August 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

David, that looks like some of the solutions described and advocated by William J Nuttall in his book Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power.

However any nuclear renaissance has been declared dead by IMHO out-of-touch critics, especially since 'Fukushima'.

William Nuttall has provided more context whilst pointing out that other power generation methods are in many ways more dangerous when the dangers of fuel sourcing and pollution of water and air are considered in this video:

William Nuttall: Fukushima, Nuclear Renaissance, Energy Policy.

Dear Lionel, you seem to be the rat that doesn't understand that the fishing boat is sinking fast. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 10 Aug 2014 #permalink

Did one of our twerps just break wind?

Sorry Lionel, should have known better than to disturb your talking to yourself. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 10 Aug 2014 #permalink

I guess Olaus missed the following, which proves that it is *he* who is up the creek without a paddle:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/business/international/russia-may-be-…

A few key phrases:

The chiefs of big gas middlemen … would sit down with their counterparts at Gazprom or Sonatrach… and work out long-term contracts linked to the price of oil.

big industrial customers are insisting on prices determined by the actual trading of gas

he European gas market is beginning to resemble that of the United States, where gas is priced according to what buyers and sellers will pay, not linked to much more expensive oil.

Europe’s much-criticized renewables push is also influencing energy markets. In the first half of this year, 28.5 percent of German electric power came from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power — a nearly 4 percent increase over a year earlier. Britain is also surging ahead, with almost 15 percent of electricity coming from renewable sources, an increase of almost one-third.

Although the growth of electricity generated by offshore wind farms and vast solar arrays is a nasty headache for fossil-fuel utilities, these unconventional power installations are reducing demand for gas and coal in Europe.

Russia’s influence over European energy markets is weakening rather than growing stronger.

Prices for future delivery of gas have dropped more than 30 percent over the past year on the British market

The European Union, which has been under pressure from industries to ease back on costly new emission-cutting requirements, is taking note of this unexpected strategic gain from renewables, which comes as the Union is formulating energy policies for the next 15 years.

On July 23, Günther Oettinger, the top European energy official, told reporters that a higher-than-expected energy savings target would be recommended for 2030 because of “the need for energy security in gas because of the situation in Russia and Ukraine,” according to Reuters.

Whatever domestic energy supplies Europe can tap will strengthen its hand and serve as insurance. In that sense, renewables are important cards to hold.

“The Ukraine crisis could act as a wake-up call for European decision makers to increase the use of renewable energy,” said Marcus Ferdinand, an analyst at Point Carbon, a research firm based in Oslo.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Aug 2014 #permalink

Russell, it's tragic to see a formerly respected scientists like Geoff Derrick getting sucked into the kooky world of science-denial and support for kook-bloggers like Watts.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Aug 2014 #permalink

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-10/agricultural-giant-says-climate-c…

Olam International chief executive Sunny Verghese has told Landline that agricultural producers and processors need to take action now.

"It is absolutely a reality that climate change is going to significantly impact agriculture," he said.

"It impacts it both from the nexus it has with water, and the nexus it has with micro-climate as well, so it is probably the most important driver to future agricultural production, productivity and therefore price."

Mr Verghese was on the Gold Coast this week to address the 2014 Australian Cotton Conference.

His Singapore-based company has operations in 65 countries, and is the world's biggest trader in cashews, and the second biggest trader in coffee and cotton.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Aug 2014 #permalink

Olaus is so prohibitively stupid that its almost impossible to get anything through to him.

I attended and gave a keynote lecture last week at the European Congress of Entomology in York, England. One of the major themes of the Congress was the impact of climate change on insects and agriculture. I spoke with a colleague who is based in Sydney Australia and he told me that climate change is of profound concern in that country after two searing summers in a row. The main point is that, amongst scientists in just about every field, AGW is taken as a 'given'. When I tell fellow scientists of the trolls I encounter on blogs, they can hardly believe it - that people who think like Olaus actually exist. Sadly, they do.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Aug 2014 #permalink

"...doesn’t understand that the fishing boat is sinking fast."

Oily Prat, I am glad that you mentioned fishing boats for before long fishing fleets will have little to do but scupper themselves and then claim on any insurance, as that will be the only way to generate income.

Here is a learning opportunity for you:

The Unnatural History of the Sea

Roberts continues his theme in his later:

Ocean of Life: How our Seas are Changing.

Mark well.

Russell, that made me laugh (out loud, no less). For all the typo's and grammatical fails of that nastygram (you could almost hear the incensed pounding of keys as he ranted it off), Dr Derrick is to be complimented on getting at least one thing right (if only through some missing punctuation) - WUWT is indeed, as claimed, " the best web science blog on the internet run by Anthony Watts".

Coming first in a one-man race may not seem much of an achievement, but Anthony's talents are such that he has to take what he can get. :-)

Lionel, one of the claims of the Nuclear Utopians is that Nuclear is the ONLY option for baseload and renewables untenable because nuclear is reliable and available all the time,whilst "What happens when the wind stops, eh?".

Yet three locations in the UK have been turned off because of a potential fault in a nuclear reactor.

What happens now?

But I suspect you will not concede a jot here because you merely don't like the idea that nuclear isn't an option with the humans we have available here for the forseeable future.

Lionel, one of the claims of the Nuclear Utopians is that Nuclear is the ONLY option for baseload and renewables untenable because nuclear is reliable and available all the time,whilst “What happens when the wind stops, eh?”.

That is not my position at all, as I have explained to you previously therefore your repeating this is tiresome and has a name being a tactic used by AGW deniers.

Therefore I do not need to concede anything.

Besides the potential fault is in nuclear power plants rather than the reactors per se. So it would help if you got YOUR facts straight:

EDF closes four reactors to assess boiler fault.

Weeell...it's a little from column A and a little from column B. The fault is with the boiler spine which supports the tubes running through the heat exchangers. Now Lionel is correct that this is not part of the reactor per se.

But in practical terms its a bit of a difference that makes no difference - if the boiler tubes are not adequately supported by the spine, there is a risk of cracking, and a and consequent potential for boiler water to penetrate the reactor, and for contaminated gases to leak at least as far as the generator turbines. Both of those things are bad, though I suspect the former is the worse problem.

So this particular boiler fault creates a risk of a reactor fault, meaning Wow's characterisation of the problem as "a potential fault in the nuclear reactor" pretty much spot on for all practical purposes. If it was a fault that prevented effective generation but nothing more, it would be reasonable to call it just "a boiler fault", but given the potential knock-on effects, using that label here would seem to be trying to avoid the real issue.

EDF wouldn't have a reason to minimise any concern about the situation, would they? (sarc). Fukushima wasn't a problem with the reactor either. That worked fine. It was just the cooling systems that failed...

I get your drift Frank but my main bone of contention with Wow's statement is the implication that I favour the nuclear power option over and above renewable energy sources. This is not the case.

Further, what technological endeavour of humans is without risk or unintended consequences. Renewable technologies require materials for construction, materials often sourced from areas of the globe with unstable regimes and other issues.

Renewable don't require materials often sourced from areas of the globe with unstable regimes and other issues. It may be convenient to use them but they are not essential.

BTW don't forget that large power stations generally require a decent supply of cooling water, which is not necessarily always going to be available.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 12 Aug 2014 #permalink

Bugger didn't close the bold properly. Only "require" was supposed to be in bold.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 12 Aug 2014 #permalink

As Nuclear power plant operators are unable to obtain insurance that covers their activities, then the decision has been made for us and we need not waste time considering the adoption of an uninsurable risk.

One of the great benefits of the energy mix of the future is the creation of a decentralised grid of energy production where almost every citizen has the opportunity to generate and use or sell power.
This democratisation of energy production is what is giving the multinationals the massive willies and explains their continued push for the obsolete and failed 1950s nuclear technology for boiling water.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 12 Aug 2014 #permalink

Turbo WRT cooling water, indeed but there are other methods, particularly if one considers more recent nuclear power technologies.

But then renewable technologies are not without environmental issues although the fact that the seas offshore have been trawled and dredged destroying much of any ecological system makes the impact of placing off-shore wind turbines less than it otherwise may be.

I am not against offshore wind, or onshore wind or solar arrays. Another actor in these is that once again we see consortia with significant fiscal backing pushing for large scale installations which kinda spoils the 'decentralised grid of energy production' which Craig advocates. As do I for that matter.

In a complex world one must not rule out more recent nuclear technology installations because of issues with Gen 1 types. The 1950s Magnox technologies were not all failed. I grew up in crow flying distance from both the Berkeley (pron' Barkley and not Berkley) and Oldbury Magnox installations.

It is the history of nuclear technology in UK that makes the handling of waste contentious and more difficult than it may otherwise have been. Also the large capital cost of newer installations became an issue with the deregulation (privatisation) of the electrical power industry in the UK.

All these factors, waste treatment, fuel sourcing, nuclear weapons proliferation are discussed in William J Nuttall's book along with GEN III and IV plants.

David JC MacKay in his 'Sustainable Energy: without the hot air' slays some myths one of which is radiation. MacKay points out that 'those living near coal-fired power stations are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants.'

Ultimately it would be better to not have to use Nuclear as a part of the energy production mix

BTW please note the function of the suspect part in these EDF installations, they are carrying cooling water by proxy through supporting the coils that do.

Lionel, no matter how much you deny and claim you've explained it before, I'm afraid as long as you're trotting out the same old non-thinking rhetorical BS about the anti nuke position, I don't feel the slightest need to change my non-thinking rhetorical BS about the Nuke Blind.

When you begin to concern yourself with the nuances and thought behind the rational dismissal of nuclear power, then I'll start giving a hoot.

Fair?

"more recent nuclear power technologies"

Vapourware. Nobody's building any of this magic for the usual reasons that prevent nuclear from being a realistic option: cost, dishonesty, and danger.

"MacKay points out that ‘those living near coal-fired power stations are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants.’"

Similarly, in 1977, we could have sent all the Cambodian refugees back home with the comforting words, "Pol Pot? Don't worry about *him*. Adolf Hitler was twice as murderous".

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 13 Aug 2014 #permalink

I have no objections to nukes per se, however under the present conditions they have too many issues to be a solution to climate change: lead time for construction, lack of skilled workforce for operation, cost, little prospect of being profitable (renewables are getting cheaper all the time), cooling water supplies, public distrust, liability insurance...

By turboblocke (not verified) on 14 Aug 2014 #permalink

Maurice Newman is at it again.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/14/tony-abbott-adviser-…

Makes me proud to be part of the clever country. Or was that the lucky country. I think we'll be lucky to get to the next election without this crowd doing something completely and utterly devastating. Of course, there might be some miracle cure for terminal running-off-at-the-mouth in the meantime, but I think we have to sit it out.

#24 Newman presumably collects a fat fee for an hours work scraping denialist talking points out of the dim corners of the internet. The government would feel outraged if it had a clue or a science minister. Funny, that.

Newman, the Oz, an adviser to Abbott - a perfect storm of The Stupid.

This is very much the government Murdoch foisted on us. But when his empire has to create positive messages- particularly selling this gaggle of arrogant Hooray Henrys and anti-science loons - it's just as f*cked as they are.

All these idiots do 'well' is opposition: knock the people trying to get us somewhere and pander to the empty-headed narcissism of the electorate.

And just look what happens if you're daft enough to actually let them take over the reins... a Keystone Cops coup against the Australian way of life. Contemptible.

Maurice Newman is using David Archibald as his source.

I think Murry Salby and Svensmark are somehow tied into it as well.

Nothing but the best science advisors for Maurice Newman then.

Joanne Codling has the details over at her kook-blog.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Aug 2014 #permalink

I would also like to point out that nowhere did I claim that this was a "dangerous nuclear accident", however, that's a common fear of Nuclear Utopians, hence is seen WHEREVER there is criticism or dismissal of nuclear power, even if it never appears.

I merely pointed out that this power plant was unavailable, and NOT because of a planned outage, but a potential problem that wasn't expected causing the power station to stop supplying.

THAT WAS ALL OF IT.

Nuclear power isn't reliable, but never is this concorded as a problem of nuclear power generation (as it is for every power source we have).

Why?

Because there cannot be a discouraging word said about nuclear power.

Whilst I'm here, apropos of the problems in Iraq, here's a query for any religious people (or those who like to see religiosity in the world):

The christians and so on can 100% acceptable return home if they change religion to Islam.

Since the Christian faith and Islamic faith BOTH adhere to the exact same God, where's the problem?

Heck, just pretend to believe. After all, how many atheists have to pretend to be religious just to be allowed to stay in their home town in, for example, the civilised USA?

Heck, how many homosexuals have to pretend to be straight merely to avoid persecution?

And it's not like they are changing their god.

So why not change?

Because there cannot be a discouraging word said about nuclear power.

Strawman AFAIAC!

Now go read Nuttall and MacKay.

Now where is your CANDU spirit?

Heck, how many who can see the sense in new build nuclear have to keep quiet for fear of being demonised?

BTW You don't frighten me Wow, mere bow wow!

Gen IV is future but GEN III, III+ or even selected Gen II would help whilst rolling out other options. Eggs and baskets and all that.

'Hiatus'! What 'hiatus', and there is a reason for the quote marks any twerps watching:

'Hiatus' in rise of Earth's surface air temperature likely temporary.

Oh boy now this does worry me, what is just around the corner as if things aren't already looking grim. Maybe CAGW isn't so far out after all, but most of us realised this if the climate criminals were allowed to continue unhindered, and Newman is certainly one such.

Yeah, just Google Images "China rare earth" to see exactly how environmentally friendly your wind turbines are. You will see what is involved in the manufacture of their magnets.

By Backslider (not verified) on 16 Aug 2014 #permalink

Wow - your question about religion misses the point: these people actually believe the crap that makes them get killed/kill people. So they can't pretend.
Don't forget, though, that ISIS was kick-started by a Saudi/Israeli/US plot against Assad, with tacit support from Europe, accompanied by much provision of weapons.
As usual, the West's engagement with the middle east is completely - and predictably - beyond total failure to the point of being a massive own goal.
When will they learn?
Islam *has* to go. There is no point trying to buddy up with it or manipulate it. It cannot coexist with our civilisation.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 16 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig, you are wrong. The paradox here is that Assad possibly willingly left ISIS alone to do what it was doing, and rather focused on mainly squashing the democratic opposition, in order to reduce support for the opposition. There was no provision of weapons to ISIS by any Western country, but only to the (more) democratic groups.

Saudi almost certinaly paid for these:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/world/africa/arms-shipments-seen-from…

"In the last 48 hours, Europeans and NATO have delivered to the Syrian rebels shipments of the long-demanded anti-air and tank missiles as well as recoilless 120 mm cannons.They landed in Turkey and Jordan and were transferred to southern Syria and Aleppo, where Syrian rebels are poised to fend off a major Syrian army offensive backed by 2,000 Hizballah troops. "
http://www.debka.com/article/23054/First-European-NATO-heavy-arms-for-S…

etc...

The West's response to Assad's troubles was short-sighted and was led not by intelligent appraisals of future scenarios, but by rigid thinking guided by a long pattern of geo-politics using Syria in an anti-Russian context.

Yes, we won the Cold War, and no, Russia is still not reformed, however we *really* need to develop new ways of thinking to form a tight alliance with Russia & China to start a coherent fight against a menace that is well beyond anything the German Nazis threatened us with.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 17 Aug 2014 #permalink

Yes, Craig, I am pretty sure those weapons went to the intended people. You seem not to know that ISIS came in through the East, whereas the more normal rebel groups are primarily in the West (and North). There are also nutters among them, but they are not ISIS and several have, in fact, been actively fighting ISIS also.

Delivering hardware "to Aleppo" was never a guarantee that the nutters weren't going to get hold of it. There were plenty of them in and around Aleppo and as time has gone by, they have far outgunned any non-nutter "Syrian opposition".

An analysis of some available imagery is here:
http://brown-moses.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/isis-deploys-croatian-weapon…

This was written in December 2013:
http://tiny.cc/hyyrkx
"Although Western countries have
discouraged countries in the region from providing
the rebels with advanced arms capabilities,145
there have been no similar efforts to reign in private
donations. It may be no coincidence that Jabhat
al-Nusra and other more-extreme rebel elements—
those who benefit most from private financing—
are often described as the most effective fighters in
Syria.
Unfortunately, it may be too late to undo the damage
that private financing has done to the unity
of the Syrian opposition. Armed groups such as
Jabhat al-Nusra are increasingly independent from
even their private backers in areas of Syria, for example
in Deir Ez Zour where they control several
oil wells.146 Meanwhile, more moderate brigades—
which lack the same financing networks—have lost
credibility and territory on the ground."

And then, of course, once again, US-supplied Stingers are in the wrong hands:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/16/us-made-stinger-missiles-have-l…)

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Aug 2014 #permalink

..."to start a coherent fight against a menace that is well beyond anything the German Nazis threatened us with"

Oh, Craig, I suppose you are referring to unlimited and unregulated corporate power, nakedly predatory capitalism under the guise of the 'Washington Consensus'. Forget extreme Islamists, there is no greater threat to the future of humanity than this rapacious lot.

I am quite surprised that you equate this with Nazi Germany; what you should do now is examine the killing ratio of those killed by 'us' in the west in the Middle East and those of 'us' killed by 'them'. My guess is that at present its about 10,000-100,000:1 in favor of us killing them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, all reveal carnage and slaughter instigated by the west in order to control (or attempt to control) a region rich in resources and, as pointed out by the likes of the US State Department (1950), and Brezinski more recently, vital to the global economy.

Your argument presupposes that we in the west are a civilized bunch who want nothing more than to spread democracy and freedom to the region. Of course, that is utter bullshit, as there are clearly economic and political reasons why they hate us as they do. Your words hark back to those of vile criminals like Bush, Blair and Co. that they hate us for 'our freedom'. Utter nonsense.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Aug 2014 #permalink

So a warming Atlantic triggered the unprecedented recent Trade Winds acceleration and so the "hiatus" and the mixing of heat into deep Pacific water observed by ARGO. What great mysteries are being revealed.

See McGregor et al. (2014) Recent Walker circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming.

An unprecedented strengthening of Pacific trade winds since the late 1990s has caused widespread climate perturbations, including rapid sea-level rise in the western tropical Pacific, strengthening of Indo-Pacific ocean currents, and an increased uptake of heat in the equatorial Pacific thermocline. The corresponding intensification of the atmospheric Walker circulation is also associated with sea surface cooling in the eastern Pacific, which has been identified as one of the contributors to the current pause in global surface warming. In spite of recent progress in determining the climatic impacts of the Pacific trade wind acceleration, the cause of this pronounced trend in atmospheric circulation remains unknown. Here we analyse a series of climate model experiments along with observational data to show that the recent warming trend in Atlantic sea surface temperature and the corresponding trans-basin displacements of the main atmospheric pressure centres were key drivers of the observed Walker circulation intensification, eastern Pacific cooling, North American rainfall trends and western Pacific sea-level rise. Our study suggests that global surface warming has been partly offset by the Pacific climate response to enhanced Atlantic warming since the early 1990s.

This is important, people. NB.

Craig, you may want to check again what you wrote. That some of these arms end up in the hands of the wrong people is not the same as actively supporting them.

Come on chaps. It's a war zone. Some shipments of small arms (and more besides) are always going to end up being appropriated by people other than the intended recipients.

Marco, you ought to read British historian Mark Curtiis's last book. In it he provides clear evidence that the UK and US governments have long supported extremist Islamic movements if they have seen it in their political and economic interests to do so. There's nothing remotely honorable when you are promoting policies in support of out right expansion, subjugation of other countries assets and nullification of alternative (more humane) models. The US and UK have long done this.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Aug 2014 #permalink

Jeff

To be clear I do not for an instant dispute what you say (or Curtis writes). All I caution is that the provenance of military kit can be deceptive. Fortunes of war, and all that.

I'll go back to physical climatology now.

:-)

Jeff, would that Curtis book be 'Secret Affairs'?

Curtis writes well, I still have a copy of his 'Web of Deceit' here somewhere, probably close to the Pilger books wherein one can learn about Australia's role in Indonesia.

I have pointed out that my reading tastes are eclectic - developed during university courses, if only I could remember the details and key quotes without re-visiting the texts. My short term memory isn't what it was, legacy of oxygen brain starvation during cardiacs - and age of course. But I still retain an ability to remember faces and put names to them - probably developed by being in an environment where there was a rapid turnover in work colleagues and having to learn many new names and faces fast from teaching.

Jeff - two different issues.
We can try to deal with your issue via established political processes. Some countries have done so quite well. Other countries are making progress. Even the USA is probably making progress. We might be feeling a bit pessimistic here in Australia at the moment due to the regressive nature of our current political climate.

Either way, Islam is very widespread, and as demonstrated in Egypt & Tunisia, standard civilised processes are no match for it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig, I don't think Egypt is a good example at all. The country had been long governed by a US puppet regime which was more than happy to ensure that democracy was prevented. Moreover, many of the problems stemming from 'extreme Islam' have little or nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics and economics. The fact is that a sizable majority of Muslims live in areas that the west covets on the basis that they contain a huge wealth in resources - especially oil and natural gas. The US State Department in 1950 called the region, "The greatest material prize in history and a source of stupendous strategic power". This well explains UK and US (more recently Russian and Chinese) behavior in the region. And it also is a good foundation for the enmity that many of the inhabitants of the region hold for people in the west. I am an atheist, but I think its a bit rich to be told what a threat extreme Islam is to the world on the basis of the carnage inflicted by the west on people living in the region in order to control the vast wealth of resources there, as well as the record of Christianity in this regard more widely.

The two issues are therefore not separate at all. The greatest threats to humanity right now are environmental, and many of these stem from the actions of the world's sole superpower and the corporations that run it. I tend to agree with many of your arguments re: climate but when you veer into this area think you digress badly. Since when has the west used 'standard civilized processes' in pursuit of brazenly political agendas? Read the recent history of Latin America and you'll see that the term civilized is absent with respect to USp power and attempt to control the region.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Aug 2014 #permalink

"Islam *has* to go. There is no point trying to buddy up with it or manipulate it. It cannot coexist with our civilisation."

In the 19thirties this was slightly different. Jews had to go, 'they could not coexist with our civilisation'.
Same crap over and over again.

History of Dutch tolerance is history of Ottoman muslim tolerance, http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liever_Turks_dan_paaps . I know, this fact is taboo nowadays, but: tomorrow the Maoris. Or did we already genocide them away?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 Aug 2014 #permalink

"... as demonstrated in Egypt & Tunisia, standard civilised processes are no match for it." - that would mean slaughtering muslims by the thousands after couping a chosen president who, for a fucking change after e.g. Mubarak, did NOT kill any protesters. Fuck your 'standard civilised cluster bombing processes'.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 19 Aug 2014 #permalink

#40, very interesting, thanks.

Loath as I am to interrupt the flow of overwrought 'Clash of Civilizations' rhetoric - personally I think we are simply compelled to eliminate the Justin Beiber fans and/or kids who refuse to remove themselves from decent citizens lawns - but back in the real world, and on our agreed topic of interest, this is rather entertaining.

Kampen, The Jews do not go around converting people by threats of death (they have an exclusive religion), and what's more they seem to possess a vibrant and creative culture that helps drive civilisational progress. Science in particular has advanced through Jewish participation far in excess of their proportion of, or positions in Western society.
Islam has had over 1,000 years to demonstrate its worth, and oh boy, the results are in.

Whatever we think of Western interference in the middle east, their user of cluster munitions and DU rounds, none of it even begins to compare with a politico-religious movement that thinks it appropriate to round up a village-full of Yazidi women and children, push them into pits and bury them alive.
(This is of course peanuts compared to the similar efforts used on 1,5million Armenians who were systematically exterminated in 1915 by the same politico-religious movement. Think the Rwanda massacre and almost double it. Then, up this by a factor of 10 and you will start to scratch the surface of the scale of what the Indian populations suffered at the hands of Islam until the British interfered)

I am staggered Jeff thinks we could even make the comparison.

Sorry to wander off-topic, but a religion that wants us all back in the dark ages is very much as much a threat to my environment as capitalism is.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 19 Aug 2014 #permalink

Yeah right, Craig, what kind of Überjudetheorie are you expounding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

You do understand why Jews habitually entered the liberal professions (arts, sciences, entrepreneurship and banking)?

You are, like so many, very careful in not asking the first question that should come to mind when you look at groups like ISIS. The question is: how the fuck do they come to exist? Related questions: why do they originate in certain regions and not others? Why are comparable radical groups perchance not merely islamic, but christian (Central African regions), or outspokenly atheist (Khmer Rouge) or, well, of whatever ideology or religion happens to be their requisite?

Do you think it is appropriate to kill kids playing soccer on damned beach in Gaza by means of repeated drone strikes? Do you really think it is appropriate to clusterbomb targets be they in Vietnam or Afghanistan from some sort of brave up close personal height of 12 km? Or do you only think these actions are appropriate for the simple reason you never see their results in our 'free' western media?

http://pl.indymedia.org/images/2012/11/56238.jpg
Pic fucking related, children burning in Gaza during Cast Lead: phosfor bombing by your civilised fucking military theocracy.

"but a religion that wants us all back in the dark ages" - we (and Assad) bombed them into the dark ages first. You should cheer for the succes of this.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Aug 2014 #permalink

"Islam has had over 1,000 years to demonstrate its worth, and oh boy, the results are in."

Only a racist could sabotage history like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Science

Guess what made the Renaissance into being. Like the return of classic literature by the Arabs, who kept those works, instead of burning them away like the christians of Europe did. You probably still calculate using roman numerals, don't you.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Aug 2014 #permalink

Well, the main reasons why Jews were into banking is that Christian and Muslim faith made usury a sin, therefore nobody would lend out money, and the toffs couldn't afford the lavish outlays on the weekly taxes, so had to borrow from SOMEONE.

Of course, the ruination of the souls of Jews was already settled: they were *Jews*, Duh!, so it was fine for them to take money and move it around.

Of course, nothing pissess off a toff more than owing favours to a non-toff, hence the continuation and inflamation of jews as "Christ killers", eliding that if JC didn't die, he couldn't forgive our sins for us (according to their myth).

Hey ho.

People are dumb.

#39: Yes, but you only "tell" what you believe you want to see there, Lionel.

PS What on earth makes you think I care whether you're afraid of me or not? IT'S THE FREAKING INTERNET YOU BUFOON!!!

But I guess you have to continue to find something to remove any validity from anyone against nuclear, and since you can't play the ball, you have to make out that it's a character defect leading to any argument against you being invalid.

This IS ad hominem, dearie.

"Wow – your question about religion misses the point: these people actually believe the crap that makes them get killed/kill people. So they can’t pretend."

You miss the important point here, Craig: THEY ARE THE SAME FAITH IN GOD.

They all agree that it is the same god, the ONLY difference is the articles of faith: NOT THE GOD.

It appears that the believers believe in the articles of faith more than the god for which they are supposed to be about.

I.e. their rate of importance here appears to be

Articles of Faith
Life
Home
God.

God comes last.

Hence my query was somewhat rhetorical.

Maybe someone else later on the thread saw that they all believe in the same god, so therefore it's no more change than from RCC to CofE.

"the main reasons why Jews were into banking " - adresses only one of my examples of the kind of professions Jews often came into (though not incorrectly).

What I meant was that Jews having been through cycles of persecution and tolerance for many centuries, never as a group becoming fully integrated in the countries they live in, is the cause.
There are comparable ethnic groups where you can see the same phenomenon. As they come to a measure of wealth and power many a government has sought to eradicate such minorities and take the spoils. So with the Reconquista in Spain (genocides on muslims and Jews), so with the Armenians in Turkey, so with a number of Chinese minorities in parts of Asia and Africa.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Aug 2014 #permalink

#57 - right.

Sometimes it looks as if the closer the religions are related the bloodier the (brother-)fight.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 20 Aug 2014 #permalink

This IS ad hominem, dearie.

Not at all, I was making an observation on your style of argument which is combative and intimidatory. That is obvious to anybody who reads you.

As for my not playing the ball, WTF do you think my mention of stuff backed up by citing Nuttall and MacKay is all about?

You are way off base on this too as you are with inventing a position for me as having to 'find something to remove any validity from anyone against nuclear.'.

That is pure invention, as I wrote it is a strawman.

Now WRT Israel v Palestine here is an across the religious divides plea which should be taken seriously:

My plea to the people of Israel: Liberate yourselves by liberating Palestine, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.

There are a number of primers on this topic now here is one of which I have the 2003 edition:

'The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide' by Dan Cohn-Sherbok & Dawoud Sudqi El Alami

Now if you believe the stories of the Bible then the fate of Jericho is informative although the Joshua and trumpets parts are no longer credible with archaeological researchers.

Wow

Lionel A has a point:

Not at all, I was making an observation on your style of argument which is combative and intimidatory. That is obvious to anybody who reads you.

You can be dry, astute and funny too, so all is not lost.

I'm curious about what percentage of our 200 million Islamic northern neighbours constitute 'a menace that is well beyond anything the German Nazis threatened us with' and that 'standard civilised processes are no match for'?

So, of course, they 'have to go'.

Should we simply force them to see the error of their ways at gunpoint à la Ann Coulter and Christopher Hitchens (now, there's an unholy alliance!), do you suppose?

But perhaps they simply 'cannot coexist with our civilisation' to such an extent that we need to make our solutions a little more, um, complete? Because they're 'like Hitler', don'tcha know?

Or perhaps this historically precedented drift in rhetoric is all just a tad hyperbolic, and it's really the nutters in Isis that have to go?

