeah, this was not really news, but congrats on winning another argument that no one was making. You’re like 45-3 in those so far.

  28. #28 Eli Rabett
    October 4, 2007

    FWIW, Indian soot is bad shit (actually cow dung or a lot of it is). A major issue is that the Indian poor burn dried cow dung for cooking. Since most cooking is done in enclosed spaces, that does wonders for the lungs of the women who do the cooking and the kids who hang around. Which may be why they call it a brown cloud. OTOH the Indians cannot get the poor to use other fuel because the cow patties are shit cheap

    The other strangeness here is that Hansen has been one of Mark Jacobson’s big boosters, every since Jacobson in ~2000 pointed out that black carbon would have important climatic effects. jc is copying out of some disinfo blog

    To round it out, last time I looked there were still major uncertainties in how black carbon nucleated aerosols, which could even change the sign of the effect.

  29. #29 Jc
    October 4, 2007

    Gelbstoff

    I am not an economist although I majored in economics. However I know enough about the subject as I worked on Wall Street and Australia in macro markets which meant we consumed economic research every day 24/7 as a trader. This type is quite different from academic economics.

    The point about soot:

    Marrion and then Tim played gotcha but ended up locking in one bracelet.

    They argued two things.

    1. Soot warms

    2. Hansen had soot as a cooler.

    Soot is not a warming agent 100% of the time, which is the point I was making in linking that piece. So their inference was incorrect. We can cut and dice it however many times you want but it is not correct.

    I did get Hansen’s association wrong it seems.

    “I also understand now your rant in previous postings about scientists not been qualified to make policy. Clearly, I disagree.”

    Of course they can… if they care qualified to do so. If they’re not qualified they have no business entering the policy debate, as they will screw it up.

    Economics is the study of human scarcity/ wants/ satisfaction. It is also the study of trade offs (opportunity cost) that need to be made when there are competing interests at stake.

    Cutting the debate down about AGW to its most basic in terms of where the rubber meets the road……. the discussion is basically about the type of insurance policy we should buy to attempt some mitigation. Climate scientists are not qualified to perform these studies. It is not a matter of how smart they are. It is a question of where their expertise lies. That was always my point.

    Example:

    Say ocean levels are predictied to rise by say 1 foot over the next 90 odd years (it’s not a prediction by the way).

    What do we do? At face value it seems to we should try to prevent that. However on further analysis we may not reach the same conclusion. Eliminating US Federal Gov insurance relief to coastal areas may do the job all by itself. this of course is predicted on the assumption that the other side of the equation is economic growth as measured by GDP.

    We had one attempt with Stern’s report and it turned out to be an unmitigated (no pun intended) shambles. Lets hope we have learned from that mistake.

    Eli

    Thanks for the explanation.

  30. #30 gelbstoff
    October 4, 2007

    Dear JC,

    I agree with your point regarding non-qualified scientists making fine points of policy. However, I doubt that Hansen was making very specific policy suggestion. He, like many including myself are alarmed by the lack of any clear policy to deal with GW. Clearly, the low hanging fruit is the reduction of emissions, which will also bring many other
    benefits in terms of health, technology development, increase efficiencies, and perhaps some remedy to international upheaval. I also understand that this low hanging fruit may be poisonous to some economic interests that contribute heavily to the GOP.

    I know that your comment about sea level rise is just an example, but is indicative of a fairly narrow view. I will say that I agree that the elimination of federal insurance relief may solve the problem in the USA, but what about all the millions of people in developing countries who live in coastal areas? What about coral reefs, mangrove, fisheries, etc? Are you relocating cities and ports? This is a reason to have scientists in the loop.

    And JC, the US is not an economy, is a country, and its citizens are not consumers, they are people, and often the median is more informative than the average. Remember this before you do your next economic analysis and start talking about GDP.

