Stoat

Durkin is now on "version three" of his original 'faked' graph.

However no he has been found out for 'faking' graphs - he has had to use a real one and resort to some prestidigitation (or conjuring tricks if you prefer).

For the Australian version of TGGWS to be broadcast later this week

There are clips of the programme available on the ABC website:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/default.htm

If you look at the 'Part 2' of these - 1.43 mins in you'll see Durkin is now on his third attempt at a graph of twentieth century global warming:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/466/durkinmark3yh1.jpg

This time it comes from the 2001 IPCC report -and is now a global, rather than Northern Hemisphere one:

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9473/ipcc0516dv7.jpg

As you can see from this overlay -

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6638/durkin3overlayhc8.jpg

(funny how he missed the rather more striking 'hockey stick' graph just below?)

The voiceover has changed too - he claims temperature has gone up 'about half a degree' (although this graph shows 0.8 deg C)

This time he suggests that most warming took place before 1940 - and says "after 1940 the world cooled down".

Using his favourite trick of 'zooming and panning' into a graph he seems to demonstrate this by zooming along the line to 1940 - then cutting away.

He is also suggesting that industrial production, and therefore CO2 production didn't get going until 1940. This is far from the truth of course - CO2 levels have been steadily rising since the industrial revolution.

He has now been reduced to sleight of hand to make his points - having been found out that when he forges graphs - people notice.

This gives tacit support to complaints to the IPCC that he distorted graphs in the first two transmissions of the programme - he has effectively been forced to retract these...

Durkin is due to be grilled on this after the broadcast tomorrow (8.30 p.m. Australia - effectively Thursday morning in the UK) - I'd be very interested to hear how he gets on...

Posted by: Dean Morrison | July 10, 2007 3:40 PM

oh, can't edit my post above, but here in the US we've had a history of these "faux-precocious-kids" -- right-wing talk radio loves overreporting the one about the kid who did the science fair project about the dangers of "dihydrogen monoxide" -- just to ostensibly show how "liberals get bad science and try to make horror stories over it" ad nauseum.

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 10, 2007 5:15 PM

FWIW...

I run an small 'in house' Forum at the independent (private) school I work at in the Pacific NW. One of the threads started by a student discussed the film "An Inconvenient Truth". Of course, we heard from all sides with a few students posting very conservative viewpoints ala TGGWS, The Heartland Institute, etc, etc. The point I wish to make here is that, by referring my students to some of the discussions and info posted -here-, I was able to get this out of one of my most outspoken opponents re: Climate Change.

"I haven't been on for a while. Even if he is a major in Geography, that shouldn't change the fact that he [Timothy Ball] is qualified. For example, Jared Diamond, author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" certainly knows a lot about history. Yet his true passion is birds, and I believe he teaches biology. He's still a "qualified" historian.

I would also like to say that I've changed my views. I understand that it is a problem, but sometimes it is overstated and there are better ways to solve it."

Thanks again to 'Stoat'...please carry on.

~C

Posted by: Cowbell | July 10, 2007 7:12 PM

To me the "15 y.o." is just another totem: HockeyStick TM, Michael Moore, AlGore, Rachael Carson, Tyrone Harris, etc. It's how they convey their message, via construct.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | July 10, 2007 9:13 PM

http://eheavenlygads.wordpress.com/2007/05/18/ponder-the-brilliance-of-kristen-byrnes/

here's an interesting bit I found -- apparently it's an evil stepfather urging her on. And any inquiries they don't like will be sent to the FBI! Pretty clever having a 15-year old girl attack you; so even if you have the chutzpah of an Annan to send a nasty critique, you may find yourself with a trumped-up pedophile charges!

"Should you wish to contact Kristen and comment on her paper, be advised that her Stepfather controls the roost - not only will all emails be screened, but any wackos spouting any unsavory retorts may be reported to the FBI. Corrections to her hypotheses are welcomed, but please provide the same diligence in authority as did Kristen."

You have to admit, these rotten bastard Repukes know a lot of good dirty tricks! :-)

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 11, 2007 12:07 AM

Carl: Please reread your post. Her stepfather controls incoming emails, as any sensible father would if his daughter were propelled to instant infamy. She is probably inundated by hate mail from environmentalists.