Well, um, yes, but, you know, the funny thing is that the aforementioned Chris Hitchens - tag-teamed with his mate Wolfy - barracked for the (un)holy war in Iraq precisely in order to show them backward Islams what's-what once and for all. Do you reckon that turned out well? Might it even have sort-of led to, oooh, I don't know, maybe the rise of militant nutcases like Isis?

And certainly more of the same is bound to turn out really well, ain't it?

Dealing roughly with nutters is one thing. Declaring a crusade against nearly a quarter of the global population, on the other hand, is so insane it's 'not even wrong'.

What's the saying? Never declare war on a noun?

Here's a bit of of Hot Whopping for you to read Tim, It might be a bit more refreshing than the blathering of the idiots here...
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/sack-australias-biggest-laughing-sto…
I don't know why you don't just shut these clowns down.
Tamino has done it by just removing the ability to post...but maybe you've got a contract with National Geographic or something. In which case ...my sympathies.

Wow, Mack actually linked to that discussion himself? It's like he's proud of being that stupid.

But then, I never did think he came here for the hunting...

But then, I never did think he came here for the hunting…

Mack is more here for the shunting, shunting denier memes around the fiddle yard, which ones going to be pushed out next?

The ideological and humanitarian sensibilities touched upon earlier maybe the following words found in 'Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War'' by Hugh Bicheno where he is considering the right of the Falkland Islanders to continue living in the manner they wish, can offer a saner rationale:

In trying to correct the deficiency and relate to the deep background to the conduct of the war, my eyes were fully opened to how dangerously misleading the old ideological labels have become. The true dividing line is between those prepared to work with humanity as it is, in all its chaotic and exasperating diversity, and those possessed of intrinsically genocidal conceit that there should be - and that they can create - a 'New Man".

If only.

The above quote was found on page 344 of the 2006 hardback edition. This is an excellent book with the best set of clearly labelled maps I have seen on what was otherwise known as 'Operation Corporate'. What's in a name? Who thought that suitable?

BTW Check out the role of the arrogant and detached Nicholas Ridley in precipitating that madness.

Lionel said:

BTW Check out the role of the arrogant and detached Nicholas Ridley in precipitating that madness.

This just confirms the old saying "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" since Nicholas Ridley is the uncle of Matt Ridley.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 21 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig, John Pilger summed it up when he said, "Terrorism, barbarism and mass murder are standard practices on our side; only the technology is different". Or, as Ward Churchill said, "US history has been characterized by 200 plus years of carnage, slaughter, and democracy deterred".

I concur. You appear to think we are somehow civilized compared to the barbarian Islamists - when indeed, the historical record suggests otherwise, We profess civility when indeed we are killing in industrial numbers for profit and power.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 22 Aug 2014 #permalink

Mack: just in case you are uninformed rather than trolling... You have to differentiate between insolation on a plane perpendicular to the sun and insolation on the curved surface of the Earth. At the tropics the incoming radiation per square metre is spread out over about one square metre of the Earth at noon. At other times and latitudes, because the Earth is a sphere, this radiation is spread out over a larger area. Think of the polar regions, the incoming radiation is almost parallel to the Earth's surface so is spread out over a very large area until at some point it becomes zero. Hence why average insolation is so much lower than maximum.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 22 Aug 2014 #permalink

Ah, that was a epically glorious flat earth moment (as Marco put it) from Mack over at Hot Whopper, with his very basic error explained here by turboblocke.

And Mack proudly linked to his ever so strident assertion of flatness which he asserted (along with the earth not being a perfect black body) undermines pretty much the whole AGW theory thing, implying that not a single damn climate scientist out of tens and tens of thousands of them has ever figured out this fatal flaw in their work.

You couldn't make this up - and truly, he's not here for the hunting!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 22 Aug 2014 #permalink

"never as a group becoming fully integrated in the countries they live in, is the cause."

Oh, aye, their refusal (on purely religious grounds) to integrate (to the extent that marriages outside the faith were forbidden: the RCC let that happen as long as the children are brought up as catholics) ensured that the jews could always be counted on as a safe "other" to create a causus belli when you need a scapegoat or distraction.

"Lionel A has a point:

Not at all, I was making an observation on your style of argument which is combative and intimidatory. That is obvious to anybody who reads you."

He'd have a point if he'd claimed I was from the UK, too, but it too has nothing to do with nuclear power stations or power generation reliability.

"You can be dry, astute and funny too, so all is not lost."

Thanks, though I usually ignore compliments like this, since in my opinion, it's expected that, even without being right, opinions expressed on discussion boards should be at least in some way thought provoking (otherwise it is just a shouting match without the high sound pressure volume).

My point wrt Lionel is that if those pimping out for nuclear power don't themselves point out problems in their preferred solution leave it up to those against it to pound on these forgotten facts, hence his rage against "anti nuke luddites" are a product of his own (and others) partisan ignorance of the problems of the situation they wish to promote.

It's a very similar problem to GMOs and the like: those liking the idea refuse to say themselves the problems or fears, promoting only Good Fact on the procedure, leaving these for others to say, hence making these appear, to the lights of the promotionalists, luddites.

Lionel leapt to a conclusion of what wasn't said and attacked that ("THERE WAS NO NUCLEAR DISASTER!!" Well duh, never said it was, only that it wasn't generating).

Then because of his mental image of what was "probably said", arrogantly saying "I see nothing to confess to here" comes across as complete asshatery.

Then doubling down on the prickishness with "I'm not afraid of you! HERE'S AN INSULT! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!".

Any wonder why I beat the stupid little twit with a cluebat with apparent glee?

How much difference is there between ISIS and the bible thumpers gleefully going on about how when they get to power in the USA (which was always a christian country, right?) they will shoot dead abortion doctors, atheists, liberals, gays and so on?

Only difference I see is that ISIS are doing it with the power of the state officially behind them.

To me, that's not a big enough difference.

Wow,

My point wrt Lionel is that if those pimping out for nuclear power don’t themselves point out problems in their preferred solution leave it up to those against it to pound on these forgotten facts, ...

So my having pointed to an article where problems where a few reactors of disparate type failed means nothing. Also if you had bothered to consult Nuttall and MacKay you would realise that other issues are not ignored. Go read some words Wow, don't expect me to lay it out on a plate for you - it is a complex and nuanced issue.

Uh! Oh! RedNoise/Duffer alert for when he reads this badly headlined and put together article which all but ignores the fact that a hiatus in surface temperatures is not the total picture:

Global warming slowdown 'could last another decade'.

Message for McGrath, who seems to have turned his hand to comedy like his namesake: There is not a slowdown in global warming, only in some surface temperatures but even then temperature records continue to be broken and the cryosphere depletes.

Curious about the 'Related Stories' (which looked very selective to me) at side links in the above from the BBC I followed one:

'Growth drives UK flooding problems' where our old 'friend' Roger Harrabin quotes an author of a report, which Harrabin fails to link to or even name BTW:

"We have categorically not ruled out a link between climate change and flooding," he told BBC News. "We just can't demonstrate that there is a link.

Well try picking up from here Roger:

Jet Stream Changes Driving Extreme Weather Linked Again To Global Warming, Arctic Ice Loss.

Another post anticipating the Duff effect.

Hum! Having issues connecting with Deltoid ATM, Stoat too so it must be scienceblogs.

#60, I'm should plead guilty to your first charge at Wow, see what I attempted with Craig (no regrets).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 22 Aug 2014 #permalink

What I meant was that Jews having been through cycles of persecution and tolerance for many centuries, never as a group becoming fully integrated in the countries they live in, is the cause.

I think it might run deeper than that. Get hold of a copy of Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell if you can. (Yes, I know. As a political and economic commentator he's absolutely dire. As a social historian? He's pretty good, at least on the particular topics of these essays.)

There's one essay on how people who function as "middlemen" are reviled in every circumstance you can imagine - even in POW camps, the blokes who organised trading tins of jam for packets of smokes for writing materials were looked down on by the people who benefited from their skills. The outstanding example he points to is the Indians in Uganda. Amin exploited everyone pointing the finger at them as exploiters and profiteers in much the same way as Europeans used to point at Jews. He expelled them all from Uganda and the whole country more or less ground to a halt without all those traders, importers, exporters and financiers. You can see similar processes with the Chinese in Malaysia and other countries, Koreans in US cities, and several other examples. Sowell's view is that the role of middleman is essential to economic activity but that the people who occupy that role are almost always disliked by larger populations.

The book's an easy read. Even if you disagree with some of his startling-at-first-glance pictures of various cultures, he provides good food for thought to clarify your own reasons why you think he's off base.

Yeahm right, such "pointings out of the problems" like this, yes?

However any nuclear renaissance has been declared dead by IMHO out-of-touch critics, especially since ‘Fukushima’.

Hrm....

And here is exactly why GM crops are evil:

"The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) says that expected planting of new 2,4D-resistant seeds could prompt a nearly 300 to 700 percent increase in use of 2,4D by 2020. This is not a hyperbolic projection. According to the USDA, Between 1997 and 2014, the acreage planted in glyphosate-resistant soybeans rose from about 10 to 94 percent; glyphosate-resistant corn from about 10 to 89 percent; and cotton from about 10 to 91 percent of all such crops planted in the US. At the same time, glyphosate use climbed at a similarly steep rate."

http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2014/08/20/new-herbicide-and-ge-s…

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Aug 2014 #permalink

"cRR Kampen

August 20, 2014
“Islam has had over 1,000 years to demonstrate its worth, and oh boy, the results are in.”

Only a racist could sabotage history like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Science"

Roman numerals were superseded by Hindu maths. We got it via various cultures that used to exist between us and the Hindus - all cultures systematically obliterated by Islam.

This idea that Islam was somehow associated with any progress is revisionism of the first order - any progress that occurred in a country that had been colonised by Islam occurred *despite* the evil theology, not because of it. Islam is a political philosophy that is implacably destructive. It can't be anything else, if you examine the life of its inspiration.

Human progress is massively concentrated in time and place: Europe after 1400. Islam had no hand in this.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 23 Aug 2014 #permalink

Wow wrt #81

What part of Fukushima being a special case because of the location in a seismically sensitive area and of a 1960s design and thus unlikely to be a prototype for any nuclear renaissance do you not understand?

Heck steam locomotives suffered, a few, catastrophic boiler failures over early decades but as technology and materials knowledge improved, along with tighter operational safety regulation particularly WRT safety valve design - anti-tamper - the such incidents became rare.

But then yes steam traction ran on dirty coal but that is another issue.

As I wrote read some words, Nuttall will help.

#77 Lenoil

Wash your mouth out with soap and water for even mentioning the hiatus and the 38th or so excuse to try and explain it.

Bye the way
How is the arctic death spiral doing this year?

Rednoise, #85

As expected, did you not understand my pre-emptive points?
Shame on you.

Craig you may be interested in this attempted rise of Islam and Sharia Law:

Sharia law in bid to conquer London.

Now where is there an otherwise unoccupied island where these dangerous fanatics can be quarantined - without outside communication?

Rednoise and Duff could police it.

#86 lenoil

Peculiar how those 38 or so explanations for the "Hiatus" (the 18 year plateau in surface temperature, now predicted to last at least another 10 years) were not made pre-emptively

Rednoise,

my post pre-empted any remarks about the non-hiatus you may make, that was the intent of my 'pre-empt' allusion not to any explanations.

What are these 38 (or so) explanations?

Rednoise

Peculiar how those 38 or so explanations for the “Hiatus” (the 18 year plateau in surface temperature, now predicted to last at least another 10 years) were not made pre-emptively

They were. The problem is, you know nothing.
From the “Charney Report” aka Carbon Dioxide and Climate waaaay back in 1979 we find this on the climatological effect of the rate of ocean heat uptake:

One of the major uncertainties has to do with the transfer of the increased heat into the oceans. It is well known that the oceans are a thermal regulator, warming the air in winter and cooling it in summer. The standard assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well-mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging about 70 m in depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so. It seems to us quite possible that the capacity of the deeper oceans to absorb heat has been seriously underestimated, especially that of the intermediate waters of the subtropical gyres lying below the mixed layer and above the main thermocline. If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.

Our estimates of the rates of vertical exchange of mass between the mixed and intermediate layers and the volumes of water involved give a delay of the order of decades in the time at which thermal equilibrium will be reached. This delay implies that the actual warming at any given time will be appreciably less than that calculated on the assumption that thermal equilibrium is reached quickly. One consequence may be that perceptible temperature changes may not become apparent nearly so soon as has been anticipated. We may not be given a warning until the CO2 loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable. The equilibrium warming will eventually occur; it will merely have been postponed.

Although this will probably go over the head of a flat-earther such as yourself.

* * *

the 18 year plateau in surface temperature

And stop lying. We've been through this dozens of times. Here are the data. There is no plateau lasting 18 years:

HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT 1996 – present; annual means; trend

Click the link. Look at the graph.

Lionel

I doubt Rednoise really understands that the various factors that caused a slowdown in the rate of surface warming aren't mutually exclusive. So when he sees mention of SC24 *and* aerosols *and* enhanced ocean heat uptake driven by increased zonal windspeeds *and* the predominance of La Nina over the last decade, he thinks there's a plethora of contradictory hypotheses in play. This is because he is absolutely clueless about physical climatology (as we know all too well), which enables his denialism. If he actually understood the basics (eg. the Earth is not flat) then he wouldn't be capable of maintaining a denialist stance.

For some, ignorance is bliss. For the rest of us, it's just ignorance.

What part of Fukushima being a special case because of the location in a seismically sensitive area and of a 1960s design and thus unlikely to be a prototype for any nuclear renaissance do you not understand?

None of it: it's nothing I ever mentioned, dearie, hence I have absolutely nothing to attempt to understand it.

Your statement is like me asking rhetorically:

What is it about profit being the difference between revenue and costs do you not understand?

What is it about the UK NOT BEING JAPAN do you not understand, pumpkin?

Wow

Some people believe that nuclear can play a part - geopolitically limited - in the evolution of decarbonisation of the electricity supply. Let's ignore the unpleasant smell left by right-wing anti-renewables nuke-boosters and consider only the holists acting in good faith.

From that position, all low carbon generation technologies have to stay on the table. It's easy to spot the bad actors because they try and push renewables off the table. White hats keep their options open.

Wow:

What is it about the UK NOT BEING JAPAN do you not understand, pumpkin?

Wow! Just wow, and what an apt moniker. That was one of the points I was making and also in the words you quoted back at me.

And what BBD says about holists acting in good faith, whenever did you see anything from me decrying renewables?

"Some people believe that nuclear can play a part "

Indeed it can.

However, we can't run it in a way that can play a sensible part with the political and social structures we currently have. As you admit to inherently with your:

geopolitically limited

proviso. The only problem being that you think that there's any geopolitical area that can be safely allowed to use our nuclear technology.

There isn't.

However, there are designs much safer but unprofitable. R&D into nuclear technology will uncover either design changes economically acceptable or new designs safe and cheap.

So I'm,100% behind R&D into nuclear power technology.

However, nuclear is just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can't use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

And it's FAR cheaper to roll out renewables to cover what we need to have now.

When we've sorted out our power needs with carbon neutral renewables, we will have time to roll out nuclear. Doing a nuke rollout takes money that would be more productive and therefore more effective in reducing our carbon footprint spent on wind/solar/etc. And without a 10-30 year lag for positive generation either.

Nuke power is rather like ordering the paint and wallpaper for your new house when you've just noticed that your current house is current;y on fire.

It's a *little* bit early at the moment!

What is it about the UK NOT BEING JAPAN do you not understand, pumpkin?

Wow! Just wow,

So you can't tell me what it is you don't understand about it, ducky?

Figures.

Here's a clue that has ALSO eternally evaded you, dearie:

EVERY accident with nuclear has been "completely different" from any other.

This has never stopped any accident before, has it.

So why is it in ANY FORM WHATSOEVER relevant that Fukushima is different from the UK plants?

HINT: It isn't.

Ergo: irrelevant.

When I talked about UK plants, YOU BROUGHT UP JAPAN.

Then when I say that the UK is not Japan, you go "EXACTLY!"

EXACTLY WHAT?!?!?!

If you had read Nuttall you would realise that it need not take 10-30 years to role out new nuclear. You would also appreciate that modularity is possible and a policy of rolling out a number based upon similar designs, as is mooted and possible, rapidly builds a pool of expertise. This on top of the expertise that is still around,

You go on about nuclear being

...just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can’t use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

Other than the opening statements are demonstrably untrue you then write this:

So I’m,100% behind R&D into nuclear power technology.

Why bother with backing R&D if you don't want to use the end result? Your logic escapes me.

I am getting close to done arguing with 'The Red Queen'!

Oh! And BTW if, as we could have had, an extensive and reliable source of electrical power avoiding much of the need to import oil from the ME then ISIS may not have evolved.

In my opinion nuclear is a no- go for solving climate change. Nothing in principle against it but the leadtime is too long. Not only construction, but also planning permission.

We're already seeing conventional plant being mothballed soon after it's been commissioned. Who's going to invest in nukes when renewables are steadily dropping in price?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 24 Aug 2014 #permalink

turboblocke

In my opinion nuclear is a no- go for solving climate change. Nothing in principle against it but the leadtime is too long. Not only construction, but also planning permission.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If the build-out of renewable generation infrastructure is rapid enough to keep pace with demand and the ongoing decommissioning of existing FF and nuclear plant, then you may be proved correct.

If it is not, then perhaps we will see rapid expansion of nuclear within the energy mix of developed nations, spurred by the increasing severity of CC impacts over the coming decades and the imperatives of supply and demand.

If you had read Nuttall you would realise that it need not take 10-30 years to role out new nuclear.

So far nobody's managed to get it under the time budget so far. So either that's wrong or you two think that the engineers are a load of incompetent boobs.

You would also appreciate that modularity is possible and a policy of rolling out a number based upon similar designs

Nothing about the running of the designs in your ramblings here, is there.

Because, as you've never bothered to realise, the immutable problem is that the problem isn't the design but the society that doesn't give a shit about safety if it doesn't make profits.

And hence every nuclear disaster, every single one touted by every Utopian as "Completely impossible to happen with the newer designs!".

The designs NOW being touted as safe and effective either have proven to be far more expensive, far less safe, or completely not ready for rolling out even as a testbed.

Ask the Scandanavians.

"Why bother with backing R&D if you don’t want to use the end result?"

ONLY YOU think that is the case, dumbass.

But this makes it easy for you to claim mental deficiency and avoid having to produce any rational discourse showing how I may be wrong. So you just leap to it.

Why would I support R&D if I am never for the results of it?

Wow

Just to demonstrate that I am not immune to the potential horrors of nuclear power, I'll freely admit that Kudankulam gives me nightmares. Obsolete design, questions over construction quality and right on the beach.

What could possibly go wrong?

Prossibly BBD, but given that even conventional plant are having difficulty getting planning permission and are a dubious investment, it doesn't look good for nukes. And don't forget the cooling water issue too.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 24 Aug 2014 #permalink

Wow

However, nuclear is just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can’t use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

That's what I meant by geopolitically constrained. But your mention of ISIS made me reflect on the might-have-been. In a saner world, we'd be pouring money into the Middle East to finance something like DESERTEC.

Loads of money for lots of countries that could use it (and a number that are petrodollar-bloated already). Collaboration. Mutual interest. Profits! All from renewable energy.

It's a quiet hope of mine that the ME and N Africa will soon wake up to what they can sell to anyone who will put in the panels and the HVDC cables and then pay rent.

turboblocke

We can't really use current conditions to argue against future policy under different conditions. We'll just have to see how it plays.

Lionel: "Oh! And BTW if, as we could have had, an extensive and reliable source of electrical power avoiding much of the need to import oil from the ME then ISIS may not have evolved."

Perhaps. I think decades of USA/Russia using Syria as a pawn in their Cold War was also a significant catalyst.

Either way, there is nothing new under the sun:

Mahdi Revolt
Muhammad Ahmad, the self-proclaimed Mahdi.
In the 1870s, a Muslim cleric named Muhammad Ahmad preached renewal of the faith and liberation of the land, and began attracting followers. Soon in open revolt against the Egyptians, Muhammad Ahmad proclaimed himself the Mahdi, the promised redeemer of the Islamic world. The then-governor of the Sudan, Raouf Pasha, sent two companies of infantry with one machine gun to arrest him. The captains of the two companies were each promised promotion if their soldiers were the ones to return the Mahdi to the governor. Both companies disembarked from the steamer that had brought them up the Nile to Abba and approached the Mahdi's village from separate directions. Arriving simultaneously, each force began to fire blindly on the other, allowing the Mahdi's scant followers to attack and destroy each force in turn.

The Mahdi then began a strategic retreat to Kordofan, where he was at a greater distance from the seat of government in Khartoum. This movement, couched as a triumphal progress, incited many of the Arab tribes to rise in support of the Jihad the Mahdi had declared against the "Turkish oppressors". Another Egyptian expedition dispatched from Fashoda was ambushed and slaughtered on the night of December 9.

The Egyptian administration in the Sudan, now thoroughly concerned by the scale of the uprising, assembled a force of 4,000 troops under Yusef Pasha. This force approached the Mahdist gathering, whose members were poorly clothed, half starving, and armed only with sticks and stones. However, supreme overconfidence led the Egyptian army into camping within sight of the Mahdist 'army' without posting sentries. The Mahdi led a dawn assault on June 7 which slaughtered the army to a man. The rebels gained vast stores of arms and ammunition, military clothing and other supplies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdist_War

Sounds familiar, huh?

And there there's, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#Acquisition_of_Syria

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 24 Aug 2014 #permalink

Obsolete design, questions over construction quality and right on the beach.

What could possibly go wrong?

Obsolete designs are what's running, though. And why? Because you can make money off old designs and making a new one requires expending money

The UK wants to put two new nukes in that both have a severe warning for flooding because of AGW raising the water line. Why? Because nukes need water.

And the reasons for the overrun on time and budget for the Swedish (?) nuke stations are because the construction contractor is cutting corners and making the project less safe.

That so many nuke stations have the same exact problems when EVERYONE can see what's wrong with it, but ignore it is because there's something systemic in fission technology or it's just cheaper to do it badly.

"Loads of money for lots of countries that could use it"

And the reason why fission tech is not going to be widely available is because the production of nuclear power is inherently dangerous.

Future designs have potential, but so far past future designs haven't lived up to the hype.

And because we need to, as part of R&D, to test these designs in controlled and limited use is part of why nuclear CANNOT be part of the solution for our current problem.

If humanity's "leaders" hadn't sat on their thumbs for 30 years MAYBE there would be something ready in time. But they didn't bother, and most of humanity was fine with it.

And now we don't have 30 years to find a method that we can use globally (because it isn't inherently dangerous) and start to deploy it.

Craig,

Perhaps. I think decades of USA/Russia using Syria as a pawn in their Cold War was also a significant catalyst.

One could also bring into this discussion of Sykes-Picot and of 'The Balfour Agreement' which are root causes of many issue facing the ME and in turn developed countries.

And your mention of the 'Mad Mahdi' and also Fashoda brought me back to thinking about the events and issues described in a useful primer 'The Scramble for Africa' by Thomas Packenham. But, as is usual with historical accounts, one needs to keep perspective by consideration of 'the winners' writing the history and political pressure on what is stricken from the record for Packenham is also The 8th Earl of Longford.

Fashoda of course was the scene of a showdown and face-off between British and French forces.

Wondering what word Thomas uses for the spirit in beer, vodka et cetera :)

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 25 Aug 2014 #permalink

ISIS is as much a product of Bremer's 'De-ba'thification' as of Assad's indiscriminate bombing of e.g. Aleppo.
In the end Lionel is right, too. Oil. The west suddenly discovered an endangered (though militia-holding) ethnic group a bit over two weeks ago, because of what is of course not said: Israel buys Kirkut oil and ISIS was in fact threatening to take this city.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 25 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig also ought to realize that it was Christian zealots under Archbishop Cyril that brought down the Roman Enpire in the end and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Thiis bunch torched the Great Museum at Alexandria precipitating the destrcution of much of accrued knowledge to that point.

But this debate is entirely ridiculous. To suggest that Islam is a threat on par with Nazil Germany is pure insanity. As I said, the greatest threat to humanity - by far - is unregulated corporate-based capitalism and its destrcution of the environment for short-term profit. Moreover, as Mark Curtis has written (and I reiterate), extreme Islam is largely a by-product of the US-UK is NATO axis and has been used many times as a means of fighting secular nationalist regimes.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 25 Aug 2014 #permalink

Wow.

back last page you wrote:

So I’m,100% behind R&D into nuclear power technology.

However, nuclear is just far too expensive, far too slow to roll out, far too limited in its allowed application (ISIS getting to run their electricity grid on nuclear? No? Then we can’t use it as a solution) and just plain dangerous when those making decisions absolve themselves of all consequences.

To which I responded:

Why bother with backing R&D if you don’t want to use the end result? Your logic escapes me.

with this follow up from you:

ONLY YOU think that is the case, dumbass.

But this makes it easy for you to claim mental deficiency...

Pointing out your breakdown in logic is not claiming you have mental deficiency, but then this is from you who wrote, putting words into my mouth:

Then because of his mental image of what was “probably said”, arrogantly saying “I see nothing to confess to here” comes across as complete asshatery.

Wow! Just wow, wow wow! Straight out of Monty Python.

"cRR Kampen

August 25, 2014
#83, Only a racist could sabotage history like that. Thanking Craig Thomas for re-illustrating that point so clearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age#Science.

Total ignorance on European history displayed well, too. But total. Abhorrent."

You've fallen for an insane revisionism: Islam certainly didn't and does not nurture progress or knowledge.

Virtually *all* of human achievement has occurred in the non-Islamic world. If you have a closer look at those very few examples of progressive thought that the revisionists ascribe to Islam, you will mostly find that members of colonised (and soon to be extinct) cultures being the instigators. The progress occurred *despite* Islam, not because of it.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Aug 2014 #permalink

"Craig also ought to realize that it was Christian zealots under Archbishop Cyril that brought down the Roman Enpire in the end and plunged the world into the Dark Ages. Thiis bunch torched the Great Museum at Alexandria precipitating the destrcution of much of accrued knowledge to that point."

Christians aren't the issue, Jeff, but if you want to make them an issue, you're going to have a very hard time getting past the fact that the overwhelming majority of all of human achievement has occurred in Christian societies.

The contrast with Islamic societies is *so* stark in that respect that you have to wonder if a religion (sort-of) based on the life of a well-educated progressive socialist was always bound to result in better societies than a religion based on the life of an illiterate desert bandit.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 25 Aug 2014 #permalink

"...you’re going to have a very hard time getting past the fact that the overwhelming majority of all of human achievement has occurred in Christian societies"

Bullshit. As I said, it was Christianity that precipitated the beginning of the Dark Ages, which lasted over 1000 years. Moreover, the destruction of the great library at Alexandria arguably set back humanity a thousand years or more, since pretty well all accumulated knowledge was stored there. We must also acknowledge the fact that many of the great scientific thinkers - from Galileo to Darwin - were seriously held back by Christian religious dogma. And even to the present day, we find evolutionary biologists (including myself) still having to defend what by now should be accepted as fact.

I am not defending extreme Islam or any religion for that matter, Craig. But, as Roderick explains, you clearly have some strange obsession with Islam and this clouds any reason from you. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, extreme Islamic movements are largely a creation of western intelligence agencies. By now it should be clear that Al Queda morphed from the Mujahadeen who were supported to the tune of millions of dollars by the CIA in Afghanistan in the 1980s in fighting the Soviet Army there, in essence to create the 'Afghan trap' as described by one of its creators, Zbignieuw Brezinski. The US and UK have supported and continue to support jihadist movements if they are in line with western economic and political interests, in spite of the potential for blowback. And, again I reiterate the fact that when it comes to industrial-scale killing and murder ver the past century up to the present day, the west and its 'Christian armies' are impossible to beat.

You somehow equate technology and our societies with civility. This is where you are seriously misguided. We may expound such rhetoric, but the truth is that behind the facade are forces that are killing, maiming and impoverishing many in the south on a massive scale. Civilization is founded on violence and mass murder. Its time you woke up to reality and took off your clearly biased blinkers.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

I think regular Deltoids have lost the plot entirely this month!
Why are you arguing about Islam vs Christianity?
What about Buddhism or Hindu or numerous other religions and their various sub sects?
Did anyone happen to notice that BoM has been asked some specific questions about specific data sets over the last week?
How did a simple link by David Benson create such vitriol?
I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years.
BDD's WFT graphs do need to be looked at. Check the increments and also change the start dates to the last 15 years, 10 years & 5 years.
What do you see?

"...I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years"

Stu2, you are an idiot. How many times does one have to be told that the time scales you invoke for a largely deterministic system are too short? Each decade has been progressively warmner than the last, and that trend is likely to continue in this decade.

AGW is a reality. We ought to be doing something about it. Thus far, we aren't or else measures are pedantic. The hand wavers by-and-large are the climate change deniers and their corporate-profit linked agendas. You are one of the many simpletons who swallow their nonsense

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Right, you can all stop holding hands and chanting "We belieeeeeeeeeve" because I have two important locations to point out to you:

Amberley and Rutherglen.

Eh? Waddya mean you never heard of them? You're all Aussie colonials, aren't you? Oh well, alright then but this is an Aussie site so someone will have heard of Amberley and Rutherglen and the, shall we say, 'eccentric' manner in which the Aussie Met Office turned a hundred years of recorded *cooling* into a hundred years of *warming*. How do they do that? They deserve a place in the Magic Circle!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu2

I also note that there is still massive hand waving and denial about an obvious flattening of global averages in the last 10 to 15 years.
BDD’s WFT graphs do need to be looked at. Check the increments and also change the start dates to the last 15 years, 10 years & 5 years.
What do you see?