    But back to the original point of this discussion. So, Hansen comes to believe that AGW is a big problem -now the consensus of the scientific community. So, he speaks out. What is wrong with that? He strongly believes that the problem is big enough to grant immediate attention, and he had the stature to get it, so he did. Some may argue that scientists should stay out of political issues to avoid the appearance of partiality. However, Hansen did not create the political issue – others did. His endorsement of Kerry (a tactical mistake regardless of W) came long after AGW has been politicized, and Hansen did favor McCain before. Besides, Hansen is in good company when it comes to famous scientists mixing it up with policy and politics.

    Now, you may argue that because Hansen is a civil servant he should not speak out. Well he works for NASA, an R&D agency with no policy responsibilities. So why should a NASA scientists refrain from speaking out about a problem that requires a policy solution? A problem that he understood while performing his job! I think that the opposite is the case. If he has not spoken out, he would have been derelict in his duty. Think about this, should a scientist from NIH stay silent in the face of an issue critical to the health of the nation? Now, think even harder, do you think that a NASA scientist who calls for the development of a costly defense system against asteroids will be swifboated?

    And I did not know that black soot could be cooling -I am highly skeptical – have to get out of the lab and read more. So many papers, so little time…

    Regards,

    Gelbstoff.

  31. #31 Chris O'Neill
    October 5, 2007

    Jc: “I would expect Eli to have published a few papers on climate science if as he implies he knows the stuff.”

    Until I know Jc has published a few papers on anything I will conclude he knows nothing.

  32. #32 stewart
    October 6, 2007

    We have read Jc’s oeuvre. It’s clear he has strong opinions, and it’s clear that he brings them to play on most topics, whether relevant or not. It’s also clear that facts are inconvenient, but not an obstacle on the way to the perfect libertarian future. Now we know all that, can we get back to the main topics?

    It seems to me that Hansen ranks just before or after Gore, depending on the day, as the enemy for the anti-climate science crowd. It’s also clear that these people can hold umpteen contradictory ideas at the same time, share them rapidly, and aren’t interested in the truth. This is a situation where Lord Monckton’s preferred solution for scientific disputes carries some attractiveness. Sue the bastards, say loudly that they are liars, or ignore them. They aren’t presenting facts or rational argument, and won’t respond to them.

  33. #33 Jc
    October 6, 2007

    Stewart:
    “It seems to me that Hansen ranks just before or after Gore, depending on the day, as the enemy for the anti-climate science crowd.”

    Not really, Stewart. Reasonable people can reach the conclusion it may be worth buying some storm insurance with AGW etc. but consider Prince Albert to be a bolivating twat. He always has been. (can one say that about royalty and not be jailed?)

    http://www.drudgereport.com/gore.htm

    Nice jet looking jet the Prince used on his way to Eygpt obviously to speak about how people ought to change their ways and that AGW is a THE MORAL ISSUE OF THE CENTURY

    Can someone help me please?

    I can’t quite tell from this angle if it is a Global Express, the super Gulfstream 5.5 or the regular Gulfstream 5.

    Anyone know? Marian?

  34. #34 Tim Lambert
    October 6, 2007

    JC, what I can’t tell from your picture, is who are the people in it. On account of their heads being five blurry pixels high. And even if that is him and the jet is powered by rendered baby seals, so what? How does that change the facts he presented in “An Inconvenient Truth”.

  35. #35 sod
    October 6, 2007

    Until I know Jc has published a few papers on anything I will conclude he knows nothing.

    nice one.

    but please do not judge his wisdom. ONLY economist have any right on an oppinion on global warming.

    everyone else has to write some peer reviewed articles. and even then, you are not allowed to go public with your results or to advice politicians. that is still for ECONOMISTS only…

    Nice jet looking jet the Prince used on his way to Eygpt obviously to speak about how people ought to change their ways and that AGW is a THE MORAL ISSUE OF THE CENTURY

    shame on him! how coul Gore dare to make a film on plastic celluloid? he should have been writing stuff with selfmade ink on recycled paper!

    hint to Jc:
    while trying to safe the word, you are even allowed an occasional trip on a private jet.

  36. #36 z
    October 6, 2007

    “How does that change the facts he presented in “An Inconvenient Truth”.