[There are many probablies on this. Mine is that she probably didn't write it unaided. Yours seems to be uncritical of the site itself. How accurate do you think it is? Eli spotted one gross flaw, do you think Gore made any mistakes as big as that? -W]

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 11, 2007 7:23 AM

OK William. I wasn't going to go any further, I was just wondering how he can go around smearing groups of people just like that. In fact I didn't even know who he was until I did some googling, and he is indeed a big boy.

Posted by: guthrie | July 11, 2007 10:18 AM

Guthrie:

Sorry. I did not intend to imply that every environmentalist regularly sends hate mail. That would be totally unfair and totally untrue.

However, in my experience and in the experience of colleagues, it is not uncommon that people who are prominent and skeptical about climate policy or climate change do receive hate mail, threats, or worse.

I responded to Carl, who deduced from the fact that her stepfather wants to protect her against hate mail, that he had written her piece in her stead. There is no logic in Carl's statement. I also do not understand why one would argue that a 15-yr-old necessarily shares the political beliefs of her stepfather.

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 11, 2007 5:14 PM

err wait a minute Tol, the stepdad uses a standard "dittohead" line of "enviro-terrorism emails will be sent to the FBI." Perhaps in your enlightened European view it's easy to overlook; but my "Repuke-dar" goes off the scale when scanning a line like that! ;-) it's classic Limbaugh-esque "dittohead" Bush-lovin' fodder.

Also, a teen girl doing all she can to appease a (rightwing blowhard) stepdad doesn't sound too far-fetched an idea either. Certainly it's more sensible than all the tripe of hers that you are supporting, and your notion of she's "poking holes in AGW" (which sounds similar to when Creationists claim to "poke holes in the fossil record" to "disprove" evolution -- another Repuk-dar event ;-).

I think other than having her and precocious kids visit an AGU or EGU or whatever for meetings & friendly debate, as I suggested would be an appropriate way forward, and would do her a lot of good.

I doubt the stepdad would allow that although they're touting "Al Gore is afraid to debate her!" I think scientists (or politicians) replying to her or "debating" her is a lose-lose situation (it would be like having to rebut every single daily "smoking gun" McI and his lackeys come up with on CA). Also if she's left on the podium crying from embarassment over her mistakes & forced vitriol, the right-wing blowhards will quickly flip-flop and screech that scientists & Al Gore is even meaner than they thought, by making a poor little girl cry etc etc.

[I think having her visit A/EGU would be a good idea. RT has been rather vague in exactly what he is supporting - I think he said she had poked holes in Gore not AGW - it would be nice to know what he meant -W]

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 11, 2007 8:34 PM

I'm afraid I've come full circle regarding Kristen (or Kirsten). Since I couldn't see that she posted on any "normal" sites other than hanging around s(k)eptics such as McI's of CA. You think they would encourage her to take part on, say, RealClimate if only because the CA gang try to insist that their fair & balanced (like Fox News :-).

So I can only assume that she isn't really genuine about her scientific interest other than a cheap ploy to come up with these "Achilles heels." And she seems to have been carried away with her "15 minutes of fame" by right-wing bloggers. So it now seems to me pretty obvious she wants to be the next Ann Coulter, not the next Pielke (at least ;-). A trip to AGU/EGU would probably be a waste on her, but if some org could come up with 10 spots for high-schoolers/6th formers, perhaps there would be hope of redemption.

It's easy to poke some holes in Gore/Inconvenient Truth -- the jury is still out on the pathogen/disease vectors and tornados and hurricanes attributed to AGW right? but this doesn't invalidate the other 95% of things. That's the peculiar "judgements" I always find on the right-wing (and has been mentioned here and elsewhere ad-infinitum) -- their zeal to see motes in the eyes of others whilst ignoring the beams in their own etc etc.

PS -- one of the funniest & oddest things I saw that shows Kristen's logical thought process is an exhortation on one of her "articles" that McIntyre & McKitrick don't take Exxon money because they have a Paypal link for donations on their website. What irrefutable proof! :-)

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 12, 2007 10:52 AM

Carl/William: What I meant to say, and what I think I said but what was twisted by a few punters, is that Kristen Byrnes poked at Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and that at first glance she managed to poke a few holes.