What do I see? I see a denier who has repeatedly been told that (1) the troposphere is not the climate system, (2) OHC is increasing apace, demonstrating ongoing energy imbalance, (3) ever-shortening timescales are uninformative (see Jeff, #20) and (4) the rate of surface warming is modulated by the rate of ocean heat uptake and so (5) cannot be used to determine either TCR or ECS over short time-scales.

But despite repeated correction, I see this self-same denier repeating the same old rubbish yet again. In my book, repeating a known falsehood is called lying.

#188 "You somehow equate technology and our societies with civility. This is where you are seriously misguided. We may expound such rhetoric, but the truth is that behind the facade are forces that are killing, maiming and impoverishing many in the south on a massive scale. "

Hear, hear. To those who equate technological advance with civility I say 'yeah we made WW I, WW II, we made the Shoa and slaughtered Vietnam'. Craig's enlightenment. So he doesn't even know how come the _chemical_ _alcohol_. Because _matrass_ in the _caravan_. _Cotton_, _coffee_, _cable_, ... All arab words, poor Craig.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Aha, so there is Duff. Are we getting bonkers spillover from WUWT or wot?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

#19, moving on.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Sorry, Kampen, couldn't you manage to find Amberley and Rutherglen? Try the Australian Met Office!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

#26, togtfo.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Ah, swallowed your biro, have you Kampen, told you not to chew it when you get upset, what will your mummy say?!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Duff's site (shite) is called "Duff and Nonsense". How appropriate. Everything this right winger writes is nonsense (Remember his, "Obama is a Marxist" crapola? This flippant crap negates any serious discouse with him).

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

I just made a cursory visit to Duff's site and its more right wing and shill than ever. I seriously need a barf bag to swallow any more of his bile. A mental health warning tag should be applied to anyone venturing there.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

So, Duff, some fake sceptic blogger who doesn't understand homogenisation gets hold of two or three stations' data - but only presents one (unnamed) station, note - and claims that the BOM is faking the warming data.

That is:

- an astonishing cherry-pick
- a failure to understand why station data are homogenised
- a failure to understand that it may change (improve accuracy) of results like this
- just fucking stupid, really

And guess what? The usual crowd of numpty conspiracy theorist cranks fell for it...

So, still not sure about Amberley and Rutherglen, then? I dunno, I thought you swots were on to everything in the climate racket. I'll give you another clue;

A hundred years of *cooling* according to the raw data, became a hundred years of *warming* after the, er, scientists of the Aussie Met Office finished it.

Amazing! I put it down to Fosters beer, oh, plus a dollop of self-serving 'agit-prop' as well!

By David Duff (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Correction: the station data graph was Amberley minimum temperatures only.

Duff, if you want to get a feel for what is happening to temperature trends in Australia, you don't look at the minimum temperatures for three stations. You look at the whole country and the full temperature data from all stations. For the period September 2012 - August 2013, you would find this:

The past 12 months have been the warmest on record for Australia. The average temperature across Australia for the period 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2013 was 22.92 °C. This is 1.11 °C above the 1961–1990 average, surpassing the previous record of +1.08 °C that occurred between February 2005 and January 2006.

Temperatures for the calendar year to date (January to August) are also the warmest on record, at 1.13 °C above the long-term average, exceeding the figure set in August 2005, which was Australia’s warmest calendar year on record.

The record 12-month period has been characterised by widespread heat across Australia. The average temperature has been above average over the entire continent, with no region registering below-average temperatures.

In the past 12-month period a large number of temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

Australia’s hottest summer day on record (7 January)
Australia’s warmest winter day on record (31 August)
Australia’s hottest month on record (January)
Australia’s hottest summer on record
Australia’s hottest January to August period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record

A hundred years of *cooling* according to the raw data, became a hundred years of *warming* after the, er, scientists of the Aussie Met Office finished it.

Try again.

Amberley minimum temperatures only isn't the same as the full min-max temperature data. You are being tricked again.

Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. Why is it so implausible that the homogenised data are more accurate than the raw data which could be subject to a bias removed by the homogenisation process?

Can you at least try to think rationally?

And now, back to reality. Looking at all the data and at the whole country, Australia is boiling. See above. Read the words.

#28, interesting, so you told me - that would be under another nick, then. Keyes, maybe? Petri the Swedish mook? Or was that a Delingpole?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Duffer's cherry picks on surface temperatures aside I wonder if he has ever considered what the increase in atmospheric moisture means for sea surface temperatures:

Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities.

Now I know that we have asked him about heat capacity and latent heat so why does he insist on stupid.

Whatever, what goes up is increasingly coming down in more aggressive spurts and so we should expect more of this:

Giant sinkhole near Cowshill 'could keep growing' which is in turn a part backlash from our industrial past. Cheshire, and elsewhere, could be in for surprises particularly if they start fracking.

Duff really needs to start understanding more dots.

Olas PoorTree

You should have been able to answer your own question if you had read the words above your inane post about an inane opinion columnist's stirring up of the dead.

Jerks both!

Olaus

Give it a rest and chew on Duff’s bone instead. What’s your take?

Very low class trolling. Read the recent comments, eg. #33 and # 34.

I see Olaus is being hypocritical again. No group of people smears, lies and uses ad hominem attacks as much as climate change deniers and other anti-environmentalists. He's a shining example, as well.

Then to add insult to injury, he pastes a link to one of the worst offenders of them all. We all know that Olly is as thick as two planks and this is just another example of it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Jeffie, always in lala-land seeing things first hand. :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 26 Aug 2014 #permalink

Quiz time! Who said the following?

"Everyone** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know."

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @#40.
The worst offender of them all?
Do you mean Dr Jennifer Marohasy?
How has Dr Marohasy earned such an infamous title from you?
Who or what has she offended the worst?
What is offensive about the information she has recently released?

#42, who gives a shit for your ignorance. Don't answer, we know.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

I could Bet on Oily Prat not appreciating the nuanced language of some scientists.

I not that WUWT and or the stickey Bishop are probably pushing OP's buttons here.

Marohasy is like you 2Stupid, a jerk but a particularly obnoxious one as she should, and probably does, know better.

I could Bet on Oily Prat not appreciating the nuanced language of some scientists.

I not that WUWT and or the stickey Bishop are probably pushing OP's buttons here.

Marohasy, the naughty lassie, is like you 2Stupid, a jerk but a particularly obnoxious one as she should, and probably does, know better.

Sorry about the double but on first send I had another of those Gateway Time out errors and didn't realise that the post had got through.

Whatever. I note that Sou at HotWhopper has launched into countering this Rutherglen nonsense from Morohassy & co. Indeed Nick stokes has now opened his batting on this one too.

The climate criminals, for that is what they are by aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel, are once again reduced to cherry picking and making false statements so as to persuade the ignorati. But these ignorati are becoming fewer as they are becoming more strident.

Lionel .
You are possibly not aware that Abbot & Marohasy are researchers at UQ & are published?
They have been devolooping ANN s to aid seasonal forecasting in QLD.
In what way do you think she is aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel & what has she cherry picked?

2Stupid,

When somebody in an article such as the one you pointed to has to mention that 'trick' again, out of context as ever then I would not expect scientific honesty to come from anything MoreHassle researches. If you do then don't expect any respect from me.

Now for those trying to deny that fossil fuel muddy the waters on the environmental disasters they create by buying people and organisations off should note this:

Well, they did shut him down. After he went public about the unending life-and-death threat of continued oil drilling and channelling, LSU closed down its entire Hurricane Center (can you imagine?) and fired Professor van Heerden and fellow experts. This was just after the University received a $300,000 check from Chevron. The check was passed by a front group called "America’s Wetlands"—which lobbies for more drilling in the wetlands.

Context here:

Crime Scene – New Orleans.

Stu2

<blockquote [strawman redacted] & what has she cherry picked?

Stop trolling. This was answered in detail at #33 and #34.

Apparently, Marohasy - who has no background in climate science - self-describes as a libertarian. Case closed.

#50 - 'Pelican Brief' for real.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

2Stupid:

In what way do you think she is aiding and abetting the actions and interests of fossil fuel....

Here you go numbskull:

The sceptic in question is Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a long-time doubter of human-caused climate change whose research at Central Queensland University (CQU) is funded by another climate change sceptic.

Source: Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat.

See also SourceWatch on MoreHassle and others, IPA and AEF really! This woman is not a climate scientist but one who once may have done useful work in the biological field but has since joined the Richard and Judy club, also Pat, John and Roy too should they feel left out.

In the end Lionel is right, too. Oil.

And God.

These people are just as convinced that God exists, talks to them, and tells them to do what they desperately want to do as any televangelist.

They are JUST AS CONVINCED of God existing as any religious person on the street who goes to church a few times a year.

But it;s not something polite society wants to admit to, hence they make up euphemisms:

Sectarian
Loyalists/Unionists
Ethnic cleansing
Terrorism
Extremism.

They are no more extreme than any other who believes in their God.

Pointing out your breakdown in logic

Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

If I wasn't going to accept any result of R&D, why is it I'm for it?

A question I asked you, and despite liberal quoting of me from you, you *did not quote that bit*.

Why?

Because the only dickhead who thinks that I would not accept any result of R&D into nuclear power is YOU, but admitting that is devastating to your "case".

"Virtually *all* of human achievement has occurred in the non-Islamic world. "

Nope, most of it from Pre-Islamic Islamic world.

Islam, like Christianity (Ask Rev Luther King), knows that rationality kills belief, and without belief, there's no power in religion.

In the 1300's the Islamic World were centuries ahead of Europe. It took us three or four hundred years after the rise of Islam (and its quashing of the free thinkers that was rampant in most of Europe throughout even the Renaissance period, look at the life and times of Kepler) for us to CATCH UP.

IF YOU EXCLUDE THE THINGS BEFORE THE C18, then "all scientific advances were from the non-islamic world", but it would be just as true to reverse the position if you remove anything AFTER C18.

Hence the conclusion is cherry picked and therefore invalid.

Now this is, if you will excuse my Aussie, a 'beaut'! Oh, how I cherish and relish it. It absolutely sums up what passes for, er, thinking at the Tabernacle. Please, please read it, then read it again and ponder . . .

"Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. Why is it so implausible that the homogenised data are more accurate than the raw data which could be subject to a bias removed by the homogenisation process?"

Simply too, too delicious for mere words! No need for me to explain it, the entire 'warmer' corruption is beautifully encapsulated.

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Simply too, too delicious for mere words! No need for me to explain it, the entire ‘warmer’ corruption is beautifully encapsulated.

That's a big, fat, throbbing conspiracy theory you've got there, Duff. Careful.

Try expanding your intellectual horizons. Since I wrote that, this illuminating article has appeared.

You will be pleasantly surprised to see that it confirms - with all the necessary detail - exactly what I said. Enjoy.

Indeed BBD @ #60 if Duff had bothered to read before he used his Uzi again he would have been aware of that, for both Nick Stokes and Sou have put that can of worms under the spotlight.

Whatever he dropped off again with some toodeloo got to fly sort of escape mechanism and appear again next month. He never contests the replies.

Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

On the contrary, for all your bad mouthing you still persist in proving otherwise, I have demonstrated convincingly that it is you that wrote the words, go back and read those comments again.

Unless of course your words don't mean what they look to do on sight, you are using some kind of alternate language.

Y

BBD,

I especially liked the illuminations of Dr Bill Johnston:

"The point being laboured, is that if the RAW data shows no statistically-detectable impacts; then they probably don't exist.

These changes relating to HQ, were arbitrarily applied, and it seems from step-change analysis of RAW that they were not justified. There was no move in 1912; that was when the data started. Perhaps really, you should re-run the whole blog, to reflect these important issues and biases.

Cheers,

Bill"

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Dr. Karoly has entered the stage as well, and it ain't pretty, so far. I think Dr. Bill Johnston is on to something, don't you?:

"DAVID Karoly’s response is a contradiction. He is a well-known climate activist and editor-in-chief of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Journal. Independent peer-review or not, he is quoting his own stuff, which he published in the journal he edits."

Hmm... :-)

And Karloy's colleague has something to say as well:

"GRAHAM Lloyd’s article (“Amateurs are challenging BOM warming data”, 26/8) on Jennifer Marohasy’s study of homogenised temperature records in Australia, notes a comment by my colleague David Karoly to the effect that poorly informed amateurs are at fault, and suggests they submit their re-analysis of the Bureau of Meteorology’s temperature records for peer review.

I would prefer Karoly first offer comment on the extraordinary examples of two weather stations (Rutherglen in Victoria and Amberley in Queensland) where raw data shows annual average minimum temperatures to have a flat or slight decrease over the past 100 years, but the data shows significant increasing temperature trends after application of the BOM’s homogenisation process, a necessary step to gain estimates of continent-wide average temperature changes.

The logical demand on any inference or projection of a data set is that it must first be consistent with the original data, and Karoly as an expert might well ask, as does Marohasy, what confidence do we have in homogenised data which fails this test?"

I'm sure BBD and the rest of the folks in the ten can help Dr. Karoly?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Keep digging, BBD!

So, what the, er, strictly rigorous scientists are saying is this:
'We can change the raw data because, er, well, the measuring site might, possibly, could, have been moved. Er, no, we have absolutely no indication that it was but, hell, it might have been, so we are going to change the data - UPWARDS - natch!'

Even though the nearest official measuring site at Brisbane 50kms away also shows a cooling trend - you can see the raw data graph here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=501945780…

Of course, the data at Brisbane was also bent upwards by the Aussie Met office in THEIR graph - oh no, don't tell me they think the tooth fairy moved that site as well!

And let's not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved:
"Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved."

And yet, another set of COOLING raw data ends up as WARMING adjusted data. Come on, guys, I enjoy a conjuring trick with the best of them - how do you do that?

By David Duff (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Olaus 'n' Duff

The facts are just a click away.

I can't make you read them. Only you can decide whether to exclude information necessary for evaluating the claim that BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to falsify surface temperature records. But remember, real sceptics weigh all the evidence before deciding what to believe.

You do realise that you are claiming that the BoM is engaged in a conspiracy to falsify climate data, don't you?

Doesn't that strike you as, well, a bit crankish?

Let's consider an analogy. You are in the public bar of the Dog & Duck, and there's someone banging on about how NASA faked the moon landings (or some other conspiracy theory involving a large, government bureaucracy). Might you not think 'cobblers - this guy's a crank'?

BBD, Lionel et al.
Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less 'crankish' or 'conspiracist' than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.
The data has been homogenized.
Dr Marohasy has not stated that homogenisation does not serve a useful purpose. She has questioned the BoM justifications for homogenisation at particular sites.
It appears that at some of those sites, BoM has made incorrect assumptions & therefore the incremental warming is attributable to the assumptions for homogenisation and not the actual temp recordings.
To me, this indicates human error or a simple mistake.
It would be 'unscientific' to not correct the error.
Whether Dr Marohasy is a 'libertarian' or a 'sceptic' or an 'environmentalist' or any other political tags that she has been given is irrelevant.

Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less ‘crankish’ or ‘conspiracist’ than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.

Dr Marohasy is a spokesperson for vested interests. This is easy to verify.

Be sure to click the link to the IPA.

Dr Marohasy has not stated that homogenisation does not serve a useful purpose. She has questioned the BoM justifications for homogenisation at particular sites.

She is suggesting scientific misconduct with an over-arching agenda. And so are you. Which is crankish. I notice that you skipped over #68...

To me, this indicates human error or a simple mistake.

Please read #33 and links at #47 timely provided by Lionel A and ignored - despite nudging - since.

Only you can fix the problem.

Do you mean these type of comments BBD?
"Homogenisation is done to correct for biases. To improve the accuracy of the overall data. "
" You look at the whole country and the full temperature data from all stations."
I'm wondering if you actually understand what is being questioned ?
No one anywhere has claimed that homogenisation does not serve any useful purpose.
You offering a link to a summary of Marohasy's past employment is a case of being hoisted by your own petard BBD.
I could link to many thousands of scientists in many thousands of different fields who have had many changes of employers for many different reasons - so what?
Karoly, Flannery et al have altered, updated and changed their careers, qualifications and employers as well have they not?
That is not a valid reason to dismiss anyone from any discussion about facts and figures.
I don't believe anyone holds a monopoly or special, unquestionable authority over weather and climate records do they?
It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!
It is not the actual algorithm itself that is being questioned but the JUSTIFICATION for applying it.
If it was because the sites were moved, where's the evidence?
If it's because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where's the evidence?
They are both acceptable reasons to homogenise. But if the sites have not been moved- then the change to the mean of the raw data is simply attributable to the incorrect assumptions for the homogenisation and nothing else.

Stu2, way over BBD's head, I'm afraid, and especially these very complicated lines:

"It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!
It is not the actual algorithm itself that is being questioned but the JUSTIFICATION for applying it.
If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?
They are both acceptable reasons to homogenise. But if the sites have not been moved- then the change to the mean of the raw data is simply attributable to the incorrect assumptions for the homogenisation and nothing else"

:-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Here's the solution/remedy for your angst BBD. Why don't we make Jeff take a hike over there and have a look at it? He could close the case based on his "first hand" skills? :-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 27 Aug 2014 #permalink

Olaus, you ask the wonderful question
"If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?"

"Wonderful", because it is a relevant question, and you could have checked that yourself. But people like you won't do it. Better to be "just asking question".

Here's Sou who did that check:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/weather-in-rutherglen-with-wuwt.html

Of course, there's also this:
http://moyhu.blogspot.dk/2014/08/adjustments-sometimes-warm-sometimes.h…
(one wonders why Jennifer isn't screaming about those stations that have a downward correction...actually, no we don't wonder about that, we know why she isn't).

Good for Sue Marco, but why not help her answer the questions raised from Stu2 instead of somehting else?

I think we have to call on Jeff! ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Marco.
This is what Sou says in relation to those questions:

"As you can see from the above, the raw records are shown as lower than the ACORN-SAT (adjusted/corrected) records for the period prior to the gap between 1959 and 1965. I'm not in a position to say why that is the case. I will say that the proper explanation is not nefarious intent. "
and:
"I wasn't able to find out why there is a five year gap in the records for Rutherglen in the first half of the 1960s. I'd have thought that researchers at the centre would have been monitoring records throughout, though its not beyond the realms of possibility that in some years the records were kept more diligently than others. "

Unfortunately most of the rest is either obfuscation, speculation or personal opinion.
Let's not forget that this piece by Sou is not a peer reviewed published document.
I might also add that Sou is of course entitled to voice her personal opinion as is Dr Jennifer Marohasy.

Sou appears to be answering some other question that hasn't been asked and it appears she doesn't know the answers to the questions that were asked.
Here:
If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?
Further, if you go here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
You will notice that Dr Marohasy is not 'screaming' about anything, she is simply trying to ask why BoM has applied those algorithms that do indeed alter the mean of the raw data from a slight cooling trend to a definite warming trend.
I'm not sure why this is seen as a difficult question or a reason to personally attack Marohasy or a reason to cry 'conspiracy theory'?
There are many good reasons to homogenise data, so BoM should not have any problem answering those questions with a good reason.

Stu2, FYI Jennifer Maharosey has all of the traits of a corporate shill. She's associated with a righ wing think tank (IPA) and that says it all (or should). I guess dopes like you (and Olaus) are hurt because another one of your major sources of information bites the dust.

And also FYI Olly, Maharosey cannot stand in the same room as me as a scientist. If I am in 'la-la land' then heaven knows where the hell she is. My scientific record stands on its own. No need for scientifically illiterate twerps like you to try and judge me because you have no ability to do so. You have not been near a science lecture theater in your life (not has Stu2 for that matter).

What boggles the mind is that fact that you don't think its possible for humanity to affect large scale processes across the biopshere. That's depsite the fact that our species has affected the hydrological cycle, various nutrient cycles, the chemical composition of freshwater, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, extirpated a large number of species and even more genetically distinct populations, eliminated vast tracts of forest ecosystems, and had a major role in many other aspects of global change.

Against that tapestry we have the ignoranti here somehow arguing that humans just cannot influence climate. What a bunch of idiots.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

And Olly is onto Nova, as well. How utterly pathetic.

If the likes of Maharosey and Nova have something useful to write and contgribute, let's see them try with the scientific literature or at a major conference where climate scientists are present. Instead, they rely on their kindergarten-level blogs aimed at the idiot brigade.

I am tooi bloody busy preparing for my inaugural Professorship lecture in two weeks as well as a talk I am giving this afternoon to engage in sandbox level histrionics by unqualified quacks who steer well clear of the emprical literature and scientic journals. If M and N have something useful to say, let's see them try it in the mainstream scientific jorunals or conferences and not as raw arguments on their shitty blogs. Sadly, for dupes like Stu2 and Olly, the blogs is where they gain their worldviews. They don't reads the primary literature, and I have no intention of reading bull**** on a shill's blog. Not now, not ever.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Are you feeling OK Jeff? :-) Besides speaking in tongue and by telling us (again) about your CV in maggotology, why don't you set the records straight on the topics addresed?

Your skills in observing climate change first hand could come in handy, I reckon!

Here's some more from Nova, please try keep up. And no one more than me what's her to be corrected.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/abc-invites-bom-and-marohasy-to-speak-…

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Oily Prat in #79

Now you are being just plain obnoxious, indeed more obnoxious that usual even for you.

What all this is about is a distraction from the reality of global warming and the resultant climate change which is becoming more obvious to sensible laymen as weather patterns shift spatially and temporally, periodicity and intensity..

These shills that you like to cite are nothing better than illusionists, creating an illusion that science somehow is broken because, for a number of disparate reasons, data from temperature stations in Australia require homogenisation.

Can you OP, 2 Stew or Duff explain what is going on with homogenisation, that is how it is done and why it is necessary.

Clearly, none of you remember doing any scientific experiments which required accurate measurement of temperatures devoid of contamination by outside sources.

What happens if whilst taking temperature records the experiment has, for some reason, to be moved to a different location? Alternatively what steps need to be taken if a boiler room is set up in an adjacent building?

Meanwhile whilst MoreHassle, StickyBishop and others try to distract from:

New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth

Greenland And West Antarctic Ice Sheet Loss More Than Doubled In Last Five Years.

Consider how much heat energy that takes to achieve.

Jet Stream Changes Driving Extreme Weather Linked Again To Global Warming, Arctic Ice Loss.

I could go on but that would be to over-egg.

Thanks Lionel, but why not instead stay in Rutherglen(bent) to straighten out the question marks? Jeffie's mo(u)thfrothing and megalomania is only relevant in his own universe where he is the natural centre and able to invent reality any way he likes it.

I'm sure you are better than that Lionel?

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

In the universe which is Jeffrey's, Petris stfu.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

It appears that at some of those sites, BoM has made incorrect assumptions.

Any minute now, Stu2 is going to tell us what data or evidence has produced this appearance of the BOM making incorrect assumptions. I look forward to hearing it.

Hint: It's certainly not in Marohasy's tissue-thin speculation and conspiracy ideation.

Absent evidence, Stu2's musing is just JAQ'ing off, which is generally deprecated when done in public.

Blah - html tag fail. You get the idea...

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
BTW Marco.
Sou does not answer those questions at that link.
She is instead speculating on the whys and wherefores.
This piece by Sou is not peer reviewed and published anyway.
But of course she is entitled to her opinion just as Dr Jennifer Marohasy is entitled to hers.
The actual question is about the justification for applying the algorithm.
There are many good reasons to homogenise.
It should be easy to explain why it has been done.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Sorry Moderator.
I mistyped my email address:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/the-abc-of-rutherglen/
BTW Marco.
Sou does not answer those questions at that link.
She is instead speculating on the whys and wherefores.
This piece by Sou is not peer reviewed and published anyway.
But of course she is entitled to her opinion just as Dr Jennifer Marohasy is entitled to hers.
The actual question is about the justification for applying the algorithm.
There are many good reasons to homogenise.
It should be easy to explain why it has been done.

Putrid,

You are an ass****. And that's my compliment of the day. You can try and belittle my qualifications all you like but they shit all over yours and those you cite here. Maggotology? What a hoot. Besides, if you did study the larval stages of Diptera, you'd get through your thick Swedish head the important ecological role they play as detritivores, decomposers, predators and pollinators. But since your knowledge of science - in any field - is benthic, then its hardly suprising that the only ripostes you can come up with are the crappy ones that you do. As it turns out, my research has nothing to do with the Diptera, and more to do with genetic variation in plant primary and secondary metabolism and how this affects multitrophic interactions. But of course, Putrid, this is way over your head.

Again, Nova's bonafdes aren't up to my shoelaces. That's why she shills on blogs. And you are an idiot. That's why you read the shills and lap up their nonsense. As for Stu2, he's almost as bad as you. Talking about peer-review whilst clearly also being a blog-dependent person. As I said before, the vast majority of climate change deniers are bush-league scientists. They hardly publish anything in reputable journals and instead rely on the morons who read their blogs.

The bottom line is this: humans are forcing climate. There are consequences, many of which are nasty and unpredictable. And we ought to be doing something about it.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

The usual dishonest tripe from Stu2:

I’m wondering if you actually understand what is being questioned ?

The integrity of BoM. I notice that you deny the blatant conspiracy theory here. You don't even mention it. Rank intellectual dishonesty.

You offering a link to a summary of Marohasy’s past employment is a case of being hoisted by your own petard BBD.

No it isn't. She's a shill, and only an apologist for shills would leap to her defence. You should have kept your mouth shut but you are predictably too stupid to remain quiet when you should.

It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!

This has not been demonstrated - only the converse (see eg. link above to Nick Stokes). You are arguing from false assertion. Rank intellectual dishonesty again.

If it was because the sites were moved, where’s the evidence?
If it’s because the sites did not sufficiently match surrounding data, where’s the evidence?

Oh for fuck's sake will you read the fucking links.

Stupid, dishonest and lazy to boot.

Sigh.

All this has happened before, and will happen again.

The denialists will endlessly recycle their small bag of unconvincing tricks, and in doing so remain endlessly frustrated that the experts refuse to learn how to do their jobs the way the (obviously) far more competent amateurs tell them to, despite being offered copious advice on that topic for free.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Same goes for you too, Olaus. RTFL.

"I was cut-off, before I got to explain too much. " from the link #85. Yes, at this point I was quite finished, too. But I'll read the rest to satisfy my interest in certain disorders.

Looks like this gal is trying what Watts tried until the silliness even became too much for climate revisionists to bear. Fortunately one BEST suffices and it is the best.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

IIRC the problem with Marohasy is not only that she is an obvious corporate shill with (IIRC) links to the IPA - and the IPA mislead through their teeth about climate science in a way that gives every appearance of being entirely deliberate - but that she has engaged in behaviour ranging somewhere from unsupported scientific claims to outright scientific denial in the past.

You might want to go digging into her past claims to see if she's been a reliable source before (implicitly or explicitly)touting her as one .

(Or not, if your aim is not to converge to the best scientific understanding we have, but rather to muddy the waters...your call.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

It does NOT change the fact that the justification for homogenisation of data at various sites may simply be INORRECT!

Or it may simply be CORRECT!

And I, denialist, have no way of knowing which is which because I don't have the skills to analyse it myself!

But I'm JAQing off over it anyway because I'm betting on the experts being wrong or being malicious! People who I reckon just have to be right tell me that's where all the smart money is, and I haven't lost everything yet so they may simply be CORRECT about that!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Not sure if anyone posted Redfearn's article on Marohasy's claims here yet.

Note the comparison graph half way down. If the BOM were trying to fudge the homogenised records to pretend there was more warming than actually occurred, it is most impressive how they also managed to fudge the other 17 records including several from satellites and the BOM's own unhomogenised data set!

But of course, this just means that the conspiracy grows ever more complex, doesn't it? ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu 2 wasn't asking for more of your crying games BBD. I guess your permanent fetal position has somthing to do with lack of understanding.

@Jeffie, your are the most laughable of all climate scare mongers, I'll grant you that. Like big child. Impulse control is zero. :-)

Anyting more unsubstantial you want to take home to Rutherglen? If not, please tell me more about your CV and the grand conspiracies growing between your ears.

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

And this comment by LeagueOfNervousFish wins the Internetz!

Follow the link, and first go up half a dozen comments to the one by Keith Sinclair which started the ball rolling. The first response to Keith was by zorastes which led LeagueOfNervousFish to reply.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson, Yes I pointed 2stewpid to that Readfearn article at at #54 which of course our resident idiots are too eager to drop their next turd to bother diverting to read.

I also hinted at some reasons why homogenisation may be required in #80. Maybe all the words make our resident village refugees blind. One of these was in that article:

Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.

I would suggest that our resident numskulls go visit a few weather recording stations over a period of time and get to grips with the methodology.

Question for OP, 2Stu, Duff.

What does a meteorologist mean by temperature?

Louse

Stu 2 wasn’t asking for more of your crying games BBD. I guess your permanent fetal position has somthing to do with lack of understanding.

Now reduced to simply making shit up.

JFO and give us all a break from the moronic dishonesty.

Dear Lionel, I'm sure stations are moved, and for the reasons mentioned, but this isn't the topic hear, is it? It is if stations haven't been moved, which also is common. ;-)

By Olaus Petri (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

But you lot have no evidence of this. In fact it is almost certainly a lie. Lies prove only that the person repeating them is dishonest.

Sorry to repeat myself, BBD, but I will do so very, very slowly so try to read it without moving your lips:

"And let’s not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved:
“Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there. He, and many others, can vouch for the fact that the weather station at Rutherglen, providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology since November 1912, has never been moved.”

Go on, BBD, try again . . .