    The what-climate-change would not pay attention to the argument, unless it is put forward by a person living in a grass hut wearing all cotton clothing and hempen sandals who spreads the message by walking from town to town. We can all imagine for ourselves the respect such a person’s arguments would get from the what-climate-change folks.

  37. #37 dhogaza
    October 6, 2007

    ONLY economist have any right on an oppinion on global warming.

    Read closely above and you’ll see that JC doesn’t claim to be an economist, only that he majored in economics in College. An undergraduate degree, in other words.

    Which may be one reason he doesn’t clearly understand many of the concepts he cites when he’s saying such nasty things about real economists who post here (Ian Gould, for instance).

  38. #38 Jc
    October 6, 2007

    Hoggsie

    Formal qualifactions in Oz aren’t the same as the US. You don’t do an undergrad/grad degree to be considered the same way.

    “Read closely above and you’ll see that JC doesn’t claim to be an economist”

    Correct. I’m not a professional economist in the formal sense.

  39. #39 Jc
    October 6, 2007

    “And even if that is him and the jet is powered by rendered baby seals, so what? How does that change the facts he presented in “An Inconvenient Truth”.”

    Forgetting the science. Forget the fact that he exaggerated the science, introduced pics and film of Katrina for example to showcase his arguemment when people like Chris Landsea have said we don’t have the evidence to tie increased atlantic storm activity to AGW. Forget all that.

    Prince Albert told his audience in that annoying tone he uses (to para)that AGW is the moral imperative of our era and that we must change our ways.

    Changing “our” ways to Prince Albert means he upgrades from a base model Citation 1 to an interncontinental private jet.

    He can’t even live by the standards he sets for others. This has always beent he case with him.

  40. #40 dopey
    October 6, 2007

    Correct. I’m not a professional economist in the formal sense.

    LOL – who could have known?

  41. #41 Majorajam
    October 6, 2007

    Jc. Borat meets Agent Smith. Me, me and more me. You will notice this entire thread is devoted to Jc and parody of Jc, (and thank god for the signature feature else it would be difficult to tell them apart). Still, that seems like an awful lot of credence for such a workaday troll- I’m sure he appreciates the attention, else how to account for his posts? Where’s Freud when you need some illicit drugs, or a pop psychologist when you need to deconstruct a windbag?

    Never one to take my own advice, I have to comment on the hypocrisy card, which hypocritical right wingers are adept at employing. It turns out if you’re rich, like John Edwards, that makes you a hypocrite for making poor and lower middle class’s economic hardships a political issue. FDR eat your heart out. It is also the case that though Gore is advocating public policy from which he would not exempt himself, and hence would be worse off- for example, it’s fair to say he’d pay more to heat his house and travel if he got his way politically- he’s a hypocrite if he has a carbon imprint, no matter the requirements on his time, etc. Matt Drudge, not far from the root of all evil, breaks the grainy courageous photo-journalist taken deep throat photos.

    In a right wing nutjobs mind, if you advocate low taxes for the rich, and you are rich yourself and therefore profit from this policy position, that’s a-ok. It’s also ok for people who devoted their youths to dodging military service, deferment Dick for example, to go on to spend their adult lives ordering young men off to die. But to advocate high taxes on a group that you count yourself a member of- HYPOCRITE! What’s the point with these people? Speaking of, I’m in dire need of a beer.

  42. #42 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    “Jc. Borat meets Agent Smith. Me, me and more me. You will notice this entire thread is devoted to Jc and parody of Jc, (and thank god for the signature feature else it would be difficult to tell them apart).”

    If I’m Borat, Major, you must be the huge, naked fat guy running after him.

    “Still, that seems like an awful lot of credence for such a workaday troll- I’m sure he appreciates the attention, else how to account for his posts? Where’s Freud when you need some illicit drugs, or a pop psychologist when you need to deconstruct a windbag?”

    Windbag/ me? The length of your comments defines windbarggery, Mr.Windbag. And here I was being polite by nicely showing you where you goofed up that analysis of the Cal power supply problem. Thanks thankless.