[Richard - yes indeed, that is what you've said before, but you've been utterly vague as to what those holes might actually be. Given that she has faked and/or totally failed to understand her T/CO2 graph, exactly which holes are you thinking of? -W]

Given that she is a 15-yr-old school kid and he a former vice-president with a support staff, that is quite serious. As far as I know, no schoolkid has ever challenged Alan Greenspan and got more than two seconds of the world's attention.

[Indeed. So you are arguing that... because she ahs got attention she must be right? Or what? Would you similarly defend TGGWS on the grounds that it got a lot of attention? -W]

I do believe one can make a case for greenhouse gas emission reduction today that cannot be ridiculed by a 15 year old -- and I'm afraid that Al Gore failed to make that case.

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 13, 2007 3:14 AM

Richard, next time someone argues that cutting emissions will cost too much, do you mind if I quote you saying:

"...changes in the interest rate cost way more money than emission reduction and you can hear the grinding of teeth and the wails of terror in industry if the interest rate goes this way or that..."

Anyway, the problem with Gore, not that I have seen or read anything by him, is that people latch onto him as a nice figurehead. Then the antiglobal warming crowd think that all they need to do is expose some small error in his presentation and they have disproved everything he has to say. Now I think you are intelligent enough to know that that is not the case. People frequently are correct on many things, including the broad outlook, but get some of the details wrong, but this does not affect the overall picture.

Posted by: guthrie | July 13, 2007 6:22 AM

again Richard, in your enlightened and optimistic European view you fail to realize that Kristen "strikes a chord" means in the US that the usual cast of right-wing hacks have picked up on her story, full of bad if not outright phony science, to prove their political point. I suggest you get a job in the US at U. Alabama or so (the first thing they'd do is shave your head ;-)

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 13, 2007 11:49 AM

"Alan Greenspan did and Ben Bernanke does this without getting egg on their face."

Ah yes, the old "answer a different question" trick.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | July 13, 2007 8:32 PM

jeez, I missed her post above re: RealClimate. OK, I can see that she would be brainwashed by her CA idols McI & McK into disregarding Gavin Schmidt & Mike Mann of RC, but also, say, Ray Pierrehumbert? And our own "Stoat?" It's obvious she's pretty hopeless and wouldn't know science if Einstein himself fell out of the sky and landed on Portland High School.

Posted by: Carl Christensen | July 14, 2007 12:32 AM

Chris: Sorry. I often forget that subtlety does not work on blogs.

I assume that you are a friend of Hugh, and that you protest that I did not answer his suggestion that Alan Greenspan make a movie on the Fed without having 15-yr-olds suggesting an alternative monetary policy.

I cannot speak for Mr Greenspan, but I would think he is smarter than that. Movies are just not the right medium for doing complicated science. Movies are good if you want to be popular, but they are no good if you want to get a policy straight. Greenspan seemed to prefer the latter.

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 16, 2007 2:29 AM

Hugh: There is a large body of evidence that persuasion does not work for environmental policy. It is naive to believe that raising awareness on climate change will induce people to save energy.

Raising energy prices does improve energy efficiency. This requires tax reform or public spending reform, which in terms requires public support. As climate is a slow problem, political support will need to survive at least 10 electoral cycles.

If you want to solve the problem, you go in with a sober and sound analysis. Upsetting the opposition is bad, as they will eventually succeed you.

If you want to boost your career, you go in with a spectacular story that economizes on the truth. Upsetting the opposition is good, as that will mobilise your own side.

In my opinion, AIT is great for Al Gore's career. The positive effects of raising awareness are at least partly offset by the negative effects of increasing polarisation, and will be more than offset if the public decides that Gore twisted the science by too much.

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 16, 2007 5:49 AM

Richard Tol:"I did not answer his suggestion that Alan Greenspan make a movie on the Fed without having 15-yr-olds suggesting an alternative monetary policy."

I think the suggestion was hypothetical. They are not going to get egg on their faces from making a movie if they don't make a movie.

"There is a large body of evidence that persuasion does not work for environmental policy. It is naive to believe that raising awareness on climate change will induce people to save energy."