By David Duff (not verified) on 28 Aug 2014 #permalink

Hearsay. It means absolutely fuck-all, Duff. And since you are all proven serial liars, you are going to have to do much better than hearsay.

And Duff, you are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else's. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response.

Duffer repeated, in a confused manner:

“And let’s not forget Rutherglen either. This time there is a living breathing witness who testifies that the measuring site has never moved: “Retired scientist Dr Bill Johnston used to run experiments there....

Now this is for OPs benefit too, a site movement is not the only reason for adjustment for a change in the character of a site could necessitate such, as has been pointed out. With that last point in mind what do yo think AWatts has been making a song and dance about over recent years?

However WRT the record in question something else was going on;

I wasn't able to find out why there is a five year gap in the records for Rutherglen in the first half of the 1960s. I'd have thought that researchers at the centre would have been monitoring records throughout, though its not beyond the realms of possibility that in some years the records were kept more diligently than others. It was in the 1960s when the research centre was rebuilt, so it could be something to do with that. Nor do I know when the weather station came under the ambit of the Bureau, which I think it is now, rather than the agency responsible for agricultural research, which it was originally. (There were quite a few gaps in the daily records in 1958 and 1959 as well.)

Source: Weather in Rutherglen with WUWT, Jennifer Marohasy and Australia's denier newspaper, to which you have already been pointed.

Go on Duffer, try again.

Now Duffer, there was something else entirely going on with Amberley records can you tell me what that is?

Hint, it is a situation that has been repeated elsewhere in the world with post Cold War defence adjustments for one.

I'm waiting, Duff.

Hours have elapsed.

#100, he sez he saw an UFO therefore you believe in alien occupation of earth?

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 29 Aug 2014 #permalink

Amberley has an obvious step change in 1979-1980. Its almost as if they had to move the station away from some large object with a high thermal mass that was influencing the data. Something like concrete. Or tarmac. Gee, I wonder where you would find something like that on an airbase?

Stations are badly sited and its whinge, whinge, whinge. You move badly sited stations to better sites and correct for the move and its whinge, whinge, whinge. Just no pleasing some people...

Looks like Duffer has done his toodle-pip stunt again. Given his level of comment here I figure he is still trying to understand the story lines in 'Biggles'.

Marohasy, and others like her, could be charged with behaving in an immoral manner because of there efforts clearly aimed at muddying the waters, over trivia, in order to delay action on hauling back on the primary cause of AGW - CO2 and CH4 emissions. The fact that she has been a recent speaker at Heartland's annual bash makes it clear that truth in science is not her aim.

The language being used is tightening up Climate Scientists Spell Out Stark Danger And Immorality Of Inaction In New Leaked Report.

Unfortunately the Huff Post article linked to in the article cited above gives climate contrarian John Christy oxygen and then they mention his minority status as if that covers their arse, it doesn't. Pointing out false balance is not an excuse for using it in the first place. Christy being the John in mind when I wrote '...the Richard and Judy club, also Pat, John and Roy too should they feel left out' earlier.

Listen, dickcheeks, the only person who thinks that is my logic is YOU.

On the contrary,

On the contrary, you're the only one who has claimed I'd never accept the results of R&D, so therefore the ONLY break in logic is in your own fevered raving imagination, darling.

And saying "on the contrary" only works IF YOU PLACE A CONTRADICTORY ARGUMENT AFTERWARD. It is NOT merely to place an unsupported claim of winning, bumfluff.

FFS, EVEN YOU claim the result of the R&D for the Chernobyl station was not safe enough to be used.

However, in your own mad little world, only YOU are allowed to offer bad tech as a claim, and ONLY IF it's used to "explain" why a newer tech isn't going to blow up.

AND THIS IS WHY Fukishima is such a butthurt to the nuke fellatios like yourself.

Chernobyl blew up because of government incompetence. They're commies, right? And therefore such an accident would NEVER happen here in the technologically competent Capitalist West (tm).

Except the complete and utter ball-sup (mistype there seemed so appropriate I put it back in) in Japan indicates that the west is absolutely NOT immune to the same sort of monumental cock-up.

Thorium reactors are proving to have catastrophic modes of failure that were not considered at the R&D stage.

Pebble bed reactors are showing they are not "default safe" as proposed when on the draft board.

It takes 10-20 years to see if a design *actually works*. And we will still make shit up as to how states we don't like cannot be allowed to have it (or admit that they're not safe).

And that's one expensive design.

So having to wait 50 years for nuke power has FUCK ALL to do with nimby luddites, but actual rational sensible responsibilty, rather than an idiotic blind faith in the techno-utopians of the west.

But more, ANY response to converting power structures off carbon based fuels would have to be the cheapest as well as quickest to roll out.

Since no nuke will be built without promises of INCREASING *GUARANTEED* returns for the power, whereas even Solar PV is cheaper than nuclear power in most of the world (including those we're least likely to let have nukes) AND IS FALLING EVERY YEAR.

This is yet another reason why nukes are not the answer to AGW.

YOU, with your insane dribblings will proclaim this as me saying "I will not accept any result of nuke R&D", but that's because you're only willing to inhabit a realm inside your own head, where external reality has no chance to enter (much like Duffski, OhLap, StuPid, et al, except in different realms).

There is no forseeable result of nuclear replacing our current power in a timescale of mitigating the worst of AGW. This doesn't mean that nuclear power can never be used.

A point you steadfastly refuse to see because you've a raging hard-on for inserting nonsense into your reading of anyone not sucking nuclear cock.

Pfft. Come on, this is hardly new ground for deniers.

It's been "Urban Heat Island!!!!" and "You've changed the RAW DATA!!!!" in tandem, changing each mutually exclusive claim like an insane see-saw in all "arguments" against the facts.

Wow

I thought this all felt a bit familiar...

* * *

This is yet another reason why nukes are not the answer to AGW.

As I pointed out with uncharacteristic delicacy back at the beginning of this little spat, this is a strawman. White-hat holists simply argue that nukes are very likely to be a part (~30%) of the global energy mix by ~2050. A part. Not "the answer" and not in competition with renewables. Just used where appropriate, which will be mainly in developed economies.

This doesn’t mean that nuclear power can never be used.

That was my point exactly, so why the word blizzard covering points that I understand only to well. Why do you think I cited Nuttall? Nuttall mentions problems with pebble bed and other issues both regulatory and historical when it comes to waist management, with the UK being in a particularly delicate spot here because of the technology and fuel stock implemented.

Not every where is suitable for wind or solar or any other renewable and nuclear can provide large amounts of power in a comparatively compact footprint.

Compare the dangers of nuclear with those of fracking and coal bed methane extraction. I know which I would rather chose.

Still chanting away at the Tabernacle, I see, jolly good show! When you stop the 'I belieeeeeeeeeeeeve' chant you may care to read this with my emphasis added:

"While the number of positive and negative adjustments made by the creators of Acorn may be balanced or nearly so, their effect on the minimum temperature record is enormous. **Analysis of a not insignificant sample of 83 of 104 Acorn sites shows a warming bias in adjustments to minima of 45 %, which has the effect of increasing the network-wide temperature trend by 66.6 %**. The adjustments have predominantly cooled pre-1971 temperatures and warmed post-1971 temperatures. For maxima, the increase in trend is 13 %. This result casts doubt on the veracity of the Acorn temperature record, and its usefulness for climate analysis.

Please note: I make no judgement about the justification or lack of it for the individual adjustments. Nor am I claiming that my calculation of +0.63C per 100 years is the true trend in minima for Australia. Far from it: that figure is based on only 83 stations, not evenly distributed, many of which have much less than 100 years of data and/or many years of missing data. I’m saying no one knows for sure, but that the adjustments to the ‘raw’ data at CDO, in order to create the Acorn dataset, result in a massive and unexplained difference.

I welcome any comments or arguments that can show how I may remove errors from this finding, or how I may improve my analysis."

No, no, not me, the writer of that conclusion to his own careful investigation:
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/the-australian-temperature-…

By David Duff (not verified) on 29 Aug 2014 #permalink

Duff, you are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response.

BBD.
The 'entire world' is made up of far more than BoM's agreement or disagreement with other data sets.
Even though they may have the purest of intentions it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.
If those underlying assumptions are incorrect then the incremental warming trend is a result of the assumptions in the applied algorithm and not the actual averaged temp.
As I previously commented, there are many acceptable reasons to homogenise.
It should not be difficult for BoM to explain why homogenisation has been applied to the data sets that have been questioned by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
Further, dismissing people based on your opinion of their past employment is highly irrelevant.
That accusation can be applied to numerous scientists around the 'entire world'.
Karoly & Flannery being 2 simple examples from Australia.
To be clear.
This particular question being asked of BoM is not an accusation that there is a 'conspiracy to fake data'.

Even though they may have the purest of intentions it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.

If this were true, then BoM would diverge from other data sets. It doesn't. And while we are back in reality, wtf about this?

Stop wasting your time denying the evidence and the science and come out of the closet. Argue policy.

This won't do either:

Further, dismissing people based on your opinion of their past employment is highly irrelevant.

You may not be able to tell the difference between a think tank shill and a scientist, but the rest of us can. It's not a matter of 'opinion'. It is a fully documented matter of fact.

Go ahead. Carry on denying matters of fact. You are nailing yourself to the floor.

BBD:
This is what Marohasy has today been reported saying " wtf about it"
This one refers to yet another set of ACORN SAT homogenised data sets.

Note particularly that BoM is making a fuss about accusations re tampering, not Marohasy.
She is actually talking about 'matters of fact".
You know, really simple stuff like dates etc.

"Bourke now forms part of a network of weather stations used to make up the national record known as ACORN-SAT. The raw temperature records are “homogenised”, a method BOM says has been peer-reviewed as world’s best practice and is used by equivalent meteorological organisations across the world.

Independent research, the results of which have not been disputed by BOM, has shown that, after homogenisation, a 0.53C warming in the minimum temperature trend has been increased to a 1.64C warming trend. A 1.7C cooling trend in the maximum temperature series in the raw data for Bourke has been changed to a slight warming.

BOM has rejected any suggestion that it has tampered inappropriately with the numbers. It says the major adjustment to Bourke temperatures relate to “site moves in 1994, 1999 and 1938 as well as 1950s in homogeneities that were detected by neighbour comparison which, based on station photos before and after, may relate to changes in vegetation around the site”.

Queensland researcher Jennifer Marohasy, who has analysed the Bourke records, says BOM’s analysis is all very well but the largest adjustments, both to maximum temperature series, occurred in the period 1911 and 1915 with a step down of about 0.7C, followed by a step-up between 1951 and 1953 of about 0.45C. Of greater concern to Dr Marohasy is that historic high temperatures, such as the record 51.7C recorded on January 3, 1909, were removed from the record on the assumption it was a clerical error. In fact, all the data for Bourke for 40 years before 1910 has been discarded from the official record. If it were there, says Dr Marohasy, the record would show that temperatures were particularly hot during that period. " Ends.
BTW BBD.
I am not interested in your nonsense about 'think tank shills'. Abbot , Marohasy et al have come across this information while researching seasonal forecasting using ANN.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that at one stage in Marohasy's career she worked for the IPA.
As I have also commented several times, I have no problem with the need to apply homogenising algorithms to large data sets.
I also don't think that BoM has 'conspired' to tamper with the data.
It should be easy for BoM to clear this matter up.

BBD
I probably should have supplied the link but it is behind a pay wall.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/weathermans-re…
But on further investigation of that 'think tank shill's" site I have discovered she has had more to say about all of it here.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/weathermans-records-detail-heat-tha…
Also BBD.
If you can be bothered to research Dr Marohasy's career, you will discover that Dr Marohasy is indeed a scientist and has indeed been 'published ' in scientific journals, did indeed at one point work for the IPA and AEF (among other things) and is indeed currently conducting research into seasonal forecasting using ANN at UQ.
So even though Jeff Harvey has commented (rather egotistically) that she doesn't come up to his bootlaces as a scientist, you and Lionel have inferred that she is some type of shill or even a 'climate criminal' and Sou has made similar accusations about Dr Marohasy's qualifications . . .it does appear that you may be misinformed.
I might also add that after looking at this site, she is very articulate, likes to use evidence in its simplest form, is concerned about environmental issues and, as a bonus via the photos, she is a pleasant looking lady.
So none of the stuff I have found about her indicates that 'everybody else' (except me apparently?) thinks she is simply a 'shill'

Note particularly that BoM is making a fuss about accusations re tampering, not Marohasy.

ROFL! Ah, Stu 2, you're impressively naive, or gullible, or both!

As to your wall of text attempting to tout Marohasy's expertise to speak on climate records, she is indeed a scientist - but she's a biologist. Being a biological scientist doesn't qualify one to speak about climate science so scratch that one.

And she does indeed have (as far as I can tell) a grand total of two peer reviewed papers on the application of AI to rainfall weather forecasting (with similar material appearing in three other non-journal settings). Woo-hoo! That's good, and looks like interesting and useful research...except that those papers don't demonstrate that she knows anything about homogenisation of weather station records over periods suitable for climate science either.

She is indeed "concerned" about the environment, but from what I've seen primarily in the way that the IPA is "concerned" about it, i.e. concerned that concerns about the environment don't get in the way of their corporate masters' abilities to exploit it and people like you and me for as much profit as possible as fast as possible. You don't get selected by the IPA to opine on environmental issues otherwise.

And despite her lack of any apparent climate record expertise, she's alleging (or maybe just JAQing off) - without publishing her allegations in a peer-reviewed journal, which as a scientist she knows is the appropriate place to establish their veracity - that those in a field who do have the expertise, and who do publish their methods in peer reviewed journals for anyone to criticise, have got it wrong. And this kind of attention grabbing allegation without bothering with the niceties of, you know, demonstrating their merit to the standards required in peer-reviewed journals dovetails very nicely with her record of activity on behalf of the IPA, and with their modus operandi. It's no coincidence that allegations are sensationally made and then Murdoch-amplified before the allegations can be tested in the peer reviewed literature (and most often they never get around to that kind of testing at all - for obvious reasons, if you've a modicum of savviness).

Now, technically there's a non-zero chance she's right about the BoM getting it wrong in one or two cases, as there is with practically any random allegation that is eagerly picked up by climate science denialists, but given their impressively low success rate in the past it's about as big a chance as her revealing that she's been a "green" mole inside the IPA for all of these years, denouncing them for being the faux-environmentally concerned corporate shills they are, donating all of the earnings she has derived from that association over the years to Greenpeace and publishing an insider's expose of the IPA's methods for deceiving and misleading the punters. And as other evidence already presented to you shows, even if she's right in these one or two cases that has practically zero effect on the understanding of climate because BoM records are in line with all the other temperature records.

Are you a betting man? If so, why do you keep chasing the dumb money? And do it about claims that, even if entirely true, have almost zero consequence? I suspect your faithful readers have a pretty good idea why, Stu 2.

Wake me up when she has a peer-reviewed article that says either the BoM got it wrong and how or suggests an improvement to the BoM methodology. Bet you never see such a thing - and the smart money is on my side with that one.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu2

Nothing you can say will alter the fact that Marohasy is a shill.

Do, please, read what Lotharsson has to say above. At least twice.

Are you simply a gullible fool or is your apologism for liars and shills and deniers intentional and informed?

And why have you ignored the question put before all you conspiracy theorists above?

Your handling of this will be indicative of how dishonest you are.

You are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

Which is it?

You too, Louse.

Answer me this:

You are peddling a crank conspiracy theory which is trivially debunked by comparing BoM records with everybody else’s. They are in excellent agreement, so do you argue that not only BoM but all other major meteorological organisations worldwide are conspiring to fake data?

As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

Which is it?

"News"?

Only if either of them demonstrates (1) they understand the published BOM methodology, and (2) that it is either incorrectly applied, or invalidly applied, in the cases they are talking about.

(Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ROFLMAO, right?! Like that is gonna happen, given (particularly Nova's) track records of making these kinds of allegations, none of which have turned out to have any significant impact on the understanding of climate science - and given that their schtick seems to rely heavily on unfalsifable conspiracy theorising! Once they make a falsifiable claim it's open to testing - and we all, you included OP, somewhere deep down inside eve though you won't admit it in public - know how well they've done with those!)

While we're talking about competency and commitment to accuracy, go ask Nova if she still has the page up where she claims that the IPCC doesn't mention the tropospheric hotspot as being a feature seen in response to any driver of global warming in a certain section of the IPCC report - when it's clearly and obviously mentioned in the section she herself references - and also argues that the hotspot isn't shown in a certain IPCC image that she links to clearly that shows the hotspot when you bother to read the legend on the picture. When you do that, also ask her if I and several other people explained both of these facts to her several times over the years, and also ask her what happened to her promise to correct any mistakes pointed out to her (which is still visible over at Eli's place), and why she disappeared from that thread right after mistakes were pointed out. Then there was the time where she asserted - to me, and others, on the ABC website - that greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere - and it was clear that she had meant "make it cooler than it would be without greenhouse gases", not "emit some of the radiation that escapes from earth to space thereby playing a part in removing energy from the earth system". Oh, the lulz!

She's NOT interested in accuracy, OP. It's not even clear she knows what is bullshit and what is not when it comes to climate science. However she's rather interested in cultivating an audience of gullible fools such as yourself and anyone else who is in a position to either help finance her activities or influence public policy based on her misleading claims.

Speaking of which, one wonders if any of OP, GSW, Stu 2, Duff, Rednose and their fellow travellers financially contributed to Nova's appeal to get her hubby's groundbreaking "research" published on her website? I'm guessing that rigourous work has completely overturned the mainstream understanding of climate science by now and had all the climate scientists slapping their heads going "Why didn't we think of that, and phew - nothing to worry about!" - so it would have been money well spent, right?

I mean, you did put your money where your mouth is, didn't you?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Putrid and Stupid2,

Every major scientific body on Earth verifies the reality and severity of AGW. The two shills whose web sites you link have no formal expertise in any relevant field. Every major conference I attend has sections in which the effects of AGW are examined. AGW is taken as given - the scientific community ahs well moved on, even if a few paid-up shills haven't. Where are Nova's and Mharosey's well-cited articles in the empirical literaure? They do not exist.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

So my denying friends, if the figures are manipulated, what are you basing claims of a pause in global warming on?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

it is increasingly likely that BoM may have made some incorrect assumptions about historical temperature data.

I repeat my eaerlier request to Stu2 to provide us with the evidence that leads him to this conclusion.

Hint: Marohasy's fact-deficient insinuations are not "evidence".

Stu2? Evidence? Lets see if he knows what it even looks like.

Having mentioned John Christy at #10 above I am not surprised that his pal Roy has gone for more wingnuttery:

What Part of Hot Air Rises Do You Not Understand.

If a 'scientist' like Roy can get this wrong what hope for our resident twerps like olas, 2stupid and duffski.

S2

One other thing:

I might also add that after looking at this site, she is very articulate, likes to use evidence in its simplest form, is concerned about environmental issues and, as a bonus via the photos, she is a pleasant looking lady.

It is advisable to avoid any reflection on how "pleasant looking" a woman is in a discussion of professional credibility. Consider this a meta-comment. Nothing to do with the specifics of our argument. Just well-intentioned advice for future use.

I try very hard to avoid the personal but, honestly, isn't Jeff a treasure? He's a veritable Lady Bracknell, nobody does outrage better than him. Of course, Lady B was not actually a fully-fledged member of high society, she was merely a lower-class climber trying hard to be posher than the posh class! Every time Jeff waves his, er, scientific qualifications around (you know, 'mine's bigger than yours') one wonders! After all, climatology is a very recent area of interest and it's not exactly quantum physics.

For example some swots, forced to explain what to them has been hitherto inexplicable, have just come out with an explanation for the fact that if you are 17 years old you have never experienced global warming. According to these peer-reviewed brain-boxes, it's all because of "natural variability".

Whodathunkit?

Well, me, actually, and I failed O-level Maths, Physics and Chemistry. I was saying exactly that years ago and thanking the fates for it because climate stasis would have been an unmitigated disaster for all living things. But on July 5th 2005, Phil Jones, one of Jeff's demi-gods, said:

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

Who's a very naughty boy then, Phil, letting the cat out of the bag? Well, it's now 17 years and it *is* significant, well, significant enough to cause the journal 'Science' to publish the (peer-reviewed) paper trying to explain it.

Er, how do you explain it, Jeff? And did you, on the basis of your superb degree from - er, 'Uddersfield Poly, wasn't it? - did you forecast that temp rises would halt? And what I want to know is, back in the day, armed with all their huge qualifications and their massive brains practically oozing out of their ears, did Jeff 'et al' forecast "natural variability"? A referenced quote would be useful!

Stand by for a deep breath and the equivalent of "A HANDBAG!!!"

By David Duff (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Duff

Who’s a very naughty boy then, Phil, letting the cat out of the bag? Well, it’s now 17 years and it *is* significant

Oh come on. We've been through this enough. Cherry-pick the peak of the 1998 super-El Nino as your start and you can make a nonsense argument about cooling (ignoring OHC as you do so).

But what you wrote implies that there's been 17 years of cooling.

Click the link and look at the data.

If you can't even be bothered to check the facts, just stop now. It's a waste of everybody's time.

Duff and Stu2, one of you is claiming that the measurements are made up while the other is using those measurements to show no warming for X years. Could you fight it out amongst yourselves with the loser promising not to come back? That would halve the BS the rest of us have to deal with.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

I'm amazed how wrong BBD has Marohasy. All the shill stuff is nonsense. She worked at the IPA as her views are totally compatible with such. She has also worked for Qld govt.

Get back on task. The perimeter has been overrun. BoM are spending their days answering Ministerials on the issue. And you lot are here in your secure little echo chamber when you should be engaging them on their own sites - Marohasy and Novas. Stop squibbing.

Turboblocke.
I can't see where anyone has claimed that the measurements "are made up."
No one, including BoM, is denying that the raw data has been homogenised.
Do you think 'homogenise' means measurements are 'made up'?
I don't.
I have even commented several times here that there are good reasons to homogenise and BoM should be able to clear this matter up easily.
However, there is one (of many) rather simple answer to your stated conundrum @ # 34:

" one of you is claiming that the measurements are made up while the other is using those measurements to show no warming for X years."

One simple answer is that whether Australian homogenised figures are suffering from incorrect assumptions about historical weather data or global averaged /homogenised figures are demonstrating a hiatus are sound: it appears that perhaps nothing particularly alarming is happening to the Australian climate?
As for evidence. It is Abbot, Marohasy et al who have come across this information in the course of their research and it is they who have supplied the evidence.
It's quite easy to access it.
It's even at the link I posted earlier.
If you think there is something wrong with the evidence they have uncovered in the course of their UQ research into seasonal forecasting using ANN, then I suggest you could email them, or perhaps Graham Lloyd or you could even comment at Marohasy's blog.
I note Shane has just offered some similar advice.
And BBD.
Shane must be someone other than 'everybody else' as he too is questioning your comments about Dr Marohasy.
Your comments about Marohasy are merely personal opinion, irrelevant and at best misleading but probably as Shane points out - amazingly wrong.
And just as a meta-comment and some well intentioned advice:
Me commenting that the photos at Dr Marohasy's blog reveal that Dr Marohasy is pleasantly attractive is actually a compliment to the lady.
Your unfounded "shill' comments and your personal attacks via your ill informed opinion of her character and motives are most definitely not nice at all as well as being totally irrelevant to the very simple questions she is asking.
And Jeff Harvey ;
" The two shills whose web sites you link have no formal expertise in any relevant field."
Perhaps you are unaware of the research that Abbot, Marohasy et al are conducting at UQ ?
I also understand that Jonova's husband has formal expertise in this particular field?
What particular 'expertise' are you claiming that they don't have?
I note that some have claimed that Marohasy is not a 'climate scientist' and therefore should not be allowed to comment on 'climate science'.
I don't believe you are a 'climate scientists' either are you? I also don't believe Tim Flannery, John Cook, Lewandowsky and several others are 'climate scientists'.
You are however mostly well qualified scientists in different fields and all of you have expertise in using statistics and all of you would presumably understand the pros and cons of using homogenisation when dealing with large data sets?
I would also presume that all of you understand that if the underlying assumptions are incorrect when applying homogenising algorithms, then any resulting trend could be a result of the incorrect underlying assumptions?

BBD: "White-hat holists simply argue that nukes are very likely to be a part (~30%) of the global energy mix by ~2050. A part. Not “the answer” and not in competition with renewables. Just used where appropriate, which will be mainly in developed economies."

Far out - you are much more of a pessimist than I am. I am only slightly optimistic, and yet I can't even conceive that come the year 2050, populations will still be allowing their governments to foist nuclear plants on them.
The balance sheet shows: nuclear is a non-option. It is massively expensive, unreliable in the scenario of a changing climate due to temperature and water requirements, carries risks that are non-insurable and produces waste for which there is no known treatment.
It's ludicrous to suggest that this failed 1950's technology still has legs.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu2 appears very confusesd. Where to start?

How about we start by repeating what the BoM pointed out: corrections and improvements to the science are carried out via the academic process of publishing peer-reviewed science, and NOT by employing the serially-wrong Graham Lloyd in the anti-science-biased Murdoch press.

Then you've got David Evans - why don't you tell us *exactly* what "formal expertise" he has in what "field"? And once you've stopped been gullilble and shown some scepticism towards Evans' claims to having expertise, ask yourself this: "What kind of people,
- inflate their CVs
- don't conduct any genuine research
- publish their unfounded, unresearched, and manifestly incompetent opinions in a biased Newspaper with a recent history of having to apologise for publishing lies about climate science

Hmmm?

Come on Stu2, show us you can be sceptical....

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

WoW:
"Islam, like Christianity (Ask Rev Luther King), knows that rationality kills belief, and without belief, there’s no power in religion.

In the 1300′s the Islamic World were centuries ahead of Europe. It took us three or four hundred years after the rise of Islam (and its quashing of the free thinkers that was rampant in most of Europe throughout even the Renaissance period, look at the life and times of Kepler) for us to CATCH UP."

This simply isn't true, Wow.
The pushers of Multiculturalism have been trying to revise history to create a positive gloss to put on Islam, but it's an invention.
The Islamic world experienced a brief period some people call "the golden age" when they had access to all the science, philosophy, and other writings from all the cultures they had just eradicated. This brief period didn't end because Islam changed, it ended because the anomalous co-existence of Islam with progressive thought simply couldn't last very long. And far from being "ahead" in the 1300s, the idea of a free, tolerant and inquiring society was a very distant memory by then.
Your assertion about Islam/Christianity v rational belief is shallow and untrue. The reality is far more interesting.
Read: Rodney Stark, "For the Glory of God", 2003.

I also wonder if you haven't noticed the ability of Christianity to co-exist with secular and pluralistic governance and Islam's inability to do the same. Slight difference there, wouldn't you say?

I notice Jeff has joined you on disbelieving the very real fact that Christian-spawned societies have produced virtually all of human progress.The figure for "Europe and the West (non-Ancient)" is 97% in science. The Arab world sits between South Asia and East Asia, all three on "3/5ths of bugger all".
Read: Charles Murray, "Human Accomplishment", 2003.

There is a very unfortunate tendency for people to indulge in wishful thinking, as Jeff and Wow are doing. I don't have an obsession with Islam, Jeff, I am simply pointing out that you (and others) have failed to accept that Islam and the societies it spawns are narrow, rigid, and repressive and this isn't good if you like the idea of intellectual progress and if you oppose anti-science activism.

Read: HK Cohen, "How modern Science came into the World", 1994. He summarises the history of Islam's experience with, and retreat from, progressive thought.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

What Part of Hot Air Rises Do You Not Understand.

If the quote at Eli's is accurate, it's a LOT worse than merely forgetting that "hot air rises". He's apparently focusing on where the individual GHG molecules from different sources and sinks go, and then suggesting that maybe that means that the change in concentration is largely not due to human emissions ("outgassing of the oceans"). We have half a dozen lines of evidence that it is - and that the oceans are a net sink of CO2.

This sounds like pure desperation...or reveals that Roy is really rather incompetent outside of his particular area of competence, or both.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig
Here is a summary of Dr David Evan's 'formal' expertise.
It isn't particularly difficult to find and doesn't particularly look like it has been over inflated.
Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. " Ends
Regardless of that.
It appears I need to re iterate yet again that the questions being asked of BoM are not about peer reviewed research on homogenisation.
No one, including Maroahasy, is claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong.

You are however mostly well qualified scientists in different fields and all of you have expertise in using statistics and all of you would presumably understand the pros and cons of using homogenisation when dealing with large data sets?

I'm pretty sure this is NOT a given for any particular scientist, as I already pointed out to you in the specific case of the biological scientist Marohasy. It's a specific area of statistical/scientific expertise. A clue to that effect is that the methodologies used (for homogenisation in temperature records) continue to be researched and published in the peer reviewed literature - but not by Marohasy. You appear to be making unwarranted presumptions from a position of ignorance, as is your wont.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Now Lotharsson as well?
What part of this comment:

" the questions being asked of BoM are not about peer reviewed research on homogenisation.
No one, including Maroahasy, is claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong."

are you all failing to understand?

Also Lotharsson, I believe if you would care to look up the current research being conducted by Abbot, Marohasy et al at UQ, you will find that you may be misinformed here:
" A clue to that effect is that the methodologies used (for homogenisation in temperature records) continue to be researched and published in the peer reviewed literature – but not by Marohasy."

I also understand that Jonova’s husband has formal expertise in this particular field?

In terms of formal expertise, he has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. Which "particular field" do you think is relevant here, and how does an E.E. Ph.D. provide formal expertise in it?