    “Never one to take my own advice, I have to comment on the hypocrisy card, which hypocritical right wingers are adept at employing.”

    Oh yea, the new gold standard in observing hypocrisy. Which is:

    “It turns out if you’re rich, like John Edwards, that makes you a hypocrite for making poor and lower middle class’s economic hardships a political issue.”

    Except we were talking about Prince Albert. Edwards has his own problems such as making sure no hair is out of place.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

    Who ever said Edwards was shallow?

    “FDR eat your heart out. It is also the case that though Gore is advocating public policy from which he would not exempt himself, and hence would be worse off- for example, it’s fair to say he’d pay more to heat his house and travel if he got his way politically- he’s a hypocrite if he has a carbon imprint, no matter the requirements on his time, etc. Matt Drudge, not far from the root of all evil, breaks the grainy courageous photo-journalist taken deep throat photos.”

    Prince Albert is a hypocrite of the first order. This is a man who tells us, no instructs us that GW is the moral imperative of our era as he’s updating his jet to a Gulfstream 5.5. “The moral imperative of our eara” doesn’t apply to him.

    “In a right wing nutjobs mind, if you advocate low taxes for the rich, and you are rich yourself and therefore profit from this policy position, that’s a-ok.”

    As against leftwing frauds and intellectual freaks that avoid explaining most of taxes are paid by about 15% of the people. Those mega wealthy Dem supporters remain well insulated from the tax bite of course as they benefit through tax-free capital appreciation. Warrren Beuffet is a classic case. Of course Warren wouldn’t support a wealth tax, he supports a higher income tax seeing he is relatively “income poor”. Berkshire has never paid a dividend allowing compounding to acculmulate at the tax free rate of return. Warren of course would like to see a higher income tax rate. But he never mentions a wealth tax. What bleeding a hypocrite.

  43. #43 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    Dopey

    I have been a professional trader in macro markets for the past few decades. I know economics. Don’t be a dope, dopey.

  44. #44 Majorajam
    October 7, 2007

    Sorry Jc, you’re far more interesting as a phenomenon than a person, and its the phenomenon that I posted to. To the individual, of course you are correct and I should not want to challenge that steel trap of a brain of yours. Speaking of, am still hoping you will share with us your breakthrough in the water distribution business.

    Btw, when trying to impersonate a trader, try to avoid describing yourself as a trader in the ‘macro markets’. Since I’m no financial instruments are described as ‘macro’, and since no one in the industry outside of the back office wanna-be community would ever speak that way, it’s a dead give away. Now run along and get your shine box.

  45. #45 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    “Since I’m no financial instruments are described as ‘macro’, and since no one in the industry outside of the back office wanna-be community would ever speak that way, it’s a dead give away.”

    Don’t be silly, major. Currencies and bonds are referered to macro markets., that is unless of course you have redefined them not to be. If you’re going to be insulting try to at least not make dumbass errors doing so.

    Re the water stuff. I did explain it twice but you were to myopic to “listen” just like you didn’t listen to the polite corrrection i offered to your pretty good rant on the cal power situation. Recall? I nicley explained to you that the outta staters weren’t going to sell power to Cal below cost. I trying to help you understand the real reasons rather than the stupid explanations you were offering… ie that there must have been some sort of collusion. What part in Dumb and Dumber did you play?

  46. #46 Majorajam
    October 7, 2007

    No Jc, they’re referred to as fx and bond or interest rate markets respectively. OTOH, there is a classification of trading strategies known as ‘Macro’ but the name does not come from the type of securities it invests in, but rather due to the underlying signal it is trying to exploit- the hint is in the name fyi. That in practice these tend more to be technical strategies than anything else makes ‘macro’ one of many misnomers in the field of finance. Next time you want to pretend to be something that you’re not, get the jargon straight, and of course recognize that you’re in over your head. This last piece of advice is for those with a modicum of pride, so you can happily ignore that bit.