Persuasion does not work if the individuals are subject to a tragedy of the commons situation but Gore's attempt at persuasion is intend to influence individuals political choices which is not a tragedy of the commons situation for those individuals.

"If you want to solve the problem, you go in with a sober and sound analysis. Upsetting the opposition is bad, as they will eventually succeed you."

And we wouldn't want to upset the opposition now, would we, but seriously, political adversaries know that there is a fair amount of hype involved in political contests and they are grown up enough to not get "upset". Governments change but both sides of politics change in a consistent direction over a long period. Governments last 4 or 5 electoral cycles in Australia at least, so a new policy by a new government is most likely to be permanent.

"If you want to boost your career, you go in with a spectacular story that economizes on the truth."

I would have thought the only thing Gore could do to boost his career was to run for US President. As for being economical with the truth, where is Gore lying?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | July 16, 2007 9:08 AM

The latest issue of the New Yorker has a wonderful example of how public opinion works. In the seventies all surveys of hockey players showed overwhelming support for protective helmets. On the other hand, very few players wore them. The reason was that there was a small advantage in not wearing a helmet because of a loss of peripheral vision.

When the NHL mandated helmets, everyone put them on immediately with very little to no complaint, because the rule had leveled the playing field.

You see the same thing with SUV/small cars. If there is no rule, there is a small safety advantage being in an SUV so people buy and drive them while saying they want higher gas mileage. If SUVs were ruled off the road, the field would be level and people would rapidly transition to smaller cars. Same with CAFE standards. These are situations where regulations have to level the field.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 17, 2007 8:28 PM

Richard, the only tool is not a hammer and everything is not a nail. In a world where billions are spent on cosmetics only a fool thinks spending optimally is the only metric.

Besides your comment on SUV's is irrelevent. Individuals are willing to spend more on SUV's for the safety and sexy advantages it gives them. They cheerfully accept the added associated costs, both personal and social. So I listen to an endless stream of fools telling me that all those people driving SUVs is proof that people don't want less emissions.

I point out that there is a personal advantage to driving an SUV which for many outweighs the costs for gasoline and you try and crap on me by saying that you know of three external disadvantages to SUVs. THESE ARE NOT SERIOUS DISADVANTAGES TO SUV OWNERS. I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHY PEOPLE BUY SUVS AND WHY THE ONLY WAY TO GET RID OF THEM IS BY POLICY. Got that now.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 18, 2007 8:57 AM

Movies are just not the right medium for doing complicated science.

Right. The movie is to get the word out.

Come now, Richard. You are not keeping your cards close to the vest. I'm having a poker party at the end of August. What say you to coming over? Smart, interesting folks will be there.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | July 18, 2007 10:07 PM

Richard Tol:"Did you actually see An Inconvenient Truth? There are only a few untruths, but many suggestions and omissions. See my post of July 13."

See William's responses to your post of July 13. BTW, I don't know why you apply a vastly different standard to "Ponder the Maunder" as to "AIT". The word "credulist" comes to mind.

"I meant a strategic upset -- like abortion and gun control in the USA."

I thought you were talking about the opposition political party, as in "Upsetting the opposition is bad, as they will eventually succeed you." That's what I took you to mean. Did you actually mean someone else?

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | July 19, 2007 10:32 PM

My experience with regulation is that simple declarative rules are easier to enforce and harder to game. Regulations with multiple objectives are inherently complex. Of course, you always need the Chinese backup, e.g. we will shoot you if you take bribes to let bad medicine on the market.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 20, 2007 9:58 AM

"different standards apply to schoolkids and senior politicians"

Yes schoolkids can lie their heads off and people, i.e. credulists, will believe them.

"No, opposition did not mean political party."

In that case your argument "Upsetting the opposition is bad, as they will eventually succeed you" is meaningless.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | July 26, 2007 10:25 AM

This Kristen Byrnes issue of being real or fraud had me do a check of the Portland Herald news archives.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ME&p_theme=me&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=Kristen%20Byrnes%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("Kristen%20Byrnes")&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

The name appears in 2004 for a Sixth Grade Honor Roll, but not later. Honor Rolls for local high schools and community colleges are also published in the Maine Herald. They do not cross reference to Kristen.

Mike

Posted by: mgr | July 27, 2007 11:44 AM

Direct regulation works fine if you have a narrow, clear problem -- like cleaning up toxic waste from a few facilities.