And if you're going to cite his expertise - which you raised without it providing any obvious support for your argument - then you also might want to check out how well his recent blockbuster "research" overturning half of climate science went, you know the one where he chose to demonstrate his expertise in that particular field by dribbling it out in installments on his wife's blog whilst she solicited donations to support the "research".

But more importantly you might care to ponder why you KEEP raising the claims of people who don't publish their claims in the peer-reviewed literature, and when that inconvenient fact is pointed out you fall back to trying to pump up their (sometimes dubious or non-existent) expertise and in doing so appear to employ the fallacy of argument from authority (and often the fallacy of argument from false authority). Readers might suspect that you do this because the claims themselves don't stand up to scrutiny...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

I don’t believe you are a ‘climate scientists’ either are you?

It has been pointed out over and over and over again that those who are not climate scientists reporting the climate science consensus are not citing their own competence (or lack of it!) when doing so, but non-climate scientists asserting that the climate science consensus is wrong either are citing their own incompetence or are making a long shot bet on the anti-consensus position amongst climate scientists.

You continue to fail to understand this asymmetry - perhaps because it indicates that almost all of the arguments you bring are the kind of long shot bets mentioned - which leads you to the kind of invalid argument you make here.

Making it yet again won't make it valid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Me commenting that the photos at Dr Marohasy’s blog reveal that Dr Marohasy is pleasantly attractive is actually a compliment to the lady.

When she is being touted because she is a scientist, it is not. It is sexist and comes across as patronising and perhaps even demeaning.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

And you lot are here in your secure little echo chamber when you should be engaging them on their own sites – Marohasy and Novas.

Interesting.

Been there, done that, no need to do more.

We used to have a particular commenter who was really hung up on this particular meme. It made no more sense back then either. See my earlier comment about the plain errors Nova espouses and continued to espouse even after several people corrected her. There's no point "engaging" further once a deep and abiding commitment to error on the part of the site owner is demonstrated.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

are you all failing to understand?

No, you are. No-one here is claiming that Marohasy is "claiming that homogenisation is bad or wrong."

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Also Lotharsson, I believe if you would care to look up the current research being conducted by Abbot, Marohasy et al at UQ, you will find that you may be misinformed here"

Sheesh, you are well out of your depth, and still don't seem to understand how far out you are.

I already looked her up on Google Scholar the other day when you touted her peer-reviewed research, and described what I found in an earlier comment that you don't seem to have taken on board. In case you don't recall what I'm referencing here, I pointed out in earlier comments that her entire body of peer-reviewed research related to climate appears to be two papers on the application of artificial intelligence techniques to seasonal rainfall forecasting.

There are a couple of minor problems with claiming that this gives her expertise in temperature records suitable for climate science, and specifically homogenisation techniques for said climate-scale temperature records.

1) "Artificial intelligence" is not "homogenisation techniques"

2) "Seasonal" time scales are not "climate" time scales.

If you STILL think she has expertise in the construction of climate scale temperature records, please cite some evidence to that effect. What you have cited to date is not evidence of that, no matter how fervently you wish it was or how stridently you repeat the claim.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Aug 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson,
Are you attempting to imply that the Abbot, Marohasy et al research into seasonal forecasting at UQ would NOT require research into climate and/or climate timescales which would include testing and modeling climate data sets?
Considering the Abbot, Marohasy et al research is relatively new and still very much a work in progress, your observations re the number of publications to date is just a tad irrelevant.
Perhaps you need to take your concerns to UQ and the research team rather than taking all this up with me when you quite obviously think I am ignorant, unqualified and sexist etc ?
I'm not particularly interested in your opinion of Dr Marohasy's qualifications nor your opinion of me.The research she has been conducting has caused her to ask questions of BoM. I think you will find she has been asking those questions for quite some time. Well before Graham Lloyd & The Australian or Jonova & others got a hold of it.

Are you attempting to imply that the Abbot, Marohasy et al research into seasonal forecasting at UQ would NOT require research into climate and/or climate timescales which would include testing and modeling climate data sets?

Yes, dear.

I'm indicating that applying artificial intelligence techniques to seasonal weather forecasting does not require any expertise in creating (or even testing or modeling) climate scale data sets. One can presumably manage entirely well without even having access to a data set suitable for investigating climate in order to tackle that problem, because all of the changes of interest take place over timeframes much shorter than climatic timescales, a.k.a. the timescales of "seasonal weather". And even if access to such a data set is required for some reason, one certainly does not need to be able to construct a robust climate quality temperature record oneself in order to try applying AI to the problem of seasonal rainfall prediction.

Which is pretty much what I indicated in my previous comment.

Considering the Abbot, Marohasy et al research is relatively new and still very much a work in progress, your observations re the number of publications to date is just a tad irrelevant.

ROFL! You cited the research record to support your claim to her expertise. Pointing out the paucity of publications is therefore relevant - as is noting that you're NOW characterising the very record you cited as evidence of expertise as "still very much a work in progress", whereas previously it was sufficient to make her an expert. This suggests that you didn't even know what her research record in the area was when you cited it.

Perhaps you need to take your concerns to UQ and the research team rather than taking all this up with me when you quite obviously think I am ignorant, unqualified and sexist etc ?

Certainly not, dear! You're resorting to a lame gambit employed by those who can't defend their position. Here's the fallacy you're employing: you made certain claims and cited her research to try to buttress them, and my "concerns" are about the claims you made and the fact that the research you cited does not support your claims. This has nothing to do with the entirely separate question of whether Marohasy's research at UQ is solid. Furthermore, if you bothered to read what I previously wrote I already indicated that it looked interesting and useful and did not question its validity!

I’m not particularly interested in your opinion of Dr Marohasy’s qualifications...

...says the guy who's been desperately touting her qualifications to support his argument. When you argue against yourself like that, which one of you wins?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

"I don’t have an obsession with Islam, Jeff, I am simply pointing out that you (and others) have failed to accept that Islam and the societies it spawns are narrow, rigid, and repressive and this isn’t good"

Oh, but you do Craig. You also seem to be obsessed with the notion that Christianity was somehow involved in human progress. Notwithstanding its major role in precipitating the dark ages, Christianity had nothing to do with progress. In fact, if truth be told, many, and perhaps mopst of those involved in technological process were and are probably atheists, or at least agnostics. You are mistaking correalation and causation.

Moreover, its this very technology, combined with its attendant political philosophy (free market absolutism and unregulated capitalism) that is driving our planet's life support systems to hell in a handbasket.

Not much else to say, Craig. Read some of Derrick Jensen's works (Especially Endgame) and it becomes clear that we aren't as civiized as you liek to make out. And again, its under so-called Christian societies that some of the greatest carnage has been infliected. One has only to look at the historical record since 1950 to see that.

You will just have to accept that we are as barbaric as those you condemn; only we have better technology at our disposal.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

At least you're running true to form Lotharsson.
You are simply arguing for argument's sake and once again you have descended into an I said you said I said and I say you say litany of irrelevance.
I have mentioned before that it is boring.
I apologise for being so blunt.
The issue is not about your opinion or indeed my opinion of Dr
Marohasy's credibility and neither is it about why homogenisation is used or even who you think may or may not use it.

You are simply arguing for argument’s sake...

Fallacious gambit. You are not in a position to determine whether that's the case. And quite apart from the fallacy, I can reveal that I'm not doing what you claim.

I suppose I should note that you are "running true to form". You routinely retreat to that kind of distraction tactic when you can't defend your ill-thought out positions, and also to this kind:

The issue is not about your opinion or indeed my opinion of Dr Marohasy’s credibility and neither is it about why homogenisation is used or even who you think may or may not use it.

You disclaim the "issues" that you attempted to rely upon earlier, and throw in some that no-one has disputed to further muddy the waters and misrepresent other points made, all the while ignoring the issues that have been raised and the mounting pile of questions required to substantiate your position that you decline to answer.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu #36 thanks for the demonstration of sophistry. You weren't making accusations, you were just JAQing off. It's a boring technique that only fools the gullible, please show more respect for the rest of us here.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

How about sorting out the big killers of birds first? Cats, cars and buildings. Then how about habitat loss and hunters?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

I notice that all the shill-defending pseudosceptics present have dodged my question.

This demonstrates that they are all intellectually dishonest rather than simply confused.

How about sorting out the big killers of birds first? Cats, cars and buildings.

Indeed those too, and in large numbers, of fatalities that is. I was simply bringing attention to something which could grow in importance as the type of solar installations that cause the fatalities increase. Perhaps the technology needs 'tweeking' so that birds cannot get in the way by accident.

Not trying to distract from BBD's poking of Duff to answer a simple question. That he, once again adopts the ducking and diving speaks volumes - no bottom.

Comment away, Lionel. They aren't going to answer me anyway.

BTW it's not just Duff now - it's Olaus, Stu2, Duff and anyone else who attempts to defend Marohasy's bizarre conspiracy theory.

Do you mean this question BBD?
" As I see it, either you admit that the conspiracy theory peddled by Marohasy is simply stupid and wrong, or you must argue that the entire world is involved.

Which is it? No dodging now, because you have no choice but those outlined. Make your position clear by return response."

You do realise that is a very silly question don't you? It has nothing at all to do with evidence about anything to do with the Australian climate.
Along with Lotharsson you are arguing from a song sheet that is irrelevant in this instance.
Abbot, Marohasy et al are asking BoM some simple questions about these data sets because they have come across the information in the course of their research into Australian climate and particularly using ANN to improve skill in seasonal forecasting.
It is not necessary to have peer reviewed studies to ask these questions of BoM.
No one is disputing the peer reviewed studies that BoM is referring to.
And Lotharsson.
Other than once again saying "I rest my case" re your tendency to descend into some type of psychobabble argument, your comments @#51 & # 55 is just your speculation about the nature of the Abbot, Marohasy et al research.
If you could be bothered to check the actual research, rather than speculating whether they do or don't use or require or understand homogenisation, you may find the actual answer.

Stu2

You do realise that is a very silly question don’t you? It has nothing at all to do with evidence about anything to do with the Australian climate.

If BoM is falsifying data better to match the global warming narrative it isn't doing a very good job.

Here, in the pages of the lying and corrupt IPCC AR5 SPM we find this graphic.

Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

Perhaps Dr Marohasy's conspiracy theory is intended to distract from this inconvenient truth. We may never know.

BBD.
There is a whole world of difference between 'falsifying data' and the actual questions being asked by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
The former would indeed be extremely concerning, the latter is easily corrected.
As an Australian, I am more interested in the veracity of Australian record keeping.
It's important that the Australian data reflects Australian conditions, not whether Australian data matches:
North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, any more than those countries should feel their data has to match Australia's.
There are so many locational and regional variables involved.
Australia is a great country and our governance and regulatory systems are relatively robust.
One of the reasons for that is it is not actually considered a crime in Australia to ask questions of our bureaucracies and our politicians.
Another reason is that , relatively speaking, Australians are generally quite well educated and reasonably well informed.

S2

It’s important that the Australian data reflects Australian conditions

I agree.

Let's review. BoM sez:

In the past 12-month period a large number of mean temperature records have fallen across Australia including:

Australia’s warmest month on record (January)
Australia’s warmest September on record
Australia’s largest positive monthly anomaly on record (September)
Australia’s warmest summer on record (December 2012 to February 2013)
Australia’s warmest January to September period on record
Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record (broken twice, for the periods ending August and September)
Indeed, Australia’s warmest period on record for all periods 1 to 18 months long ending September 2013

What do you think? Good fit or bad fit?

Remember, your government bureaucracy is less efficient at faking high trends that just about everybody else in the world.

Sorry, Stu2. There's an omission typo above. This will make more sense:

Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown to be third-rate by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

Eh.

Australia is humiliated on the international stage. Just look at the surface temperature trend slopes for North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Australian climate fakery is shown to be third-rate by no less an authority than the UN IPCC to be trailing the field.

Think I'll call it a night.

Happy Denial!

Stu2 says,
"Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. "

Are you sure this is true? Who told you this? Have you used any scepticism towards this claim?

But, more importantly, what makes you think a light background in carbon-accounting makes him an expert in the field of weather data homogenisation?

Furthermore, David Evans entirely discredits any opinion he might have to offer when he offers these ones:

"There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have. "

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

BBD @ # 65.
Those BoM releases derived from the ACORN - SAT series is part of what is currently being questioned by Abbot, Marohasy et al.
I'm not sure why you have posted the other paragraph 3 times along with the 'happy denial' quip?

A normal person would "question" the professional work of respected, qualified scientists by doing the relevant research and having their findings published in the relevant acdemic journal.

Marohasy, on the other hand, gets Graham "Oops, sorry, I was wrong again" Lloyd to print an article accusing those scientists - without any evidence - of fraud.

And people like Stu2 just lap it up.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

David Evans: Evans had shifted his investments out of banks more than 10 years ago in favour of gold. Today, he believes the economic, social and political crises around the world are now captive to this regulator class. His conclusion was to bet against the government and "go for gold".

And here is Warren Buffett:
"It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hold, bury it again, and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head"

Postscript: Anybody investing in Gold would have seen their investment lose 50% of its value over the past 3 years. I'm guessing David Evans is going to have to sign up for telling his tall tales to a good few more "symposiums" and "conferences" to make up his losses.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Gosh, David Evans is the gift that keeps on giving:
"If Western governments confiscate and outlaw gold, all pretense of a market or free society is gone"

Seriously, this is how they think: the world is full of dark conspiracies.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Evans again: "We have noticed in the last couple of years that Chinese interests have taken large positionsin many gold companies. But the positions are all in companies that have large resources of cheap gold ounces in the ground, and are nearly all not viable at the US$1,600 per ounce gold price prevalent before the recent plunge. Do they know something?"

Wow, scary story.
Buuut....hmm, no sources mentioned.

Let's just see....
Largest Chinese resources sector investments, 2013:
Queensland Curtis LNG, $1.9billion.
Browse LNG, $1.6billion
Talison Lithium, $0.7billion
Alumina, $0.45billion
Focus Minerals, $0.2billion <<-- THEY"Z BUYIN ARRR GOLDDDD!!!!!!!!!

Chinese investment in Aus property, 2013:
$6billion.

But what does an actual professional economic commentator (as opposed to a fully-paid up kook) have to say about CHinese investment:

"BNP Paribas' head of metals and mining in Perth, Olivier Smeets, said China's ongoing interest in Australia's resources was particularly important at a time when other sources of funding were drying up.
"China, for obvious reasons, has been a significant source of funds for the development of the resource sector in Australia and I think it will continue to do so," Mr Smeets said.
"Even more so now, when there's been a change in sentiment in the resources sector and some of the traditional flows of funds have been reduced for the moment. Funding from China can be a way to complement that.""

I'll just play this bit again for the benefit of those whose tinfoil hats are on a bit tight and making too much of a buzzing noise:

"China, for obvious reasons, has been a significant source of funds"

Now here's the difference: if your for obvious reasons means: "They faked it, Agenda 21, UN one-world government, moon-landing hoax", then please understand why the majority of your interlocutors just write you off as an idiot.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Craig Thomas.
I merely searched to answer your original question.
Your supplementary question is asking my opinion of your opinion of his opinion.
In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation.
From your next couple of posts I can clearly see that you and he must have opposing philosophies and have perhaps invested differently for differing philosophical reasons?
However, to be fair, on another topic that you have raised here, I agree with you that the societies and countries linked to Christian culture do generally tend to be more adaptable, accepting and progressive and foster societies that are at least somewhat more successful at protecting basic human rights.
I also think Jeff Harvey may need to check his history re global leadership in environmental issues and such things as legislation for national parks, wildlife, heritage etc.
While he is correct that no one can claim to be purer than the driven snow and all religions suffer from revisionist attitudes, he does appear to have some blinkers on in regard to global leadership in environmental issues.
He also might check the history for other human based social issues like the education of girls, the emancipation of women, the provision of basic health care, the provision of public education etc

"In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation."

So.....you are now backing off from claiming Evans has "formal expertise in this field"? Good-oh.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

No Craig I'm not.
His qualifications and career experience do indeed mean that there is some 'formal expertise' in the area of statistical analysis and homogenisation of large data sets.
I did not however claim that he is an unquestionable expert who we should all bow and scrape to, or that I agreed or disagreed with some of his public commentary.
The original question was simply about his qualifications and his work experience.
Do you think what I copy/pasted is incorrect or overstated somehow?
Here:
Dr. David M.W. Evans consulted full time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. ” Ends

...“I rest my case” re your tendency to descend into some type of psychobabble argument,...

...says the guy who tries to tell me he knows what my internal motivations for "arguing" are, and when I point out that he can't know that he accuses me of "psychobabble".

You're projecting like a lighthouse.

...your comments @#51 & # 55 is just your speculation about the nature of the Abbot, Marohasy et al research

No, dear, it's what I infer from examining their research output so at least my inferences are grounded in a modicum of evidence. In contrast, you confidently assert claims about the nature of their research when you clearly don't understand what they have worked on, and based on your responses you hadn't even done a basic literature search - let alone read an abstract or an introduction.

Projecting again?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

...because they have come across the information in the course of their research...

Do you have any evidence of this? Or like the other claims you (or Marohasy) confidently made, will they turn out to be unsubstantiated?

Do you realise that she has her own historical section on this blog which includes coverage of articles from years before she started that line of research in 2011? And that in those articles she misleads her audience about various AGW-related matters?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

In Australia, those qualifications and work experience would not exclude Dr Evans from understanding statistics and homogenisation.

You previously suggested that he HAD that understanding DUE to his "formal expertise". When I pointed out that his formal expertise is in electrical engineering which does not support your argument, you shifted the goalposts to his work history (which is decidedly not what other people mean by "formal expertise"). Now you've shifted again from "his experience shows he understands that stuff" to "his experience and qualifications do not preclude understanding that stuff". Now you're reversing the burden of proof.

You do realise that you're furiously backpedalling from a confidently made claim, right? Because everyone else does...

Oh, wait, I see in your very latest comment that now you're back-pedalling from your back-pedalling and claiming that his experience and degrees mean that he MUST have homogenisation expertise.

You don't even seem to know what you claim, let alone why.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Stu 2, you confidently assert that Marohasy is JAQs - just asking questions - which you reckon is entirely appropriate for an alleged issue of this nature and hence doesn't need a peer reviewed paper. Remember this comment of yours:

Claiming that Dr Marohasy has questionable motives connected to the fossil fuel industry is no less ‘crankish’ or ‘conspiracist’ than claiming that BoM is engaged in fraud.

And this one?

This particular question being asked of BoM is not an accusation that there is a ‘conspiracy to fake data’

But she's not just asking questions, and this has been obvious for some time. Perhaps you should actually read her article entitled "Who's going to be sacked for making up global warming at Rutherglen?".

You either aren't even competent to make basic claims about the nature of her claims (let alone anything scientific), or you're a liar. This article has been there since the 27th August, and in it she claims:

The senior management have tried to cover-up serious tampering...

She then describes the results of homogenisation on a specific station and then continues directly:

There is absolutely no justification for doing this.

This cooling of past temperatures is a new trick* that the mainstream climate science community has endorsed over recent years to ensure next year is always hotter than last year – at least for Australia.

The asterisk in that quote apparently is intended to refer to the comment she makes at the end with two asterisks:

** There are a lot of tricks that climate science managers have implemented over the years to fix the temperature record; that is fix it so it shows global warming. “Trick” was the word Phil Jones, a leading United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist, used to explain to his peers that, when constructing very long global temperature series using proxy data based on tree ring measurements that can extend back thousands of years, it was best to substitute thermometer data for this proxy data from about 1960 because the proxy data started to show cooling from about then. Indeed from about 1960 until 2002 the thermometer data mostly did show warming. But now even this instrumental record is starting to show cooling. Enter the relatively new trick of homogenization.

Marohasy makes you a liar. This is not "merely asking questions", it is a clear accusation of faking data and then concealing the fakery, without bothering to write a peer-reviewed paper to test whether the claims she makes about the homogenisation results are valid (let alone the claims she makes about it being deliberately faked!)

And note in that last quote that Marohasy is clearly a liar. No-one, but no-one, said thermometer data should be substituted for proxy data because it started to show cooling. They said proxy data from that period should not be used because it was known to be unreliable during that period.

Perhaps you yourself are a blatant liar, or perhaps you're merely a useful idiot on behalf of this PR campaign. Either way your claims routinely turn out to be either false - quite often obviously so - or completely unsubstantiated.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

FWIW there's an article at The Conversation about the BoM temperature record questions. This is written by two people who lead at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science which does research into homogenisation methods for temperature records, unlike Marohasy and Abbot.

Note that as pointed out in my previous comment, Marohasy DOES accuses the BoM of "making up global warming". These guys point out that "Our data on extreme temperature trends show that the warming trend across the whole of Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do." This is precisely why I asked much earlier that if Marohasy were entirely right in her accusations, what impact would the resulting corrections have? (And if one answers that question, then what is Marohasy so up in arms about?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 31 Aug 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson,
That's hilarious!
:-)
So far from you to me:
you’re impressively naive, or gullible,
You appear to be making unwarranted presumptions from a position of ignorance, as is your wont.
you are well out of your depth, and still don’t seem to understand how far out you are.
You’re resorting to a lame gambit employed by those who can’t defend their position.

This next one from you is an absolute cracker Lotharsson:

You do realise that you’re furiously backpedalling from a confidently made claim, right? Because everyone else does…

Oh, wait, I see in your very latest comment that now you’re back-pedalling from your back-pedalling and claiming that his experience and degrees mean that he MUST have homogenisation expertise.

You don’t even seem to know what you claim, let alone why.
:-)

Very good Lotharsson. That one was extraordinarily amusing.

& then lastly:
Perhaps you yourself are a blatant liar, or perhaps you’re merely a useful idiot on behalf of this PR campaign. Either way your claims routinely turn out to be either false – quite often obviously so – or completely unsubstantiated.
:-)
If you were trying to browbeat me into not wishing to engage with you anymore - you have succeeded.
ROFL
:-)

Stu 2, I'm not trying to browbeat you into anything. This is a public forum, and hence anything you say here is fair game for public comment - for the benefit of other readers, even if you refuse to think yourself.

Furthermore, I have no problem if you don't wish to engage with me (especially since you don't engage with most of the points I make in the first place), but regardless of that I will engage with the claims you make if and when I think there's value in it.

Meanwhile, I note that instead of engaging with the fact that you've been caught out misrepresenting what Marohasy is claiming, you choose to make me the subject of a comment instead.

ROFLworthy indeed.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2,

Lotharsson pretty well sums you up with his criticisms. I have no idea what or who on Earth you are referring to with 'global leadership on environmental issues'. If you mean we in the overconsumptive, ecologically deficit, global expansionist west, then you are clearly full of it. If you knew one iota about ecological footprint analyeses, and how this relates to policy, and the current global environmental predicament, you might be singing a very different tune. You conflate technology with religion and that in turn with progress and civilization, and appear oblivious to the fact that we export our ecological damage to the developing world, whose resources we need to maintain the massive ecological deficits at home. This is also linked with policies aimed at keeping the poor in their place, and the general pattern of looting as referred to by economists like Patrick Bond, Tom Athanasiou and Samir Amin in their work.

All this appears to be over Stu2's head. I have had it up to here with this kind of wilful ignorance. Stu2's arguments are being continually hammered here and yet he comes back thinking he is making a point. Like Swedish buffoon Olaus, he thinks that shills like Nova and Maharosey have somethinbg useful to say, whilst both mysteriously (or NOT) have no relevant expertise or publications in the scientific literature.

We have asked Olaus numerous times when he will go 'instinct', a term he could not separate from 'extinct'. I am asking Stu2 the same. It takes remarkable hubris to suggest that Christianity - or indeed any religion in my view - has played a major role in human technological progress. But then to try and link this with environmental issues goes beyond the pale. To reiterate, our civilization is destroying, not protecting, much of the natural world. Few developed countries can sustainably support themselves on resources contained within its own borders. Therefore they have to reach into other countries to obtain vital capital. The US and UK go into deficit early in the year; all other major populaous countries in Europe also foster huge ecological deficits. Putting this into foreign policy agendas explains many of the world's recent wars, as well as the huge gap in wealth between the have's and have not's.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2 also talks about 'research' by Maharosey. I'd ask him in whct reputable peer-reviewed journal I can find it.

He'll reply on her (shitty) blog. There you go. This is the level of discourse we are dealing with here. Blog science. That's where the Stu2s and Olaus's of this world glean their worldviews. And only from proven denier sites to bolster views that are already pre-determined.

Is it any wonder that these quacks are invisible at major conferences?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Jeff, to be fair to Marohasy, she does have two peer-reviewed papers on neural networks for seasonal rainfall prediction based on work since 2011. One of these is in Atmospheric Research and the other in Advances in Atmospheric Science. FWIW, those journals show up on this list as #32 in 2013 (her article was published 2014, 2013 is the latest ranking) and #44 in 2011 when her first paper was published (both 2nd quartile).

On the other hand, that's not exactly an impressive climate science publication record! Quite a few Ph.D. students can equal that record by the time they graduate with papers more about climate than weather - and often achieve it in about the same elapsed time as well.

The big problem is that Stu 2 (and presumably others) are trying to conflate that publication record into some kind of expertise in temperature record construction, presumably to try and give her un-peer reviewed critiques of some BoM records more weight - at least with those who are insufficiently informed to know just how telling it is that she hasn't published them in a reasonable journal.

Interestingly, she says on her blog that she has written "a paper" about temperature records, but it was presented to "current affairs forum" The Sydney Institute (run by Gerard Henderson) rather than published in a peer reviewed journal or given to a professional climate science conference. Since she is a scientist every peer-reviewed paper is an additional feather in her career cap, and conference papers help too. And as a career climate science confusionist, she well knows that every peer-reviewed paper gives organisations like the IPA, The Australian and so on more mud to fling (even if, like they pretty much all do, they get thoroughly rebutted via post-publication peer review) so she's presumably motivated to get as many peer-reviewed articles with any kind of contrarian bent to them as possible.

Not publishing this paper in a decent journal - and she's had the better part of three years since she gave it to the Sydney Institute to do so - and not even falling back to a decent scientific conference is a solid giveaway. She presumably thinks - or knows from trying - that this "paper" will not get through peer review - but then it doesn't have to in order to help sow doubt and confusion amongst the uninformed, does it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2

Your parsing of Lotharsson's comments is so bad I am going to have to repeat one of his points.

BoM shows that the warming trend for Australia is GREATER when using unadjusted data than when using homogenised data.

Look here.

So WTF is Marohasy claiming that BoM faked the warming trend? She is so clueless and so desperate to spread misinformation that she either does not know or does not care that her conspiracy theory is doubly stupid and laughable.

It's time you disappeared again.

sigh :-(
Thanks for answering one of Jeff's questions Lotharsson.
Here are some of the answers to the other one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park
" the United States established the first such one, Yellowstone National Park, in 1872. "
And Australia had the second:
http://lynnwalsh.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/australias-first-national-par…
And the first nation to enact environmental legislation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_United_States
" The first statutory environmental law was the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, "

Stu2

Your systematic evasion of every substantive issue here is a nauseating display of intellectual dishonesty.

Interesting post at Judith Curries on
How long is the pause?

She quotes from McKitrick 2014, a peer reviewed publication apparently.
Application of the method shows there is now a trend less period of 19 years at the end of the HadCRUT 4 surface temperature series and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere.

Circle the wagons
Deny the pause. Deny the pause.

#39 Craig Thomas: "Stark has suggested that Christianity grew because it treated women better than pagan religions."
Differential analysis will show how islam is this century's fastest growing religion: women have learnt the right way by now?
Not trusting Stark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_Stark ).

"... and pluralistic governance and Islam’s inability to do the same." - Bullshit. Reality is christian quasi-pluralism was a result of utter war weariness and inspiration, pulled by the Dutch, from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_%28Ottoman_Empire%29 .
Did you ever wonder how come Greece retained its orthodox christianity notwithstanding centuries of islam rule? Millet system. Your call.
Then you come up with one Charles Murray. Ow, bugger, bugger. "Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is an American paleoconservative and paleolibertarian leaning political scientist, author, columnist, and pundit currently working as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, DC.[3] He is best known for his controversial book The Bell Curve, co-authored with Richard Herrnstein in 1994, which argues that class and race are linked with intelligence.[3]"

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Rednose

I have been over this with you too often for you to pretend that you don't know what you are doing. That means you are being intentionally, provocatively dishonest, so I am well within my rights to tell you to take a running fuck at a rolling doughnut.

First, McKitrick is an extremely controversial source and consequently one has very low confidence in him. Second, he appears to be wrong if he really did claim "trendless". I suspect "not sigificant" may have been what was actually written. Third, "trendless" is simply a false claim. Fourth, the slowdown in the rate of surface warming is attributable to transients: low solar activity, increased stratospheric aerosol loading and increased ocean heat uptake. OHC continues to rise apace. Fifth, the troposphere is not the climate system only a small part of it.

So off you go, after that doughnut.

L,

The two journals have very low impact factors: 1.123 and 0.744. But its amazing how deniers blow anything they publish out of all proportion. They routinely deride papers in Nature, PNAS and Science they don't agree with, and make papers in bottom-feeding journals that they like appear to be the authoritative sources.

I checked the esteemed J. Marohasy for her career record in science. Since 1996, it totals"11 publications, cited 80 times, with 4 this year. Her h-index is 5.

Called a 'maggotologist' by the Swedish meatball, my totals since 1993 are 139 publications, 3706 citations, 297 so far this year and an h-index of 34. Yet note the difference in deference in the way Stu refers to Marohasy and me. '

One final note: I expect Olaus to call Marohasy a 'maggaotologist' too, as her background is in entomology...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Oh FFS, JC even kicks of the latest stupidity with a quote from that clown Rupert Darwall. She really and truly is a lost cause.