    By your statements in the other thread, you assert it is possible to distribute water without pipes and pumping stations. It is this revolutionary concept that I am hoping you will divulge. As for collusion in the California energy markets, your assessment of the situation is typically novel- perhaps you should apprise the three Enron traders who confessed to manipulating the markets or listen to the contemporaneously taped phone conversation in which one trader indicates to a producer that then was a good time to shut down for maintenance *wink*.

    And now I’m a fully participating member of the farce. I want my shoes looking like mirrors shine boy.

  47. #47 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    Major

    re your shoes….Do you spit and polish?

    This is what you wrote on the other thread about the Cal issue:

    “This all meant that power consumption was increasing rapidly and that has all the makings of a problem. The bottom line is that California was not adequately supplied, as indicated by the extent it relied on out of state production and its low reserve ratio, (or the extent to which it threw caution to the wind on Diablo Canyon, which was operating flat out despite erstwhile concerns that it should be run at well below capacity)”

    Now you’re saying this:

    As for collusion in the California energy markets, your assessment of the situation is typically novel- perhaps you should apprise the three Enron traders who confessed to manipulating the markets or listen to the contemporaneously taped phone conversation in which one trader indicates to a producer that then was a good time to shut down for maintenance wink.

    The reason it wasn’t adequaely sourcing outta state power during peak times was due to the self imposed ceiling. When the cost rose above the ceiling the outta staters couldn’t supply the power needs of the state. This is what I have been trying to drum into your thick skull since you wrote the first comment.

    Re the water issue:

    Don’t so thick. Scroll through and you’ll see my answer. If you still need help let me know and I’ll point to it.

    Re Macro markets:

    You haven’t a clue.

  48. #48 Jc
    October 7, 2007

    Two quick references to show you that macro trading refers to trading macro markets ie global markets such as currencies and bonds, Mr. Cocksure.

    All you had to do is google, Majorjammer. Now thank me for doing the work for you, you ingrate.

    Peter Borish is Chairman of the Board of Directors of OneChicago, LLC, the security futures exchange. Mr. Borish is also the CEO of Twinfields Capital Management, a global macro hedge fund focused on the fixed income sector, founded in 2004 by Joseph Niciforo

    Institutional Investor Magazine Excerpts
    Macro, Macro man
    By Riva Atlas
    Today [Louis] Bacon reigns over not only Moore Capital but over the most visible, most high-octane area of money management – macro investing. He gained the throne by default, and at a time when the future of the realm is increasingly in doubt. After sharp reversals, Julian Robertson in March shut down Tiger Management; in April it was George Soros’ turn to slash the size and scope of his funds. With $9.4 billion under management – $7.6 billion in macro partnerships – Bacon is by far the biggest of the daredevil managers who are still placing big directional bets on stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities at a time when such bold trading has come under withering scrutiny.

  49. #49 Majorajam
    October 7, 2007

    Great cite Borat: “Bacon is by far the biggest of the daredevil managers who are still placing big directional bets on stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities at a time when such bold trading has come under withering scrutiny”

    Shouldn’t that read, “…who are still placing big directional bets on stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities and macro investments…”? As I said as if to a wall, macro is a classification of *investment strategies*. ‘Macro markets’, on the other hand, don’t exist outside of Jc land, just like monopolies that aren’t ordained by the state, e.g. DeBeers, market manipulation that’s on the public record, e.g. Enron’s, and water distribution companies that have no choice but to employ pipes and pumping stations. I’m reminded of the Simpson’s episode where Homer prances through a world made of chocolate except yours is a waking dream made of nothing outside of your own self-aggrandizing fantasies. Keep up the good work subverting a decent blog.

  50. #50 Lee
    October 7, 2007

    Jc is historically idiotic, as usual.

    California’s shortages were happening while there was no ceiling on wholesale prices. Generators were selling on an open hourly spot market, with no ceiling, and gaming that market, and making oodles. There was no ceiling. That was the problem – they could withdraw generating capacity, drive a sharp spike in wholesale prices, and make out like bandits while we suffered shortages – which is what they were doing.