Direct regulation is expensive and ineffective if you deal with many and diverse sources -- instruments like taxes or tradable permits work better and are cheaper.

This is not an article of faith, Eli, but the result of a large analytical and empirical literature.

Of course, Guthrie, if your office is subject to a carbon tax or constraint, then it may well be that the best way to acheive emission reductions WITHIN the office is by direct regulation. Taxing office workers for their emissions would be awkward. However, there is no reason to assume that this carries over to the whole economy.

Posted by: Richard Tol | July 29, 2007 11:55 AM

Hank: Of course, direct regulation is possible. It is much more expensive than the market-based alternative, though.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 1, 2007 1:27 PM

Eli,

The market works well if there are no externalities (Pigou, 1920). Greenhouse gas emissions are externalities, so the government must regulate. Pigou favoured a tax. This is economics 101.

Montgomery (1972) suggests tradable permits, and shows that they are much superior to direct regulation. Weitzman (1974), however, shows that taxes are superior to permits under the sort of uncertainty about climate change. This is economics 3xx.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 5, 2007 9:18 AM

Guthrie,

As a purist, I would advocate an internationally harmonised tax. As a pragmatist, internationally traded emission permits are more likely and almost as good.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 6, 2007 3:02 PM

So, the price differs from the cost. What's new? That's the market. Does your supermarket sell food at production cost?

There are many things wrong with the EU-ETS (allocation, coverage, enforcement), but that is because they followed politics rather than economics. It took the US 15 years to get the sulphur permit market right, so let's give the EU another decade before passing judgement.

The UN permit market has the additional problem of being overly bureaucratic. Judging from past form, this problem will not go away -- and the UN role will simply pass to someone more sensible.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 8, 2007 2:20 AM

Adam: You're brilliant! You should start your own supermarket rightaway. I bet you'll make a fortune.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 11, 2007 12:07 PM

Adam: I reacted to your petty post with sarcasm. Munin, probably from North Korea, displayed a peculiar ignorance of markets and you thought it was funny to create confusion. How we laughed.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 14, 2007 5:24 PM

If there are no externalities there is no market, no people, nada. However I am amused by the formulation that A PROVED x in 1830, but B later proved Y in 1950, X being the opposite of y, that, of course, being economics 3yy.

Richard appears never to have heard about loss leaders, but then again he lives and shops in Germany which has a long tradition of enforcing trade prices. Another example of things being sold below production costs are ink jet printers, where all the profit is in the cartridges. I am certain that is economics 3zz and 2ww respectively.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | August 15, 2007 2:29 AM

Hmmm, who used the sloppy example? He also seems to fail to understand that sarcasm can be answered with sarcasm. But then .

Posted by: Adam | August 15, 2007 4:23 AM

Sorry, guys, I got a little frustrated.

So, everyone seems to agree that in a normal market companies sell most of their stuff at a profit.

Munin seems to be worried that some profits are "excessive". I doubt that the FT and the Economist worried about that. Some producers are just lucky, or smart enough to command a really high mark-up. It's the same in this case. HFC23 is dead cheap to reduce, but there is not enough of it around to drive down the price of CERs.

The concern here is not about the market, which does exactly what it should do -- bring money from those who want it to those who have it. The concern is also not about profits. Some people are getting rich fast. Good for them.

The concern is about the international regulation of this market. It was put in place without much thought. HFC23 is being created only to be destroyed. This is perfectly legal, and profitable for all parties. It does not help reduce climate change one bit.

All this was predicted. Markets should be designed by people who understand markets, not by diplomats and environmental scientists at 4 am. This is just the result of amateurism by the climate negotiators.

Posted by: Richard Tol | August 15, 2007 4:48 PM

Of more interest to me is that supermarkets effectively end up paying some farmers less than the cost of production.

Posted by: guthrie | August 16, 2007 6:23 AM

Richard, I agree with your easy solution, but I don't understand your structural solution.

I assume that "base line" refers to the hypothetical emission scenario that would have occurred were a CDM project not to go ahead. How would you get rid of this - what other method could be used to allocate permits?

Posted by: Munin | August 17, 2007 11:09 AM