Rednoise the Clown writes:

She quotes from McKitrick 2014, a peer reviewed publication apparently.

It looks like Scientific Research Publishing (publisher of the Open Journal of Statistics in which McKitrick (2014) is published is extremely dodgy. There's lots of stuff out there about it - here is just one sample.

Once again, the denier muppets are being scammed and not one of them is enough of a fucking sceptic to bother checking. Including JC.

Yup, Scientific Research Publishing is definitely on the radar: #206 in the list of predatory publishers:

In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards or reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of author misconduct.

Circle the wagons
Deny the pause. Deny the pause.

No need to circle any wagons for there never has been a pause in the growing heat build up in Earth's systems through side effects of human activity.

The results from physics and fossil fuel accounting are inescapable. As has been explained to you time and time again.

Greg Laden in comments at a blog post explains it well:

Greg Laden
March 1, 2014

Climate sensitivity is not theoretical and derived from models. It is based on two major sources. One is physics. That’s a kind of science. An atmosphere with no feedbacks would have a sensitivity of 1.2 C, that’s easy to calculate. Then there are feedbacks, and unfortunately they are mostly positive. The positive feedbacks are entered into models or calculations to estimate sensitivity, but the paramaters are based in some cases on more physics, and in other cases on direct observations of temperature changes as other factors play out, either during the period of the instrumental record or in the paleorecrod. That’s data.

If solar was a big factor the results would be different.

It does not matter much what period of time you use, we are experiencing anomalously warm temperatures. The range of climate data used to calculate an anomaly value can be arbitrary. What is really happening, though, is that a lot of reports or depictions of data use a moving goal post, with the climatic baseline being moved more and more towards the present as time progresses forward. That is standard climatology but underestiamtes the true anomaly since industrialization.

Also the results from climatic and ecosystems behaviour are coming in all the time.

All Curry is trying to do is circle the square, she is playing a losing game as are you and McK1trick.

On Rupert Darwell, I get the picture and it isn't good.

BBD. Your 'just one sample' link at #97 doesn't go where you think it should, unless I missed something. I get something about N-A. Mörner and B.G. Lind and Swedish cranks?

Lionel

Read the whole thing - it's interesting ;-)

Eg:

Now, what is this really about? Why is SCIRP [aka Scientific Research Publishing] cranking out all of these fly-by-night fringe journals that anybody can read for free? The feeling across the web is that it’s most likely a scam utilising a new source of income: the “author pays” model built into bona fide Open Access publishing. A kinder way to put it would be that SCIRP is a pseudo-academic vanity press.

BTW Lionel, you know who N A Morner is, don't you?

A demographer named Mark Lonsdale at The Conversation make a very important point:

Temperature trends have not been altered... and this 'argument' happens in demographics as well. The comparison that you are asking for is to compare the trend that is a result of careful analysis of the data with 'apparent 'trends from uncritically concatening records together.

In other words, (in almost all cases) due to at least one change in measurement methods and situations over the history of a station, raw station records consist of multiple different sets of measurements. You can't simply concatenate them and assert the results are valid any more than you can concatenate the readings from two different satellites together - because the changes in measurement methodology or situation (or per-instrument calibration) matter. Put the same idea another way: if slow (or sudden) changes in "urban heat index" factors are something that make the raw data from a station that otherwise experienced no methodology changes invalid, then how much more so is a change in measurement methodology, technology or another situational factor?

That means there is no valid "raw trend" with which to compare in the first place.

And that means that the BoM cannot fudge the "raw trend".

Marohasy has not only failed to test her claims in the peer reviewed literature - she has started out with an invalid comparison that renders her argument moot - and not just according to the scientists, but according to the criteria of the well known blog science team running Anthony Watts' pet Surface Stations project, and the entire motivation for doing the BEST project. (Does Watts realise that Marohasy is implicitly dissing the Surface Stations project?)

The relevant question - the one Marohasy should be asking if she thinks she has a better answer - is what is the best temperature record reconstruction methodology that combines all the different measurements? She has not shown that the one produced by the BoM is significantly suboptimal nor that her blog-published assertions about what she suspects the reconstruction at some stations should come out like are more valid.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Good old Reddy: he hasn't been taken in by the fake BoM controversy as he accepts the instrument record.

So Stu how does it feel to know that Ole Red's smarter than you?

By turboblocke (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans

If it's of any interest... "David Evans
Credentials

Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.
Source: [1]

According to his bio, Evans claims to be a “Rocket Scientist,” and one article describes him as a “Top Rocket Scientist.” While Evans's background does show that he has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.

When DeSmogBlog contacted Evans regarding his claim of being a rocket scientist, Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, 'rocket scientist' means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

Evans also claims to be “building a word processor for Windows.” DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft and they have confirmed that he does not work for them..."

By turboblocke (not verified) on 01 Sep 2014 #permalink

Bbd #94

You have only listed 4 reasons for the pause Bbd. You omitted to mention the remaining 34 excuses that have been put forward in an attempt to explain the pause.

TB #5

I am reluctant to get involved in this tiff between you colonials.

Incidently how is the death spiral progressing.
Arctic sea ice seems to have reached its low point 2 weeks early this year.

Rednoise

You have only listed 4 reasons for the pause Bbd. You omitted to mention the remaining 34 excuses that have been put forward in an attempt to explain the pause.

Then list the rest and we can discuss them. I summarised the most likely drivers.

What you have done is avoid so much as acknowledging a single point of the five I made. That's intellectual dishonesty.

And what about the joke journal? Nothing to say about that?

Nor do you chide Duff and Olaus for their championing of Marohasy's conspiracy nonsense about BoM. You really should, because as Lotharsson points out, you endorse the surface temperature data.

Why the inconsistency? Set your fellow 'sceptics' straight.

* * *

Incidently how is the death spiral progressing.
Arctic sea ice seems to have reached its low point 2 weeks early this year.

Taking the extreme low values as your baseline to claim recovery is extreme cherry-picking. You are claiming that inter-annual variability is more important than the multi-decadal trend. Don't be shocked if you aren't taken seriously.

Lotharsson @ # 4
It appears that Dr Marohasy has already pondered on that particular question and your accompanying assertions.
Here:
"The relevant question – the one Marohasy should be asking if she thinks she has a better answer – is what is the best temperature record reconstruction methodology that combines all the different measurements? She has not shown that the one produced by the BoM is significantly suboptimal nor that her blog-published assertions about what she suspects the reconstruction at some stations should come out like are more valid."

I'm not sure why you are choosing not to go and ask directly yourself rather than speculating here at Deltoid, but here is at least part of the answer to your speculation in her own words:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/so-much-conversation-so-little-evid…

Meanwhile, I’ve been reading a peer-reviewed paper by Blair Trewin, which details how the homogenisation technique employed by the Bureau is meant to work. The only problem is, the methodology as detailed in this paper published in the International Journal of Climatology (Volume 33, Pages 1510-1529) doesn’t actually seem to accord with the methodology as implemented by Dr Trewin at the Bureau of Meteorology. What I mean is, the peer-reviewed paper says one thing, but the output from the homogenisation technique shown in the ACORN-SAT reconstructions suggests something entirely different.

Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures. In fact, as I explained with reference to the Rutherglen temperature trends, the Bureau progressively drops down the minimum values from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.

The apologists Pitman and Alexander, in their conversation suggest that, “the warming trend across Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do”. But this is not what the peer-reviewed literature says. And yet the take home message from their article is believe only this same peer-reviewed literature."

I will add that I am not a big fan of the term "apologist".
The connotations attached to it have over ridden it's original definition.
What Marohasy does say here is that her question is about why and how BoM has applied this methodology.
She has not claimed that the peer reviewed literature that covers homogenisation of temperature data is under question.

cCr Kampen @#93 previous page.
again I have to sigh :-(
Craig's point was simply that countries who are historically based on Christian culture have generally proven to be more adaptive and progressive, which would also include an ability to accept the existence of other religions.
I agree with you and Jeff that religion in general (most definitely including Christianity) has much to answer for but Criag's basic observation is not in error.
The emancipation of women is most definitely another way to check the progress of a society.
Along with global leadership in legislating environmental protection laws it appears that largely those some countries are leaders in the area of emancipating women:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage
& here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_(other_than_v…

The 38, no 39 excuses for the pause are documented in peer reviewed journals. There seems to be a new one quite regularly.
At least you now recognise the pause or hiatus exists, that is some progress.

Who was it claimed the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer 2015.

"Along with global leadership in legislating environmental protection laws"

I demolished that argument in my last post. Unfortunately, Stu2 is too thick to understand it. I will not repeat myself.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

<iIn fact, as I explained with reference to the Rutherglen temperature trends, the Bureau progressively drops down the minimum values from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.
Wow 1.8°C, but is it wrong? Looks like you're trying an argument from incredulity. And is that really only one station that's got you in such a tizz.

Reddy, you're wrong, I'm not a colonial.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

#13, - "which would also include an ability to accept the existence of other religions."

That would be after the incredible christian European wars, the Jew-/Muslimgenocides of the Reconquista, the pogroms and Shoa and two world wars and a Vietnam war and, of course, the emptying out of the continent of Australia and the genocidal 'missionary missions' in Asia, Africa and South America?

You are calling the British empire an empire of peace because people in London had it good. You are heavily deluded. You know nothing of China - where most stuff was invented centuries before Europeans claimed the inventions and you are, like so many, neglecting the situation that existed in the 'dark middle ages'. Which ONLY existed in christian Europe.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Oh Rednoise, ye of limited horizons:

Who was it claimed the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer 2015.

I'll help you out there maybe you have Prof Peter Wadhams.

But then you are dying, can you predict to within a year when you will die?

Whatever, just as there is no pause in the Earth warming up there is no recovery of Arctic sea ice, if there was then Arctic sea ice extent would be tracking above the 1981-2010 average and it isn't as also seen here.

Rednoise, oh ye slippery one worthy of the House of Slytherin:

The 38, no 39 excuses for the pause are documented in peer reviewed journals.

In that case you should be able to PROVIDE a description of each one. If you do not, and you have been asked already, then this line of argument is null and void.

Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, ‘rocket scientist’ means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

Even if it did mean that - and I worked in high tech in the US and this certainly wasn't the definition that I encountered, and I haven't seen anyone else advance this as the definition either - electrical engineering is not a "hard science". (One clue is in the name - "engineering" is not science.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures.

WTF? Can Stu2 even parse simple English? What Dr Trewin said is not even a little bit like what Stu2 claims, and Stu2 is nothing more or less than a fucking liar. Is that plain English enough?

I’m not sure why you are choosing not to go and ask directly yourself rather than speculating here ...

Simple. You asserted claims here citing Marohasy as support, so the burden of proof is not on me. It's on you (and by extension, her). In other words, do your own homework!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

It appears that Dr Marohasy has already pondered on that particular question and your accompanying assertions.

Not so much, and very poorly. That post does NOT answer my question about the best reconstruction methodology, although she (for now) appears to be accepting the published methodology which renders my question moot. On my implied question of the need to show that the BoM's methodology does not explain its own results, the article merely makes unsupported claims to that effect. You might buy such an unsupported claim, but it does not constitute an answer to my implied question.

However, I'm happy to see her:

a) Back-pedal quite a bit from allegations that the BoM is fraudulently fudging data (albeit whilst still trying to imply that some fudging or at least incompetence is occurring). This appears to also pull her back from relying on the false assumption that the raw trend is valid. A bit more back-pedalling and she might actually leave conspiracy theorising territory behind ;-)

b) Finally start to consider the question of what the peer-reviewed methodology does - you know, what she should have done as much as three years ago on her way to writing her own peer reviewed paper, and certainly done it before going public with cries of "heads should roll".

c) Sidle up to at least the edge of trying to determine whether published paper(s) explain the results she objects to, even though she doesn't seem to have got very far:

What I mean is, the peer-reviewed paper says one thing, but the output from the homogenisation technique shown in the ACORN-SAT reconstructions suggests something entirely different.

So what she's saying is that she's finally getting around to reading the papers she should have read in the first place, and (apparently) so far she doesn't see how the methods there give the results the BoM produces. The "suggests" indicates that she doesn't seem to have done the work to be confident of what the methodology should produce (or has done it, and it produces much the same results as the BoM report), otherwise you can be sure she would have reported her version of the results and made an even louder noise about it than when she was calling for heads to roll.

Also, she might want to ponder whether there's more than one peer reviewed paper that details different methods used by the BoM together. Wouldn't want to go off half-cocked with another unwarranted assumption now like we did so many times before, would we?

Sadly though, she STILL appears to be in the grip of incompetent and fallacious thinking with comments like this:

Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures.

No, that is not what he is saying!

Here she is AGAIN reverting to the fallacious assumption that a raw trend is the valid trend! Reconstruction methodologies aims to determine the best possible reconstruction of the actual temperature over the record period. Sometimes that means starting from the raw data and applying procedures that result in a higher - or lower - warming trend for the reconstruction over the record period than the (still not valid!) trend calculated using the raw data. Asserting that the reconstruction results "exaggerate" a trend implies that the raw trend is the correct one, as does asserting that the adjustments are "artificial". This is simply not true, and a competent scientist should be able to figure this out (especially with the amount of feedback she has had recently)!

Also, note that as far as I can tell she is extremely one-eyed, not portraying any of the "lowered" trends as being "exaggerated" due to "artificial" adjustments. That alone should give you pause when you consider buying her claims without any due diligence.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

FrankD, your quote from Stu 2's comment was made by Marohasy, but what she's saying is even more spectacularly wrong than that:

Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.”

...

The apologists, Pitman and Alexander, in their conversation suggest that, “the warming trend across Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do”. But this is not what the peer-reviewed literature says.

Now, since we all carefully checked what Pitman and Alexander actually said in the article Marohasy refers to, we need to ask ourselves whether she understands the difference between:

a) the definition of "warming trend" when the term is not further qualified vs "warming trend" when it is qualified by "of minimum temperatures"
b) a trend calculated for an individual station vs a trend calculated over (say) "Australia"
c) a "warmer trend for a single station's minimum temperature reconstruction" vs "trends in the frequency of hot days over Australia" (trends in the TX90p index as defined here: http://www.climdex.org/indices.html), which is what Pitman and Alexander referred to
d) With reference to (c), minimum daily temperatures and maximum daily temperatures (and what time of day or night they are likely to be observed)

If the answer is not an unqualified "yes", consider whether conflating any of those might explain the "conclusions" that she draws towards the end of her post and whether that suggests that they won't stand up to scrutiny either. If I were a betting person, I wouldn't be putting my money on those claims just yet either. It seems highly likely that she's almost completely incompetent in this area so far, and her conclusions will dramatically change if and when she gains competence.

And it's really not hard to see she is way out of her depth. However from a quick skim of the comments on her post no-one has pointed any of this out which is entirely consistent with the reputation they used to have for not exactly being the brightest bulbs in the array (Hi cohenite!) provided you fed them a "conclusion" they liked.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

BTW, I definitely should have mentioned spangled drongo ahead of cohenite ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Rednoise

At least you now recognise the pause or hiatus exists, that is some progress.

There has been a slowdown in the rate of surface warming over the last decade. There has been no pause or hiatus in the accumulation of energy in the climate system as a whole (it is >90% ocean - try to remember this). See OHC 0-2000m for observational confirmation.

A transient variability in the rate of surface warming tells us cannot be used to argue that AGW is a fraud or has paused or stopped or that climate sensitivity is low.

Try to remember these things.

I am getting very tired of pointing them out to you over and over and over again.

FrankD

Stu2 is nothing more or less than a fucking liar. Is that plain English enough?

My sentiments exactly. Glad to hear it said by someone else ;-)

Lotharsson said:

However from a quick skim of the comments on her post no-one has pointed any of this out which is entirely consistent with the reputation they used to have for not exactly being the brightest bulbs in the array

I think it is more correct to say that no-one has been allowed to point out errors in her post. And her followers and herself are both not the brightest bulbs but also are not the most honest of people.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lionel, you left out Monckton who used to love to cite Morner ;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

STU2 said,
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park
” the United States established the first such one, Yellowstone National Park, in 1872. ”
And Australia had the second:
http://lynnwalsh.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/australias-first-national-par…"

It is my belief that Yellowstone was not established as a National Park, and that Australia's Royal National Park was in fact the first.

The reason the Royal National Park came into being was less about the environment, and more about Sydney Protestants (continuing the tradition of centuries) inventing a way to deprive rural Catholics of their living being made running cattle on leases in the area.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson.
My best suggestion to have your well thought out questions answered is to post them at the Marohasy blog.
I guess then we will see whether she is capable of answering them or not.
Craig.
I have no doubt that other political/religious/parochial factors were involved in creating those national parks.
That doesn't alter the fact that countries like America and Australia were leaders in legislating to protect areas like national parks and continue to invest in doing so.
The point was originally that modern societies that are historically linked to Christian culture do seem to have been a little more progressive and adaptable in these areas.
But Jeff Harvey is also correct that it is a long way from perfect and Christian based cultures do indeed also have much to answer for.

That's a bit like saying that because a system of governance founded on Democracy like ours is leaves much to be desired, then all other systems of governance shouldn't be criticised for being far worse.

Sadly, relativism infects modern everyday thinking to a far greater extent than modern everyday thinkers are willing to admit.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

No argument from me on that Craig.
On this issue I have agreed from the start.
Democracy most definitely has its pitfalls but it's ahead of many other systems of governance.
Further, societies which are historically linked to Christain culture do seem to be able to embrace democratic philosophy & democratic governance with less religious based conflict or less religious based backlash.

BTW. . .I am NOT religious.
:-)

My best suggestion to have your well thought out questions answered is to post them at the Marohasy blog.

Stu 2, it's not my problem as I have nothing riding on getting them answered.

You and Graham Lloyd et al and some other usual suspects have pushed her claims, citing her as a plausibly competent source. My questions and observations point out that the claims have not yet been substantiated and that Marohasy herself is an unreliable (and arguably incompetent) source when it suits her (which was well established years ago).

It does not matter to me if my questions are not answered, because I have not based any of my position on the reliability of her claims or on her competence. It matters to you because you did - unless you are now disclaiming her claims.

If you or Marohasy want to convince others that her claims have merit, then you or Marohasy have homework to do that should have been done long ago. I'm not doing it for you.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 02 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson @ #25, thanks for the correction - the lack of blockquote or even inverted commas misled me to think that was Stu2's own words. So, while this is actually Marohasy lying through her teeth, Stu2 is merely sufficiently okay with her doing so to quote it uncritically. Illuminating - as if any more light needed to be shone on Stu2 bogosity.

and @ #26 - spangled drongo at least had the virtue of being (inadvertantly) amusing from time to time. Cohenite is worse than merely being unfailingly wrong, he is unfaillingly dull at the same time.

#36
Proving you cannot count BBD yet again. The slow down in warming exists from 2001, 1998, 1997 or earlier depending which set of measurements are taken.
The last decade on its own can show cooling, rather than a slow down in warming.

You have never recognised the errors involved in the estimates for changes in OHC over the last 50 years. These estimated changes in OHC could be in any direction because of the large errors involved.

Lenoil #20

So how does this 2009 paper reflect the large increases in sea ice, both in Antarctic over decades and more recently in the Arctic

#36 BBD

Tung and others now claim at least half the warming of last 25 years of the 20th century was due to natural causes, as natural causes now seem to be nullifying any warming since the turn of the century. This must favour lower estimates for TCS compared to those you trot out.

Rednoise

So how does this 2009 paper reflect the large increases in sea ice...

It Wasn't intended to you dozy, or mendacious - you chose, twerp.

Now why do you think sea ice is extending around Antarctica?

Now refer to comment at #18 and follow the links.

You may like to ask yourself why some of the plastic bath toys that were washed of a ship in the Pacific in a storm managed to work their way around to the North Atlantic, given that a North West passage only recently became a fact.

BTW 'a slow down in warming' (of air temperatures only) does not equate to a pause or cooling. Once again you are either being as mendacious as a politician or as dim as a Toc-H lamp (whether red or blue).

Rednoise

Tung and others now claim at least half the warming of last 25 years of the 20th century was due to natural causes

Tung & Zhou (2013) is flawed. They try to use a detrended AMO as a proxy for natural quasi-periodic variability but it's rather more likely to be simply a proxy for actual global average temperature. If you regress the AMO against GAT you are regressing it against a proxy of itself. The results aren't of any scientific interest. And it's always the same. Every claim that "at least half" recent warming is natural turns out to be cobblers.

The slow down in warming exists from 2001, 1998, 1997 or earlier depending which set of measurements are taken.
The last decade on its own can show cooling, rather than a slow down in warming.

Cherry-picking the start points for uninformatively short time periods is fakery with graphs, Rednoise. It's also scientifically uninteresting. And as I keep saying, if you stop hyperfocusing on uninformatively short, cherry-picked bits of the surface temperature and fucking well include OHC then we see energy accumulating rapidly in the climate system as a whole.

Next time you do this, your comment will get strikethrough rather than a response.

as natural causes now seem to be nullifying any warming since the turn of the century.

No, there's no "nullifying" going on at all. More energy is going into the oceans, but it's still accumulating just as expected.

You must try to understand that the troposphere is only a small part of the climate system, which is mostly ocean. Until you do, climate liars will continue to confuse you by misrepresenting the pause-that-isn't as something that actually matters - which it simply doesn't.

This must favour lower estimates for TCS compared to those you trot out

It's TCR. And it "must" do no such thing. TCR is formally defined as the surface temperature response to the doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 ie, 560ppm. This is likely to happen towards the end of the century, so the current, slowdown in GAT increase driven by transient variability in ocean heat uptake will have no effect whatsoever on TCR.

Oh, and:

You have never recognised the errors involved in the estimates for changes in OHC over the last 50 years.

Do you mean "uncertainty" rather than errors? I'm not aware of these 'errors'. Perhaps they don't exist except in the minds of contrarians.

OHC 0 - 2000m layer with error bars

Since about 1970, uncertainty is less than the decadal increase, so the warming trend is clearly established.

Another revolting and defensive editorial in The Australian yesterday, moaning about being taken to task by Media Watch for presenting unbalanced and ideologically-driven coverage.

Wouldn't it be simply to just resort to some actual journalistic ethics?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Sep 2014 #permalink

The AUstralian:
"We stand by every word of our coverage."

Err...except for all the bits that were wrong and that you've had to apologise for, eh?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Sep 2014 #permalink

The Australian, of course, is fighting a rearguard action to defend its right to publish climate-related misinformation, as explained by Media Watch:

"And the council’s also investigating complaints about a recent column in The Australian by the Prime Minister’s business adviser Maurice Newman.

WE’RE ILL-PREPARED IF THE ICEMAN COMETH

— The Australian, 14th August, 2014

Newman, a well-known climate sceptic but no scientist, was suggesting the globe may not be warming at all.

And he’s been savaged by the experts for getting his facts wrong.

Which means he could fall foul of the Press Council, whose new principles say opinion columns may breach standards if they rely on:

... significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

— Australian Press Council, Statements of Principles

IF the Press Council were to rule against Newman, the battle would get even fiercer.

Because even though News Corp signed up to that new principle, The Australian believes its columnists should be free to write whatever they like.
"

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 03 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson @ # 25 & 40
Thanks for yet another good laugh!
:-)

If I were a betting person, I wouldn’t be putting my money on those claims just yet either. It seems highly likely that she’s almost completely incompetent in this area so far, and her conclusions will dramatically change if and when she gains competence.

It does not matter to me if my questions are not answered, because I have not based any of my position on the reliability of her claims or on her competence. It matters to you because you did – unless you are now disclaiming her claims.

If you or Marohasy want to convince others that her claims have merit, then you or Marohasy have homework to do that should have been done long ago. I’m not doing it for you.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's quite clear:
1) that Dr Marohasy has already done her homework and is in the process of doing more
2) That Graham Lloyd has also done his homework and is continuing to add more information as late as yesterday. (If he was way off the mark in terms of the actual questions that are being asked and the evidence he has been supplied, these reports would have been stopped)
3) That Dr Marohasy Is completely unaware that you have set her a homework task.

To quote you, "If I were a betting person" I would bet that Dr Marohasy has no clue about your opinion of her competency or the research she is conducting and that if the only place you're prepared to offer an opinion is in what Shane described 'the echo chamber' then I would put money on:
you are spending a lot of your time just wasting your time.

Further Lotharsson.
You are not being asked by me or anyone else to do some homework. I only suggested you could post your well thought out questions at Dr Marohasy's blog.
The only effort required on your part would be to copy/paste what you have already done here.
Alternatively you could perhaps email Dr Marohasy with your copy/paste?
If that's looks like a difficult homework task, then I can email her if you like because her email address is publicly available.
But of course if I did it, then I would have to do that apparently difficult homework task and copy/paste the answer from my return email back here for you.
It truly would be far less complicated if you just did it yourself.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s quite clear:

Don't be so thick. There's no bubble to burst, and your unsupported assertions aren't capable of bursting any bubbles even if there were.

that Dr Marohasy has already done her homework and is in the process of doing more

ROFLMAO! No wonder you have problems being believed when you make statements that are so clearly counter-factual - and in this case, that rebut themselves. If she had done her homework on this issue, there would be no more homework to do. The fact that she's "doing more" means it wasn't done in the first place.

Or maybe you just rely on distorting the commonly understood meaning? Perhaps not reading the key paper that describes some of the algorithms that you have been alleging have been fraudulently misapplied or not applied at all counts as "having done your homework but now doing more" in your world rather than as a failure to have done the required homework in the first place? Perhaps severely misrepresenting what a published paper says counts as "doing your homework"? Perhaps mistaking night time minimum temperatures for day time maximum temperatures counts as "doing your homework"? Perhaps those questions you yourself dubbed "well thought out" did not actually indicate that homework had not been done properly after all?

If Marohasy has "done her homework", then her teacher can only give her an F for being massively incomplete. But please, do keep up your bluster claiming that she did the proper research and actually knows what she is talking about. It is very revealing that you continue to assert so, given the evidence that we have.

That Dr Marohasy Is completely unaware that you have set her a homework task.

I did not set Marohasy any homework tasks. I merely pointed out that she hadn't done her homework let alone carefully substantiated her claims, and that at a minimum the homework is a prerequisite to any serious scrutiny. The observation that her claims do not merit that scrutiny thus far is not "setting her homework". The choice of whether she wants to make a serious case or not is entirely up to her, and as a published research scientist she must already be aware that homework is a prerequisite so she doesn't need to be reminded of that by me or anyone else. That makes it all the more revealing that (based on her past history) she mostly prefers blog-published innuendo and insinuation than serious scientific arguments.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2, the laugh is really on you and clots like you.

The scientific community by and large will not pay any attention to a blog run by a third rate scientist. You consistently refer to Marohasy as 'Dr. Marohasy' when IMHO her bonafides stink (11 publications, 80 citations in almost 20 years - now that is well below mediocre).

You appear to believe that the scientific world is suddenly going to sit up and take notice of a shills blog? And by a complete unknown? With data not anyway close to being published in any kind of reputable journal? How stupid are you? From this evidence, profoundly.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Here's the howler from Stu2 re: Marohasy:

"...and as a published research scientist"

This had me on the floor. Yes, Marohasy has amassed a total of 11 papers in 18 years with a whopping accumulation of 80 citations; 4 (yes, count em', 4!) this year.

Stu2 does what all of the climate change deniers and other anti-environmentlaists do: blow the qualifications of veritable nobodies out of all proportion. The reason they do this is because there are very few statured scientists in the denier ranks. Most are third raters with virtually invisible credentials. Marohasy is no exception.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

"Further, societies which are historically linked to Christain culture do seem to be able to embrace democratic philosophy & democratic governance with less religious based conflict or less religious based backlash."

A look at Africa should take you out of that dream.
Democracy has been wrestled off christian culture, it is absolutely no part of it.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

This excellent article from Medialens (UK) puts pretty well to bed any notions of Christian virtues in western foreign policy:

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/773-damasc…

Its really high time Craig stopped pontificating about the alleged merits of Chritianity versus the alleged evils of Islam and realized who the real industrial-scale killers are...

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Craig and #50

This invective from The Australian is priceless:

off the dial

boneheaded

ponderous

On a crash course with reality

Drunk on power

— The Australian, 14th August, 2014

Now what is that saying about projection?

Oh! Boy!

Too 2Stupid to quote correctly then do so. I skip your posts as soon as I realise the problems of unpicking who said what. Yes I can do it but why should I have too. The onus is on you to help your reader - one of the golden rules of writing.

2Stupid not noticed my too-to problem yet.

Whatever, welcome news just up at Eli's:

The Kind of Press Release Eli Likes on resumption of CO2 monitoring and analysis from the Keeling curve this is where there has been a real hiatus folks.

Do note the last para:

The Keeling Curve could eventually serve as a bellwether revealing the progress of efforts to diminish fossil fuel use. Save for seasonal variations, the measurement has not trended downward at any point in its history.

And there will be no halt in temperature rise as long as the last phrase is true. So no cooling, no ice age cometh, physics dictates otherwise.

Thanks cRR for the Tom Dispatch link. I often read Tom Engelhardts great posts. In this one he once again demolishes the myth of western benevolence.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

You're welcom, Jeff. A note of caution then:

"[..] as Kundnani’s book explains, western governments, particularly the US and the UK, detest any discussion of foreign policy when discussing the causes of terrorism. Such discussion is not merely shut down in official circles but is criminalised in wider society."

From http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/a-fantasy-foreign-policy-will… .