    When a wholesale ceiling price was finally applied, removing the incentive to game for higher prices, the power shortages stopped. That fricking day, they stopped. Almost like magic. When they could no longer manipulate the price spikes, it became better for them to sell all their capacity at the quite-profitable ceiling prices or below, than to withhold capacity to manipulate price spikes for the hourly spot market.

  51. #51 Marion Delgado
    October 10, 2007

    the stuff with troll x questioning eli reminds me of when the discussion (RC, rabbett, tamino, etc.) was sidetracked into spectral absorption and emission skepticism, I was asking out of idle curiosity eli about his posted pressure broadening profiles one of which was a Voigt profile (the convolution of a normal distribution such as Doppler broadening produces and a Cauchy distribution like natural broadening or impact pressure broadening exhibit) which I had seen but not remembered what kind of function it was, and a Rautian-Sobelman, of which I hadn’t heard. I asked what it meant that the Rautian was better. I think the kind of straight answer you get from the Rabett should highlight why some of us are annoyed by typical denialist vagueness. the question should have been why does the R fit better (that it did is obvious) and not only did Eli mention the germ of why but a later poster robert p even talked about the math of the model.

    The pretend scientists like DD and G do not seem to have the basic toolset someone doing science would have – mathematically, I mean – and hence wouldn’t know whether the non-denialists know what they’re doing. In general (the top tier excluded) modern denialists on climate are physics experts who write like they can’t do analysis, on evolution and ecology, biologists who can’t grasp statistics, on pollution, e.g. ozone breakdown, etc. chemical effects experts who talk like they don’t understand the conditions that control chemical reactions.

    The trolls not pretending to be NASA scientists have faith in ideology and economics and certain personalities and regard science and perhaps the historical record as completely mutable. It’s the pompous and often bluffing or lying leading the utterly lacking in critical judgment. What makes us so mad is that people are in charge of the research of one of the leading science countries of the world who can’t even do math.

  52. #52 Marion Delgado
    October 10, 2007

    I unkilled a couple JCs. Actually, given that rather unfortunate headline on that Geotimes article, that was a natural inference, so my amusement was semi-misplaced. There is abundant evidence for the cooling effects of particulates globally. not one study of one area like this, but hundreds, and over time. But I already knew the denialists had no concept of global vs. local whatsoever. And JC did say soot.

    That notwithstanding, the persistent brown clouds are almost becoming a feature of the landscape, and even a local effect like that is worrisome – especially if the region grows. Right offhand, it would suggest that you could convert this (still only conjectured and faintly evidenced and probably exaggerated at best) regional warming into something more normal by altering Chinese coal plants and – if the linked Geotimes article is right, India’s cooking habits (in America, it would be wood stoves). I dunno if there are enough diesel engines there, or planned to be, to produce big black soot to add to that, as well.

    The kind of large dark soot that will melt snow if you sprinkle it on it in late winter and that normally does not stay in the air long, under certain conditions (my guess would be a lot of strong sunlight regionally) might indeed warm more than it scattered in a giant smog cloud.

    Even if the study is right, China and India will have to clean up their act soon and eventually this would become again a non-issue.

    And of course, the mitigation policies we advocate don’t cede the lungs of humankind to the greedy corporate elites. We’re trying to reduce CO2 and CH4, not increase soot. It’s the JCs who want the whole world under that brown cloud.

  53. #53 Jc
    October 10, 2007

    Marion

    How deeply invovled are you in trying to revive Soviet science methods?

  54. #54 mgr
    October 10, 2007

    Hi Marion:

    I think addressing the problem is much easier for the Chinese. Likely, 600+ million people are using dung as a fuel source, and a cheap alternative does not appear to be available.

    My knowledge of India is cartoonish, but I suspect that the particulates are a problem only during the dry monsoon, and would not have any direct effect on the retreating Himalayan glaciers. I also have a problem with the effect’s historical accuracy, since elevated population levels and use of dung as fuel date to the time of the Raj. I think some confirmatory studies will be necessary before implementing a policy of substitution.

    Mike

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!