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Jeff Harvey @ # 56.
Dr is the correct title for someone with a PhD isn't it?
I also don't think it's correct that someone with a PhD is solely judged by the number of publications and citations they have to their name.
As opposed to PhDs who work primarily in academia and academic research (like you apparently?) many with PhDs are employed in fields where publications are not a major part of their job description. That includes people who work in government and bureaucracies such as those who are employed by BoM.
I note that there are further Australian sites that are being questioned in the media today.
IMHO, it looks like BoM may simply not have complied with the correct process that is outlined in the peer reviewed literature when they homogenised the data.
If that's all it is, I don't think it should be particularly difficult to correct.

I also don’t think it’s correct that someone with a PhD is solely judged by the number of publications and citations they have to their name.

It is a primary measure when you're talking about a research scientist. It's obviously not a primary measure if you're talking about a PR shill for an industry front group.

I note that there are further Australian sites that are being questioned in the media today.

With the same level of due scientific diligence as the previous "questions", I presume? As in, practically none, and what was done was done so badly that rank amateurs can detect severe flaws in it?

If that's the case, as has been copiously explained to you, then the questions can and should be ignored as they are either the result of incompetence or designed to deceive the rubes...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Well yes Lotharsson.
Due diligence, especially in terms of compliance and process, is indeed what is being questioned.
:-)

Ah, so the new questions are an exercise in pointed irony? Or is unconscious psychological projection sufficient to explain it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

cRR Kampen
:
"Democracy has been wrestled off christian culture, it is absolutely no part of it."

Yes, but you make it sound like a simple thing. The struggle that eventually gave rise to secular governments in Western Europe was a very lengthy and complex process.

And it's not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 04 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2,

Its suprising then that you refer to Marohasy always as 'Dr' and me - an infinitely more qualified scientist - as 'Jeff'. I actually prefer that you do use my first name in lieu of my formal title, but I am a Professor after all. What I find from climate change deniers is that they always are polite when it comes to scientists (no matter how lousy their credentials are) that they agree with (and there aren't that many of them) but with eminently more qualifed scientists whose argumenhts they dislike like Michael Mann and James Hansen the insults fly without hesitation. I have yet to see any denier on here refer to Mann as 'Professor' - his actual title - and one can see how I am referred to by the likes of the Swedish idiot collective and GSW. Professor I ain't.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Sep 2014 #permalink

Craig writes:

"And it’s (democracy) not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world".

Maybe it is because western nations haev long suppressed it in order to plunder or to control their resources. This goes back hundreds of years, when the elites of Britain realized that there was not enough wealth in the home country to support their lifestyles and they decided to send armadas abroad for the sole reason of resource theft. Along with this came the realization that helping to raise the standards of living of the natives in faraway lands conflicted with their own selfish interests so they did (and still do) everything to suppress the rise of true democracy and especially indigenous nationalism.

I find it truly bizarre that anyone in the west has the audacity to lecture others on democracy (which we do not truly have anyway - the US for instance is a plutocracy pure and simple), freedom and human rights. The fact is that our nations have liters of blood on our hands - and we continue to puruse reckless selfish policies in pursuit of brazenly economic agendas that beneift the privileged few.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Sep 2014 #permalink

One final point for Stu2:

He writes: "As opposed to PhDs who work primarily in academia and academic research (like you apparently?) many with PhDs are employed in fields where publications are not a major part of their job description. That includes people who work in government and bureaucracies such as those who are employed by BoM"

Yes, you are correct. And this also explains why some scientists are bought-and-paid-for by think tanks and PR firms etc. to promote the interests of their paymasters (meaning corporations). I am sure that you will find a number of scientists - including those whose arguments you post up here - with this in their job description. These people are IMHO dishonest liars, but heck, deniers will look under any rocks to find find allegedly qualified voices to support their views.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 05 Sep 2014 #permalink

Sorry Jeff.
I use the same name that the commenter uses.
Everyone else here calls you Jeff Harvey.
I meant no disrespect.
I call BBD & Lotharsson & everyone else by the name at their comments.
If you want to be called Dr Harvey then perhaps you could
change your name for your comments?

...and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case Jeff's #71 and #73.

This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

Perhaps it is possible for you to regain your intellectual integrity. Ponder the words below.

"My fellow scientists, let’s huddle up for a minute. What are we doing? What the hell are we doing? I’m mostly speaking to climate scientists, so the “we” is presumptuous – I ask for a couple of minutes of your charity. Is this really what we want? Do we want to coarsen science this much? Do we want to establish a scientific culture where scientists must take polar positions on some issue in the field? Do we want to tout a “consensus” that ignores all those who don’t take a polar position? Do we want to import the fallacy of demanding that people prove a negative, a fallacy that we often point out on issues like evolution, creationism, religion, and so forth? Modern scientific culture has long lionized the sober, cautious scientist, and has had an aversion to polar positions, simplistic truths, and loyalty oaths. Do we mean to change that culture? Have we tired of it? Are we anti-Popper now? No one is required to be Popperian, but if we’re replacing the old man, it should be an improvement, not a step back to the Inquisition. Do we want dumb people who have no idea what they’re doing speaking for us? Are we fraud-friendly now, if it serves our talking points? When did we start having talking points?

In any case, what the hell are we doing? What exactly do we want science to be and represent? Do we want “science” to mean mockery and malice toward those who doubt a fresh and poorly documented consensus? Do we want to be featured in future textbooks, and not in a good way? When did we discover that rationality requires sworn belief in fresh theories and models that the presumed rational knower cannot himself validate? When did we discover that rationality requires belief in the rumor of a consensus of researchers in a young and dynamic field whose estimates are under constant revision, and whose predictions center on the distant future? (A rumor, operationally, since laypeople aren’t expected to engage directly with the journal articles about the consensus.) Who discovered that rationality entails these commitments, or even argued thusly? Give me some cites, please. When did we discover that people who doubt, or only mildly embrace, the rumor of a consensus of researchers in a young and dynamic field whose estimates are under constant revision, and whose predictions center on distant future developments, are “deniers”? When did science become a church? When did we abandon epistemology? Again, what are we doing?]

I think some of you who’ve defended this study got on the wrong train. I don’t think you meant to end up here. I think it was an accident. You thought you were getting on the Science Train. You thought these people — Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky — were the science crowd, and that the opposition was anti-science, “deniers” and so forth. I hope it’s clear at this point that this was not the Science Train. This is a different train. These people care much less about science than they do about politics. They’re willing to do absolutely stunning, unbelievable things to score political points. What they did still stuns me, that they did this on purpose, that it was published, that we live in a world where people can publish these sorts of obvious scams in normally scientific journals. If you got on this train, you’re now at a place where you have to defend political activists rating scientific abstracts regarding the issue on which their activism is focused, able to generate the results they want. You have to defend people counting psychology studies and surveys of the general public as scientific evidence of endorsement of AGW. You have to defend false statements about the methods used in the study. Their falsity won’t be a matter of opinion — they were clear and simple claims, and they were false. You have to defend the use of raters who wanted to count a bad psychology study of white males as evidence of scientific endorsement of AGW. You have to defend vile behavior, dishonesty, and stunning hatred and malice as a standard way to deal with dissent."

BBD.
Dr Harvey offered an opinion. He is perfectly entitled to do that in an open forum such as this one.
You are also entitled to offer your opinion.
My opinion of your last comment @ # 75 is that you are being unnecessarily belligerent and employing hyperbole for no apparent benefit to any further discussion.

My opinion of your last comment @ # 75 is that you are being unnecessarily belligerent...

ToStew, by being unnecessarily and persistently evasive in your obvious ignorance your opinion counts for nothing.

By persistently refusing to address that ignorance you are being stupid, hence the riff on your moniker. This another reason for your opinion counting for nothing.

Just so as you know

Stu2

…and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case my #75.

This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

BBD.
That has certainly done nothing to alter my opinion.
I am starting to feel sorry for you.
There is nothing to evade.
I have no interest in swapping personal insults & you may notice that I refrain from calling people names or attempting to be an amateur psychoanalyst.
In part, Dr Harvey agreed with my point about publications and PhDs. He then offered his personal opinion.
This is just a blog site stuck in perpetual open threads and atm still stuck in August.
I used to like visiting this site & it's disappointing that it has lost it's mojo.
Your 'universal contempt' comment just makes me laugh.
Now perhaps in September when it finally arrives for Deltoid, maybe a real discussion about nuclear energy or politics/religion or the due diligence of our public institutions like BoM etc might actually occur?

Stu 2

That has certainly done nothing to alter my opinion.

…and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case my #79.

This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

This could, and has, gone on for what seems like forever. So perhaps we should calibrate the discussion so it can progress.

I'm not entirely clear what your position is, so please pick from the following starting points:

- AGW isn't happening

- AGW is real, but won't amount to much

- AGW is real and will have considerable impacts but we can adapt to them as we go

- AGW is real and will have considerable impacts that will increasingly overwhelm our capacity to adapt as we go

BBD.
:-)
That has certainly (ONCE AGAIN) done nothing to alter my opinion.
I am starting to feel (EVER MORE) sorry for you.
There is nothing to evade.
I have no interest in swapping personal insults & you may notice that I refrain from calling people names or attempting to be an amateur psychoanalyst.
In part, Dr Harvey agreed with my point about publications and PhDs. He then offered his personal opinion.
This is just a blog site stuck in perpetual open threads and atm still stuck in August.
I used to like visiting this site & it’s disappointing that it has lost it’s mojo.
Your ‘universal contempt’ comment just makes me laugh.
Now perhaps in September when it finally arrives for Deltoid, maybe a real discussion about nuclear energy or politics/religion or the due diligence of our public institutions like BoM etc might actually occur?
:-)

OK,
Sorry.
Crossed posts.
Goodonya BBD for recognising some recalibration might be a good idea :-)

Stu2

Goodonya BBD for recognising some recalibration might be a good idea

I'm hoping that you realise that this response - which doesn't respond to #82 - is exactly the problem raised above #75 #79 #81.

You can fix this.

On the off-chance that BK is still here, take note...

:-)

BBD.
Considering it is now September 7th, I think this particular thread is in it's death throes.
My comment @ 84 was simply a recognition that we had crossed posts and your attempt to try and read something else into it is just simply your attempt to try and read something else into it.
When Deltoid catches up with the rest of the world and reaches September then maybe your multiple choice questionnaire could be a starting point?
I may even put some thought into creating some multiple choice questions too?
I think I do need to point out however that there really isn't anyone to mark them as right or wrong or to give people a score or a percentile ranking.
:-)

I think I do need to point out however that there really isn’t anyone to mark them as right or wrong...

I think I do need to point out that this misidentifies the situation.

For the core questions, the evidence separates right from wrong (or in actual scientific terms, more strongly supported from more weakly supported from strongly refuted). Plenty of people can point out the extent to which answers accord with evidence, and do.

Other people deny the level of support the evidence has for various claims, typically through employing a standard set of well-known tactics. This is not due to there being "no-one to mark them right or wrong", it's due to people rejecting what the evidence indicates.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Sep 2014 #permalink

Jeff Harvey
September 5, 2014
Craig writes:
“And it’s (democracy) not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world”.

"Maybe it is because western nations haev long suppressed it in order to plunder or to control their resources. "

Ridiculous.
George W. Bush: "Whadda we gonna suppress this week? Let's suppress Islamic fundamentalism, wadda you say?
Col-on Powell: "Nope. We're gonna suppress Democracy. Islamic fundamentalism is good for business, keeps oil prices low. You know we've always had a plan, Georgie."

Anyway, you've misunderstood me - (although I go back to my previous point - however imperfect our "Democracy" may be, it kicks the living crap out of other systems on offer).

It's the *process* of arriving at our "Democracy" that has no parallel in the Islamic world.

Islam is completely at odds with the idea of secular governance. Which is hardly surprising, considering it had its roots in the life of an illiterate arabian bandit whose grasp of politics didn't extend much beyond, "kill them all, rape their women, and steal their belongings"

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 06 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson.
" For the core questions, the evidence separates right from wrong "
I sincerely wish that were true.
Unfortunately, along with BBD's questioning style, you appear to be trying to introduce an argument from a personal psychological, ideological or political perspective that you also appear to think legitimises you calling others who question that perspective names like 'deniers' or 'anti environmentalists' 'anti science' or 'shills' or in the pay of 'big oil' or 'intellectually dishonest' or 'scientifically incompetent' etc etc etc.
I'm not sure why I have bothered to write this comment as I have probably set you off into yet another boring, I said, I meant, you said, you meant , so that implies something else that I said you meant , which means I said, you said, I said Lotharsson diatribe.
Maybe I'll see you in September when it finally arrives at Deltoid.
:-)

I sincerely wish that were true.

Your wish has already been granted, but here you are rejecting it!

Thank you for that most lovely illustration of my point, said illustration continuing:

...you appear to be trying to introduce an argument from a personal psychological, ideological or political perspective that you also appear to think legitimises you calling others who question that perspective names like ‘deniers’ or ‘anti environmentalists’ ‘anti science’ or ‘shills’ or in the pay of ‘big oil’ or ‘intellectually dishonest’ or ‘scientifically incompetent’ etc etc etc.

Nope. If I was going to argue that, I would have, aw shucks, actually said something about those things. I would have, you know, cited the factors you mentioned that I did not cite and attempted to draw the conclusions that you reject even though I did not draw them.

Instead, I merely mentioned there were well known tactics that are drawn from when rejecting evidence, and you helpfully used one or two of them in your reply. Thanks again.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson.
All I can say re you're comment @#91 is:
1) I did wonder why I bothered &
2) I rest my case.
:-)

I am more than in agreement with you resting your case.

Your case is restable as soon as you tell someone they said something they didn't say, so it requires no great insight to predict that they will dispute your characterisation. It requires little greater insight to foretell that you will exploit that dispute as you usually do, e.g. to avoid discussion of the dubiousness of your claims.

Perhaps instead of smugly resting your case in future, you might consider not causing the case to be relevant in the first place?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 07 Sep 2014 #permalink

Notice that the dishonest little shit refuses to answer *any* questions put to him - now including #82.

Fuck off, Stu2.

Apologies to Lotharsson and anyone else unfortunate enough to have been subjected to Stu2's latest marathon of dissembling, evasion and passive-aggressive whining. My patience is exhausted.

Craig Thomas @ # 89
This is probably a relevant piece.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-05/burdon-can-democracies-respond-to…

This one is relevant to your discussion with Dr Harvey:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While not advocating for centralised government, Professor Ross Garnaut argued last week that recent shifts in the Chinese economy away from a coal-dominated growth model "improves the chances of the international community meeting the two-degrees climate target".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followed closely by this one:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If anyone will weather this storm it seems likely that it will be the Chinese."
In the book, Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine a future world in which the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change have come to pass. With respect to China, the authors predict:
China's ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government ... inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as this thread must be in it's death throes , I may have to repost this when Deltoid makes it to September.

For BBD and Lotharsson, it is this manner of conflation between 'the science' and politics that I seriously question.
If we look at the actual figures, the assertions about China's emissions are highly questionable let alone the clear advocacy of a 'centralised government' over a democratic system.

For BBD and Lotharsson, it is this manner of conflation between ‘the science’ and politics that I seriously question.

The science of physical climatology and of paleoclimatology stands alone. What policy makers make of it is up to us.

If we look at the actual figures, the assertions about China’s emissions are highly questionable

Sure, China didn't emit shedloads of CO2 while it was ramping up its economy. Nor have emissions risen elsewhere.

That's why atmospheric CO2 concentration growth looks like this.

See what I mean about intellectual dishonesty yet?

BBD.
The assertions from Oreskes & Garnaut & Burden et al in this piece are that China is doing better than others re CO2 emmissions & it's somehow because it's not a democracy.
I seriously question both of those assertions.

Stu2,

You make the same mistake that Craig does, assuming that we live in democratic systems. As Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges and others have pointed out, we live under systems of 'Inverted Totalitarianism'; in other words plutocracies, wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state. And of course, these entities have their own agendas that are profit driven and have little to do with democracy.

The problem is, when you are dumbed-down by the mainstream media and the propaganda that spews from it, one tends to swallow the attendant myths of the virtues of our political systems in the west. The real democracies are actually in the south - Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay etc.... but one would never believe it based on the verbiage that emerges from the corporate media in the west.

As for Craig's point rubbishing mine where I said that democracy has been consistently sabotaged by the US and its proxies for hegemonic purposes (and this includes the Middle East), well he has a lot of reading to do. Fisk, Blum, Chomsky, Grandin, Pilger, et al. are all good starting points. I won't waste any more energy here on this anti-Islamic/pro Christian crusade he appears to be on. Claiming somehow that Christianity is civilized makes my stomach turn. One just has to compare the body counts of western wars of aggression since 1950 to realize how civilized 'we' are.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

And all who imagine the West isn't a web of overlapping plutocracies/oligarchies should read Capital in the 21st Century while they're at it...

One last point for Craig before I ask that this topic be put to bed for good...

I want to reiterate that you should not conflate technology with civilization. Two voices demolish any notion of the goodness of Christian societies, at least if used as an example to contrast with the alleged barbarism of Islam. I gave the first example before, but it is worth reperating. John Pilger: "Terrorism, barbarism and mass murder are standard practices on our side, only the technology is different". In other words, we have hi-tech gadgets to do our industrial scale killing.

Richard Falk, Princeton University: "We [in the west] are conditioned to see the world through a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen with positive images of Western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence".

The fact that the US has long suppressed democracy in the Middle East, whilst propping up repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain should be telling. I have no time for any religion, to be honest, but to be told that we are somehow civilized whilst ignoring so many obvious examples of our atrocities is pure hypocrisy in my view. When Madeline Albright told Leslie Stahl (of CBS) in 1996 tha,. in her opinion, the human cost of sanctions on Iraq (when as many as 500,000 children had died as a result) was "Worth it", then one can only react in shock to any notions of our so-called civility.

Craig, you are on to a loser here. Give it up.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

Jeff WRT#3 etc, the one problem with putting 'this topic to bed' is that social issues are tied in with the ecological disruptions and degradation that we are seeing now, those of us with eyes open that is.

2Stupid unintentionally hit the nail on the head with his '...conflation between ‘the science’ and politics...' statement. 'Conflation' is not a word I would have chosen in this context - contention would be nearer the mark.

Where we are is at a point where "a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-hours-of-consensus-caricatures-quote…">97% of Scientists - the SkS latest, excellent construct from disparate fields are certain that we, if we do not divert from the road of BAU, will be heading to a domino-fall like situation of combined ecological and civilisation, well if that latter current is viewed with rose tinted, collapse. A collapse so profound that yes indeed the any survivors will look back and recognise their 'NOW' as a CAGW triggered situation.

Bill @ #2 above cites just one book which looks as if it could bring out the increasing gap between the haves and the have nots. Now I have not as yet read said book, a copy is now on order together with 'The Price of Inequality' by Joseph Steiglitz.

Now I figure I may already know what is going to be in those pages but it is always worth exploring a topic from other perspectives. This, using different sources of information as filters in order to gain a reasonably accurate perspective of what makes things tick, in any field of human endeavour, is a habit obtained by anyone who has undertaken serious academic research and learning.

After a couple of decades in the military, well more maritime aviation, having obtained a unique skill set in that respect where mathematics, aerodynamics, structures, and aircraft control and power systems I moved into a degree course which opened my eyes to wider issues to do with the exploitation of people by what were then know as Multinational Corporations.

Corporations that have left a trail of ecological and social disaster in their wake, and they are still at it although the slaves are now in what was once thought as developed countries.

This came about through the fine teachings of an extremely clever and humble man who taught the 'humanities' courses, thank you Dr Bucksman for those fine lectures, based upon your experiences in Latin America, and set course-work that enlightened me to the situation as it was then in the 1980s, and which I have built on since.

That there has to be a paradigm change in the relationship between the top and bottom of society is beyond question if we are to address all the issue that face us, those than can see once again.

Will this be how it is achieved:

'Disruption': Film Offers Grassroots Global Revolt as Key Answer to Climate Crisis. Else we could go on 'eating cake' I suppose.

Climate change is the one overarching issue that is going to exacerbate all the effects of all the others - pollution and mining of the biosphere (strange concept perhaps to those with shallow thinking and poor education) to mention but two.

The contention between science and politics is playing out in each of the major issues facing us. Why? Because politicians are the paid for tools of those who control the multinationals.

Understanding is only gained by reading widely, not restricting your world view to opinion piece writers who usually have axes to grind, so as to arm yourself with many filters and also checking out footnotes (to ensure the author isn't doing a Plimer) and bibliographies to further broaden horizons.

Having served in the military I view with some trepidation the privatising of the forces of law and order, local or international. Check out 'Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Military Army' by Jeremy Scahill then look up a copy of 'Body of Secrets' by James Bamford. With that latter by reading about the murderous attack on the USS Liberty then reasons for some of the events in the Middle East make, unsettling, sense.

Jeff, that quote from Madeline Albright is spine-chilling and one I have often used in discussion myself.

Once again I could present a reading list but then I doubt that some would be interested in correcting the world cognitive framework.

Apologies to Lotharsson and anyone else unfortunate enough to have been subjected to Stu2′s latest marathon of dissembling, evasion and passive-aggressive whining.

I see it simply as a set of tactics, conscious or otherwise, for refusing to address arguments and evidence that suggest one's position isn't as sound as one confidently claims it is. The specific tactic of distorting what someone says and then whining and feigning boredom when they point out your distortion is a lovely example of this, and we have seen many trolls here that do this, but the other tactics all seem to support the same goals as that one does.

Maybe the tactics allow one to pretend (to oneself, if not to others) that one's arguments have survived scrutiny unscathed? Who knows.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

it is this manner of conflation between ‘the science’ and politics that I seriously question.

What conflation?

The word does not mean discussing or noting that political implications and responses may and do arise from scientific understanding. It does not mean noting that some types of governance may be in a better position to take decisive action (when they finally get around to deciding to do it) than others.

But one cannot plausibly pretend that there are no political implications arising from the understanding of climate, so if you're trying to reject that one-way linkage (I can't really be sure from what you wrote) that is simply denying reality.

And if you're seriously concerned that what democracy we have will be undermined due to climate issues (and I can't be sure that's what you're trying to express here either), then you should have been on the barricades shouting for our democratically elected representatives to get their collective act together and start tackling the problem LONG ago.

The irony of those who claim we shouldn't do anything about it yet "because the economy" is that they are actually advocating a much bigger hit to economic wellbeing in the future by arguing for delay.

The irony of those who claim their precious and usually overhyped democratic freedom might be very mildly impinged upon by actively responding to the challenges of climate change now is much the same. If we delay long enough things will get bad enough that much greater impingements will prove necessary. We are already at the point where a global "war footing" to tackle the problem can be seriously argued for based on the evidence that we have, and the case for it will only get stronger the longer we delay.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson, there is no point in asking Stu2 for cogent responses to reasonable questions. Stu2's Humpty-Dumptyism does not even admit a difference between prediction and advocacy:

With respect to China, the authors predict:
China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”

let alone the clear advocacy of a ‘centralised government’ over a democratic system.

With this sort of logic, Stu2 would clearly parse:

Churchill “was convinced that Hitler or his followers would seize the first available opportunity to resort to armed force.”

as

"Churchill clearly advocated that Hitler should seize the first opportunity to resort to armed force.

I seriously don't understand why you continue to engage with this wretched timewaster. Stu2 is not "seriously concerned" about anything, other than that his bogosity is taken seriously. DNFTT.

I do hope that 2Stupid & co watch the video

Disruption linked to through the page at #4 above.

In the comments some will recognise a certain Fernando Leanme who has been the bane of other blogs of late.

I am confused by Jeff's obsession with ignoring the lack of civilisation inherent in a culture that stones women to death and denies them access to education by bringing up false equivalence in the shape of stories from what other bad people around the world are doing.

Nobody in the world is trying to escape Rupert Murdoch & Madeleine Albright by moving to Islamic societies. On the contrary, the traffic is entirely in the opposite direction, despite the issues mentioned by Jeff.

That's because Islamic culture is repressive and regressive, while Western culture is progressive, and the latter culture has been responsible for virtually all that is good in the world today -the healthcare, technology, culture and society that most people aspire to is that produced in the West.

The fact the West is not perfect is not a valid argument in favour of alternatives that are entirely without merit.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

Craig, please give this nonsense up. You are embarrassing yourself. I am saying that one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. As an appropriate analogy, its a bit rich for someone who has fifty speeding tickets to condemn another motorist for illegal parking. I am saying that the lands you deem as worthy of calling cultured and/or civilized have attained much of their status through violence, mass murder and theft.

You say that the West is 'not perfect'. How noble of you. How about Pilger's and Falk's takes? They go well beyond what you are saying. Moreover, our culture has often supported extremist regimes - and still does. To say that western cultures are progressive takes remarkable hubris. They are progressive for the have's, but certainly not for the have not's.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

I am also confused by Dr Jeff Harvey's argument with Craig Thomas.
Craig's point that western style democracies are LESS regressive is not in error.
Neither is his point that for all its faults, Christian based culture has historically been able to embrace democratic principles in governance with LESS religious and secular kickback.

I would also ask Dr Harvey what alternative he favours?
The ABC piece I linked earlier is partly offering the Chinese system of governance as a better alternative.
Does Dr Harvey agree with that perhaps?

Because travel is reasonably affordable and accessible in our western style democracies, I have taken the opportunity to travel quite extensively.
I have observed that countries based on democratic law are the ones where people have the greater personal freedoms and better access to such things as basic health care, a good education, universal suffrage, social security etc and, despite Dr Harvey's disappointment that it's not enough, it is also western style democracies who have led the world in enacting environmental legislation.

Dr Harvey has also not dealt with Craig's very basic point here:
" Nobody in the world is trying to escape Rupert Murdoch & Madeleine Albright by moving to Islamic societies. On the contrary, the traffic is entirely in the opposite direction, despite the issues mentioned by Jeff."

In my travels, I have come to understand that the majority of the world's population would consider people like Dr Harvey and Lionel as the 'haves', largely because they have had access to a good education and are protected by democratic law.

As a further comment re democracy, it is really only in a democracy like ours in Australia where someone like Burden, in the piece I linked earlier, can speak up publicly and criticise democracy and hold the country's governance system to account.
Lionel and Lotharsson.
I'm sorry that you didn't like my use of the word 'conflate'.
Here is a widely acceptable definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate
But of course there are other words that could be used.

Stu2 is promulgating more nonsense. Sigh. I really don't have time for xenophobia and racism masquerading as informed debate. I have made my point clear. Our allegedly more civilized nations all foster huge ecological deficits which mean that they aggressively pursue policies aimed at plundering the resources and capital of less developed nations. These policies cover everything from coercion to murder. In countries like the Congo, poverty is of great advantage to the western bandits, who control this resource rich country and repatriate the profits to investors in the north. We enact environmental laws at home while our corporations seek locations abroad in which to employ slave labor and non-existant environmental laws. These countries are firmly under the grip of the Washington Consensus; after all, international laws are written by the lands of the rich. The poor have no choice but to comply.

I could say so much more, but I might as well be speaking to a wall. I lecture on this topic (did so yesterday) and its clear to me that Stu2 has a comic-book level understanding of the field. I am busy and find his ignorance both nauseating and sad.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 08 Sep 2014 #permalink

I seriously don’t understand why you continue to engage with this wretched timewaster.

Everyone has to have a hobby ;-)

In this case, more for the benefit of other readers than the hope that he will reconsider some of his ill-considered positions...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

Here is a widely acceptable definition.

No, that is three definitions, and you impolitely didn't even bother to explain which one you had intended (if indeed any of them matched your original intent).

Worse still, none of the three definitions render your objection sensible! The quotes you provided do not demonstrate anyone "fusing" politics and science, nor do they demonstrate anyone "combining them into a composite whole", nor do they demonstrate anyone (except perhaps yourself) "confusing" one for the other.

In simple words that are unlikely to be misinterpreted or misused, what exactly is your objection to those quotes? Do you object to the very fact that anyone discusses the political implications of scientific understanding (without confusing combining or fusing the two)? Or that such a discussion includes judgements (accurate or otherwise) that some political systems are better placed to deal with the challenges of climate disruption than others? Or is it that you object to the (rather uncontroversial) judgement itself that the various forms of democracy we have in the first world are not the best placed political systems to deal with challenges such as climate disruption?

Or do you have a more plausible objection in mind that (perhaps with the addition of more citations) relies on actual conflation of climate science and politics under one of the three definitions which you nominate?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

2Stewpot

I have observed that countries based on democratic law are the ones where people have the greater personal freedoms and better access to such things as basic health care, a good education,...

Would you class the US of A as one such country?

or the UK.

I don't think you know your history.

PS What history one gets taught in schools is often from a curriculum put together by those with vested interests in the status quo. As for teaching, it was a speciality of mine - but seasoned by a few decades of the University of Life. It is just that with that latter I didn't leave it there.

Lionel and Lotharsson.
I’m sorry that you didn’t like my use of the word ‘conflate’.
Here is a widely acceptable definition.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflate
But of course there are other words that could be used.

So, it looks like the distinctions are too subtle for you to grasp. Hint, it depend upon context and conflate did not suite the context in which you used it.

Sure one can trawl Roget's (always worth a visit) and come up with many synonyms (try also Nuttall for those and their opposites) but use still depends on context.

PS. OED is my preferred dictionary although I can only run to the Shorter OED here which itself is in two large volumes, the full OED is vast (try visiting some Uni' library for a copy of this) and would need house underpinning.

I don't know if anybody has been following the SkS 97 hours/97% assembly but for those wondering if obfuscating scientists are being included the answer looks like yes for it looks like John Christy has been added looking cross with arms folded - entrenched:

97Hours.

At least you now recognise the pause or hiatus exists, that is some progress.

There's no more a haitus than there is one in a close race when you are looking at the photo finish.

Just because the image you see isn't moving is no proof that there is a stop in the motion.

PS Something you retards haven't yet cottoned on to: a pause stops. It's part of the definition of it. So you admit now, belatedly, and never understanding that you do

a) There is a real trend
b) That your claim of a pause in it indicate it will continue to rise

This, however, is no improvement, since you will never acknowledge what you're implicitly saying. It's devastating to your ego.

That’s a bit like saying that because a system of governance founded on Democracy like ours is leaves much to be desired, then all other systems of governance shouldn’t be criticised for being far worse.

And yours is a bit like saying just because by searching hard we can find someone else even worse, we're angels, Craig.

Our tolerance is only in the sense of the moral mores of society. These, however, are given absolutely short shrift in practice. See Duffer et al for how the rationality of the enlightenment period of the western european society is given short shrift when it comes into conflict with neoconservative or christian dogma.

Moreover, on a social action score, we suborn that ideal of tolerance as countries on the world stage. See the USA defence contractors selling underage boys as sex slaves in Iraq for one example recently.

We talk big on tolerance but refuse to do anything about it if it accords with our countries' economic or political goals.

China is doing far more to mitigate AGW than the USA.

Page 4, #70 "Yes, but you make it sound like a simple thing. The struggle that eventually gave rise to secular governments in Western Europe was a very lengthy and complex process.

And it’s not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world."

I wasn't aware of 'wrestling' being easy. That struggle was indeed complex, lengthy and incredibly bloody.
A reason why the muslim regions have not gone through this process that much is because early islam did not contain some of the mistakes of christianity. That is why the Islamic Golden Age (multiple, in fact) could come into existence when it did.

The process is very prone to regression. We can see that today in islam, up to a point that is, because atrocities attributed to the religion should in reality be attributed to other factors not having to do with islam (e.g. the occurence of suicide attacks is not at all related to a religion, but simply to military occupation!).
The christian countries are exactly as vulnerable to fundiregression and signs of this galore, as you are probably aware of in the US, or e.g. Putin's embrace of the Orthodox Russian Church, or Spain's recent outlawing of abortion.

Obviously the worst regression is found where civilization is bombed away and the peoples are (kept) divided. The symptoms seen in those areas should not be held as exponents of the religion in place. That idea would only be held by the same kind of people that used to accuse the Jews of everything wrong in the world.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

Craig, the point I'm thinking of is that it's pointless and worthless trying to make others behave better, since we have no way to do so: we only can change our own.

Pointing out fatties doesn't constitute a diet, and obesity will kill you even if there are fatter people in the room.

When ISIS behead US reporters, this is abhorrent.

However, they will look at the bombing of an Afghani wedding because the US air force were two miles NORTH of the front line rather than two miles SOUTH in the same way.

It's why we cannot let that sort of mistake off.

We lose all rights because we not merely fail to live up to our ideals, but do not even bother to address them.

Hear, hear: "See Duffer et al for how the rationality of the enlightenment period of the western european society is given short shrift when it comes into conflict with neoconservative or christian dogma."

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

"We lose all rights because we not merely fail to live up to our ideals, but do not even bother to address them."

Exactly ISIS' message, Guantanamo overalls and all. US bombed Al Jazeera out of Iraq in 2004, so we taught the Iraqi's that journalists are legal targets and now they are remembering us again.

Of course, one mirror image is still not in place. The ISIS killings are intimate and in this way 'humane'. They cannot yet bid to the utter cynicism of the drone strike (btw remember when those gamers in Kansas were nominated for Purple Hearts because of rsi?).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

Ridiculous.
George W. Bush: “Whadda we gonna suppress this week? Let’s suppress Islamic fundamentalism, wadda you say?
Col-on Powell: “Nope. We’re gonna suppress Democracy. Islamic fundamentalism is good for business, keeps oil prices low. You know we’ve always had a plan, Georgie.”

Yes, that was rediculous.

Such a situation is inevitable when you are making up the argument against you, however, Craig.

Shah of Iran.
Supplying chemical weapons to Saddam.
Arming the Taliban insurgents.
WWI. Yes, that Archduke was bugger all to do with the war. It was the discovery of Oil in the midddle east.
Having private militaries from the west moving to the ME to fight for "acceptable" regimes or against "unacceptable" ones.
Refusing to let the popular voted candidate to win because they're religious or anti-west.

And so on.

I doubt Dubya had the intelligence to utter the words you claim, and Colon too much to utter his in his presence.

But do you know what Dubya DID do?

At the execution of a woman in Texas (he was presiding over the highest number of death sentences carried out in the state with the highest rate of death sentences for his terms, remember?) we made jokes to reporters and witnesses at her actions when being strapped in, miming choking to death.

The only thing missing is it being on Youtube, then it'll be just the same as the ISIS monstrosities.

Irangate (less known the fact that Israel sold weaponry to Khomeini in those days). But what was Irangate to fund? Death squads in central America, Maya genocide (again with Israeli boots on those grounds).

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 09 Sep 2014 #permalink

cRR #26

Have you read 'Body of Secrets: How America's NSA and Britain's GCHQ Eavesdrop on the World' by James Bamford yet?

It is right up there with the writings of John Pilger, Mark Curtis, Chomsky, Palast and others.

Wow @ # 20
I cannot see where Craig has claimed that we're angels.

Dr Jeff Harvey @ # 12
Is that your answer to my questions @ # 11?
Here:
"I would also ask Dr Harvey what alternative he favours?
The ABC piece I linked earlier is partly offering the Chinese system of governance as a better alternative.
Does Dr Harvey agree with that perhaps?"

I note that Wow @ # 20 does somewhat agree ?
here:
" China is doing far more to mitigate AGW than the USA."

Lotharsson @ # 14.
Why you are making such a big deal about my choice of the word 'conflate' ?

Lionel @ # 15
In the context of my comment @ # 11, with particular reference to 'better access', my basic answer to your direct question re US & the UK is - yes.
That does not however mean that I don't think it could be even better.
I am certainly not thinking of swapping my access to basic health care with the systems in places Craig is referring to in his comments. Very particularly, I would not want my wife and my daughters to have to use those systems when they need access to basic health care.
Perhaps you could travel to some of those countries and try and convince the people who live there that your access to basic health care is no good?

WoW: "WWI. Yes, that Archduke was bugger all to do with the war. It was the discovery of Oil in the midddle east."

You know, in the 2-3 years immediately preceding WW1, Churchill, as 1st Lord of the Admiralty, convinced the British government to buy Anglo-Persian Oil. He then insisted on a class of battleships being laid down designed to run on oil.

You're wrong in a sense: it wasn't "discovery of oil" that started WW1, it was the US, French and British naval conversion to oil that started a mad scramble for oil supplies.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

WoW:
"But do you know what Dubya DID do?
At the execution of a woman in Texas (he was presiding over the highest number of death sentences carried out in the state with the highest rate of death sentences for his terms, remember?) we made jokes to reporters and witnesses at her actions when being strapped in, miming choking to death."

Due legal process (with or without the Dumbya show) is civilised. Machine-gunning rape victims in the centre of soccer pitches is uncivilised.

What is it about lefties that makes them such suckers for relativist broken-thinking?

People like Wow are thinking this: "Shoplifters are bad, so it is outrageous for anybody to criticise mass-murderers". Your apologism is idiotic on so many levels it just isn't funny.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

cRR Kampen: "Spain’s recent outlawing of abortion."

Good fucking grief. The Spanish will be beheading reporters any day now, right?

And stop crapping on about this "Islamic Golden Age", which you haven't taken care to understand. Ask a historian what this period in history has to tell us about Islam instead of trying to shoe-horn it into your apologism.

Modern civilisation spent centuries fighting for freedom from religion. I'm talking about Europe, not its trisomial offspring from across the Atlantic.
Just when we think we finally have a rational society, we have a bunch of thick lefties encouraging the spread of Islam instead of doing what they should do, which is to be calling for its destruction.

You probably don't even know why it is you are gunning so hard for a political philosophy that wants to destroy civilisation. So let me tell you why: your lecturers at uni were deeply compromised with the idiocy of leninist/marxist politics. They intrinsically believed in the necessity of destroying society. You probably don't even realise your thinking was shaped in this way, but you reveal it every time you pour out your revisionist history and your logically fallacious arguments in favour of the utter barbarism that is Islam.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

Why you are making such a big deal about my choice of the word ‘conflate’ ?

Because the usage of the word was wrong with respect to the quotes you gave and the position you tried to claim by using it.

And because the only position I could infer that you were trying to take by using it was ludicrous, and I was wondering whether that really was your position or whether you had something else in mind.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

" Ask a historian what this period in history has to tell us about Islam" - of course, Craig, and when this esteemed historian e.g. explains to you how come you speak Arabic too (alcohol, matrass, magazine, zero, cotton, coffee, ....) you will send me to a different historian who talks your moronic revisionism. No thanks. You'd better stick to the climate wars okay.
Your downplaying of christian conservatism is ill. You may need your wife or daughter raped and pregnant to understand what it really means, outlawing abortion.

It is the right, like you, that is spreading beheading islam. When the fuck will you learn. I think never. I think, after all this arrogant western shit of spreading liberty by killing and maiming, with now Obama coming up with Dubya's pathological 'war on terror' is really what you want. J'accuse!

"You probably don’t even know why it is you are gunning so hard for a political philosophy that wants to destroy civilisation." - IS means Islamic STATE. It is based on ISIS' setting up civilization in the areas it controls: public transport, garbage collection and fucking electricity the likes of which your bombing and maiming cronies still have not been able to help e.g. Bagdad with.

"Modern civilisation spent centuries fighting for freedom from religion. I’m talking about Europe, not its trisomial offspring from across the Atlantic." - then fuck you and keep talking about Europe and not the muslim world.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

#30, wow, there is the confession I was fishing for in #33.
It's true.

Said Wow, "At the execution of a woman in Texas (he was presiding over the highest number of death sentences carried out in the state with the highest rate of death sentences for his terms, remember?) we made jokes to reporters and witnesses at her actions when being strapped in, miming choking to death."

Yep. That's Craig. Joking about killing someone.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

And I never saw the likes of that WW I revisionism, either. One has to be quite authoritarian-right to put so much trust in the rationality of governments. Well there is fucking highway to hell.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

You know, in the 2-3 years immediately preceding WW1, Churchill, as 1st Lord of the Admiralty, convinced the British government to buy Anglo-Persian Oil. He then insisted on a class of battleships being laid down designed to run on oil.

These developments went more or less hand in hand but tied in with Burmha-Oil and after WW1 what was once Turkish Oil as Britain took over the mandate of Iraq - see also Calouste Gulbenkian (I recall reading a book about this fellow in the early 1960s but cannot recall the title being interested in things Naval).

The switch to oil was prompted by more than just battleship demand for apart from the higher calorific value of oil it was easier to transport and move. The former increased endurance, the latter eased refuelling and reduced the number of stokers required in a stoke-hold (I had a relative who was in that position on the coal fired Tiger at Jutland). Indeed in small vessels like destroyers, a British speciality to start with, the requirements of keeping down dimensions, limiting weight growth combined with the need for ever more powerful and varied armaments made reducing stoker numbers essential whilst improving endurance. It was the endurance of the destroyer screen which limited the time at sea of the Grand Fleet - mostly coal burners still at the time of Jutland.

One book on the origins of WW1 which I read with interest is "The Long Fuse: An Interpretation of the Origins of World War I" by Laurence Lafore. I have now sourced a copy having read an earlier edition in the 1960s.

"Dreadnought" by Robert K Massie is also worth a read, best after Thomas Pakenham's 'The Scramble for Africa' perhaps.

Massie's "Castles Of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of The Great War at Sea" is worth a look for the maritime conduct of the war, but side shows need filling in from other sources, I could suggest.

The five volume 'From Dreadnought to Scapa Flow' by Arthur J Marder has recently been republished in paberback by Pen & Sword - I am working my way through volume three now.

Arthur Marder also published a collection of memoires as "Portrait of an admiral: the life and papers of Sir Herbert Richmond" which sheds a spotlight, sometimes harsh, on the conduct of principle actors in Britain's war at sea 1914-1918, which adds flesh to the narrative.

One of the last sources to consult for veracity is Churchill my opinion of whom is now somewhat jaded. I just missed out being on route lining duty for Winston, many of my colleagues were not so lucky being in the wrong position of the squad as selection was being made. Perhaps my lack of height helped too.

Craig is being ritually hammered here, yet he persists. Here is his latest Orwellian argument:

"it wasn’t “discovery of oil” that started WW1, it was the US, French and British naval conversion to oil that started a mad scramble for oil supplies"

That 'mad scramble' has in fact been the suppression of democracy, political coercion, and mass murder, mostly coming from nations (e.g. western) that Craig has described as 'civilized'. As I have said, the killing ratio of 'us' versus 'them' is many hundreds of thousands to one, often using the wonderful hi-tech weaponry our civilization has invented. Moreover, many of these barbaric Islamist jihadists Craig goes on about were largely created by western intelligence agencies - certainly the CIA and MI5 had a major hand in supporting fanatical groups that were trying to overthrow nationalist regimes in the Middle East which threatened western control over resources our corporate elites covet. And we still do. Look at Saudi Arabia. In August that wonderful client state of ours beheaded 17 people publicly. One of them was a 17 year old girl. Many of these regimes and groups would not exist at all had we not aided, funded, armed and abetted them, or else dropped so many munitions on them that they turned to these groups. Look at Pol Pot - a textbook example.

I don't dispute that groups like ISIS are dangerous and extreme. But they probably would not exist were it not for us and our policies. And a major point I have made before is that we have no moral authority to lecture anyone else about anything. As Ward Churchill shows in his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", US forces have been somewhere else on Earth killing, torturing and maiming every years since that nation's inception. This follows on from the genocide of native Americans. I have no time for people favorably comparing us with others, when our lands are soaked in blood.

For heaven's sake, Craig, get off your hobby horse and learn some history!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 10 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson.
Methinks you are wasting your time wondering about inconsequentials.
Your choice of words or my choice of words are just choices of words as we write comments at a blog.
I had already commented that words other than 'conflate' could be used.
I am not slightly interested in dying in a ditch over my use of conflate.
I remain far more interested in the arguments raised here that democracy is a poor system of governance and that others such as China's or laws based on the Muslim religion offer something better.
I also seriously question the assertion that China has done far more re CO2 emissions.
On what evidence is that assertion being based?

Stu2,

Please define democracy. You appear to think we in the west all live in healthy functioning democracies. This is your first big mistake. You've clearly swallowed the simplistic crap spoon fed to you since birth and don't appear to question any of it. The world's biggest superpower is anything but a democracy. The rest of us in the developed world supinely follow its lead. I believe that the dominant political and economic system is fatally flawed and is responsible for sending our planet's ecological life support systems towards a black hole. Real democracy means that there is (a) a real choice, and (b) that decisions are not made by a tiny minority of exceedingly powerful wealthy elites. These decisions are currently made in order to create better situations for themselves, and not for everyone in society.

Read some of Walter Lippmann's or Edward Bernay's early 20th century works on propaganda and tell me that it doesn't ring true today. Your views on political ideology and simplistic in the extreme. Clearly you don't read a whole lot outside of your newspaper.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

"Look at Pol Pot – a textbook example."

So I hope the US will call the coming operations on IS 'Operation Rolling Thunder 2.0', to create 'Khmer Rouge 2.0'. I'd like to suggest an expected bodycount of between 5 and 10 million coming 5 years and expansion of the 'caliphate zone' to include Afghanistan, part of Pakistan and huge regions in North Africa. Even western China is going to feel this.
Aided by bombs and climate change.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

Meantime our beloved carbondioxide sinks appear to have clogged up.
No Nobel Prize winning plan for destroying the world could ever touch what we're doing to the planet and ourselves now. Like living in a flat with all people hacking at everything until the entire thing comes crashing down like the WTC towers.

By cRR Kampen (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

Methinks you are wasting your time wondering about inconsequentials.

If that's the word you're going to choose to describe your prognostications, you'll find little disagreement ;-)

I remain far more interested in the arguments raised here that democracy is a poor system of governance and that others such as China’s or laws based on the Muslim religion offer something better.

As far as I can see those arguments were not made here, so you can relax. More specific arguments were made - but if you leave out the specificity (as you do so often when characterising what someone else said), you're no longer talking about those arguments.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

Hot Whopper labels Graham Lloyd and The Australian concern trolls over the recent series of articles, and it's difficult to argue that the label doesn't fit. I haven't seen anyone show that any of the accusations in those articles have substance - and I've seen plenty of evidence showing that their is substance to the counter argument that was ignored by the author.

The link to Redfearn's article from almost a week ago is worth following - perhaps Lloyd should have done so when that came out to avoid doubling down on his concern trolling?

The first comment on Redfearn's article includes this:

The funny thing about this. Actually, its not that funny. Is that the numerous factual errors and spin from the Australian will go un-commented by the deniers.

...which applies to pretty much any forum.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

Some might find Marohasy and Johnston's attempts to justify their claims in this article at The Conversation from a week ago. It's a good exercise in spotting how people attempt to smuggle unjustified claims into debate.

Marohasy claims - without a shred of self-awareness of her own practices - that the BoM is "operating outside of normal scientific practices". It would be ROFLworthy if it wasn't so sad. She also expresses disappointment that "no-one wants to engage in detail" after quite a bit of engagement, especially asking for evidence of the alleged corruption (which is different from asking for evidence of a botched temperature record), and asking for her to work up a proper peer-reviewed paper like she should have done in the first place. But ultimately she merely gives a half-hearted attempt to get people either to her blog or to read her non-peer reviewed papers, and simply ignores the major problems with her position.

Bill Johnston refuses to justify the use of his name to claim that a certain station was never moved (over about a century of records, of which he was in the area for about five years) - despite Marohasy using his assertion that there was none as part of her call for people to be sacked. He first falls back to "the site records show no documented moves", which is not the assertion given nor can it be relied upon for homogenisation. He later claims this means the BoM has asserted that the station has not moved. (That tells you the guy is incapable of applying the kind of basic logic required for scientific analysis).

Worse still, he ultimately claims that his own special analysis of the records suggests the station was moved, which is the same kind of detection process that led BoM to perform adjustments - and that directly contradicts one of the points Marohasy relied upon. And at one point he suggests the possibility that we're wasting money dealing with climate change because "What if the temperature is not rising?" And he echoes Marohasy's call for "heads to roll", despite having no better case to mount than she does. He even admits that he hasn't replicated the BoM's published methods which is a requirement to show that they have eschewed them in order to fudge the records.

Mark Lonsdale in a comment that begins "I have now looked more closely at Bill Johnston's work" takes a look at his methods and indicates that they appear to incorrectly detect breakpoints, for one thing, which would render his analysis and conclusions invalid. Mark also points out that Bill is claiming his technique is valid when it does not have support in the peer-reviewed literature for the purpose to which he puts it, and that Bill is making some other false claims. He is in essence demonstrating that Bill is suffering from a heavy dose of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (And at just about this point in that sub-thread, cohenite a.k.a. Anthony Cox comes along to try and change the subject.)

Marohasy does not acknowledge that Johnston has pulled one of her rugs out from under her. And Johnston still insists that the fact that the metadata does not record a move, but the data suggests one took place, means that "we have been deceived", despite the BoM's methods detecting the likelihood that the station was moved.

We also get a latecomer "Where's the evidence that CO2 above 140ppm can cause any warming" denier who is trying to address a different article.

And another commenter is sent to the BEST website which shows that their independent homogenisation procedures produce pretty much the same trends as the BoM and responds with this classic:

The Berkely site you sent us to is nothing more than a private couple trying to support the theory of Global warming by claiming to show that the analysis of records by skeptics is invalid.

I imagine that the Koch brothers would be highly offended to be dubbed "supporters of the theory of Global warming" ;-) Apparently that commenter is unaware that Muller was a public skeptic of the temperature records when he started the project as well...

And there's this absolute gem:

This stupid call for "peer review" is now becoming a shrill exercise in trying to close down debate on a scientific topic.

Nope, those calling for peer review are calling for papers to be published detailing the allegations.

You can't argue with such determined idiocy.

If you were someone who wanted your intellectual output to be taken seriously, you probably would prefer that you weren't associated with people who are stuck in such seriously deficient mode of "thinking".

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 11 Sep 2014 #permalink

"You’re wrong in a sense: it wasn’t “discovery of oil” that started WW1, it was the US, French and British naval conversion to oil that started a mad scramble for oil supplies."

More that it was Germany getting hold of petroleum fields.

The LAST people who want competition are the competitive markets' current leaders.

Indeed, that's why we fuck up things across the word, and why the USA is particularly parasitic since WWII: It used to be the Brits, when WE were top dogs.

"Due legal process (with or without the Dumbya show) is civilised. Machine-gunning rape victims in the centre of soccer pitches is uncivilised."

ISIS legally (to their code of law) have been beheading people on telly.

And as for machinegunning innocents in a public place, I have one item to sell you: Wikileaks' footage of that Apache heli incident.

What it did was legitimise ISIS, since they could then turn round and claim that WE deserve it, since we were happy to deal it out.

And it's not as if the incident is being attended to, but the opposite. See Assange's predicament to show how much the USA wants to do the right thing...

Serendipity is a funny old thing and following links starting at HotWhopper I found myself via Tamino thread comments looking at RationalWiki for

Ross McKitrick

and then the Steve McIntyre one where after a diversion to Rational Wiki on the Daily Fail I ended back here at Deltoid with this golden oldy:

The McIntyre factor.

Boy do these guys leave a trail. Take note Duffer, RedNoise, 2Stupid & co.

Sometimes it is worth studying history.

Dr Jeff Harvey @ # 39
Here is a simple definition of democracy"

democracy
/dɪˈmɒkrəsi/
noun
noun: democracy
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"a system of parliamentary democracy"
synonyms: representative government, elective government, constitutional government, popular government;

Contrary to you assertion, I am under no illusion that our government systems are perfect.
I have asked you a few times what you believe is a better alternative.

Lotharsson.
I believe BoM has now been directed to update its access to information about the homogenisation of the raw temperature data?

self-government, government by the people, autonomy;

republic, commonwealth

antonyms: tyranny, dictatorship

a state governed under a system of democracy.

plural noun: democracies

"a multiparty democracy"

control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.

"the intended extension of industrial democracy"

Apologies.
I accidentally split up the copy/paste of the definition of democracy.

I believe BoM has now been directed to update its access to information about the homogenisation of the raw temperature data?

Citation needed. You believe many things and a surprisingly large number of them turn out to be inaccurate, but nevertheless appear when you JAQ off.

Quite apart from the absence of a citation, I note the bold absence of specificity as to who "directed" thus and under what authority, and the almost satirical vagueness of alleging a requirement to "update access to information", given that access to the necessary information is already pretty good (despite "skeptics" having difficulties finding it until other people rub their noses in it), and that one does not so much "update" access to information (because access does not age) as much as one "manages" or "controls" or "enhances" access.

Perhaps you'd do better to cite the source of the claim rather than try to state it in your own words?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Sep 2014 #permalink

Stu2,

A better alternative is real democracy - not the plutocracies on which elections in the developed countries are currently based. To attain power nowadays in the US or Europe, one generally has to be wealthy. They need to have the money necessary to run costly election campaigns, including slots in the corporate-owned media. The current version of democracy plays into the hands of the monied elites, who of course co-opt it to ensure that their interests are prioritized. They do this through propaganda - using the well honed techniques of perception management to mollify the general population who would otherwise support policies well to the left of those that are actually legislated. As I said, before, read anything from Walter Lippmann or Edward Bernays and the methods they employed to 'control' the masses.

We do not live in healthy democracies. Once you realize that, then we can begin to discuss alternative systems of governance. Instead of being 'far from perfect', as you say, I believe the current dominant political systems are ecocidal and unsustainable. If not changed radically, then our future is indeed bleak.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2014 #permalink

Dr Jeff Harvey.
Yes, money does tend to get in the way and what you call the 'monied elites' live an enviable lifestyle.
Nonetheless, in our imperfect democracies, we have basic individual rights and protections.
In our imperfect democracies it is possible to hold govts, bureaucracies & corporations to public scrutiny & public account- including environmental issues.
In our imperfect democracies everyone, including women & people of different religions have access to services & opportunities that well over half the world's population do not.
Try speaking out so blatantly against the system of govt and its hierarchy in China & the places Craig mentions and consider how that would work.
Re propaganda - I don't disagree that in our imperfect democracies people are polarised by differing perspectives in the media- but once again that pales in comparison to most of the rest of the world.

Lotharsson.
It has been reported in our media.
But I note today that there is further info at Dr Marohasy's blog.

It has been reported in our media

So, as I expected you provide no citation and no specifics. Fit to be ignored then, as I suspected it would be.

(And surely you realise by now that Marohasy is a proven unreliable source ESPECIALLY with regard to the BoM, so citing her in this case doesn't help?)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Sep 2014 #permalink

In our imperfect democracies it is possible to hold govts, bureaucracies & corporations to public scrutiny & public account- including environmental issues

You have not been paying very much attention. This is sometimes possible, but quite often not - and the overall trend is towards becoming less possible, not more.

There are even explicit laws on the books in some of our major democracies that help to prevent scrutiny of some of these kinds of things, complete with criminal penalties that include jail time.

Then there are the proposed QLD laws explicitly removing much of the public right to object to developments on environmental grounds, as one recent example in the news, and similar regulations already on the books in NSW further limiting the ability to object to mining proposals on environmental grounds. There are laws in VIC that aim to prevent some of the most effective means of bringing public attention to offending corporations - and Sen. Abetz wanted to go even further in TAS. And that's all outside of the overarching environmental grounds of anthropogenic climate change for which there's no evidence that we can hold governments and corporations to account, except in the most limited and ineffectual ways.

And that's before we look at the practicalities of actually attempting to hold one of these entities to account which has a significant chance of turning out badly for the individual who tries to do so, especially if that individual is a whistleblower (which is often necessary for the information to come to light, as despite your happy assertions to the contrary corporations and governments routinely keep secret information that is necessary for "holding to account"). And attempts by ordinary individuals to hold to account are often met with a barrage of expensive legal proceedings which hardly any private individuals can afford to take on.

It's a comforting notion that we have all of this ability to hold to account, but in practice there's a hell of a lot less ability than is claimed. This is partly because what we call democracy functions more as a plutocracy than a democracy. There was recent research out of one of the major US universities that showed that the policy preferences of the great unwashed public had almost zero influence on the policies that were enacted, whereas the preferences of the rich and of corporations had a rather sizeable influence. And on major policy issues in Australia, it's hard to argue that it's much different - otherwise we would already have a reasonable mining super profits tax, we wouldn't have even considered letting a foreign mining company with a rather dodgy environmental record dump dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and would still have a carbon emissions price and would be aggressively reducing the tradeable annual emissions pool.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 12 Sep 2014 #permalink

2Stupid may like to do a little historical tie in with current affairs.

Go back to the late nineteenth century and what do we see happening in Africa?

I particular you may like to research the activities of certain characters such as Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes- Alfred Beit and the wider circle of associates. Now consider the foundation of the Rhodes Scholarship and think of the effect that has had on recent history.

It is well known that Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar but did you know that Bob Hawke, Malcolm Turnbull and even Tony Abbott are alumni.

Sorry to prick your bubble 2Stupid but you haven't a clue. Do you understand the ramifications of TTIP? Probably not, I doubt that you have heard of it, for the mainstream media is avoiding discussion of this. The Guardian has picked up on that very question:

Break the silence on the danger of the TTIP.

That taken with everything else that the current UK administration, and those elsewhere, are trying to fly under the radar with are threats to what freedom we have left.

Hum,

Having held that thought ...

Brethren, I assume that the members of the Deltoid Tabernacle Choir will be leading the planned march on New York in a few day's time to raise climate warming, sorry, climate CHANGE, awareness and to help the UN pass another totally useless motion which everyone and his uncle will treat with the contempt it deserves. But I do care about you, my life would be that much more miserable without you, so please do wrap up warm - the NE of America is experiencing record cold temperatures - and it's only September! Just ignore all those trouble-makers who might laugh at you or throw snowballs!

By David Duff (not verified) on 13 Sep 2014 #permalink

Duff said, ... to raise climate warming, sorry, climate CHANGE, awareness..

I think that shows that he doesn't know what the CC in IPCC stands for. FYI it was set up in 1988.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 13 Sep 2014 #permalink

Well Duff being the ignorant neophyte that he is does not understand that climate change has a long reference history, well before Frank Luntz's little bit of bafflegab.

...a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C).

Full version:

Global warming vs climate change

Duffer do try get a grip and don't stay at primary school level all your life.

Lotharsson
Perhaps you too could try traveling to countries that are not based on democratic principles & protected by democratic law & tell them that our systems are no good?
I don't disagree that big govt, big corps, big multinationals, big media, religion etc can run amok.
But as Dr Harvey inadvertently highlights, they can run amok way more in countries that are not based on democratic principles.
Quite often at Deltoid, the idea of some type of benevolent, global dictatorship based on mitigating the climate is touted as the something we need to do about CC & AGW and then by extension it is claimed that that idea or notion is supported by science.
You may not like my use of the word conflate but that's what that argument appears to be doing.

Perhaps you too could try traveling to countries that are not based on democratic principles & protected by democratic law & tell them that our systems are no good?

Why? It's got precisely nothing to do with my point.

For one thing I did not even make the binary argument that our system is "no good", so it would be particularly stupid of me to tell them something that I never argued. And even if I had argued it, what point would there be in doing so?

Oh, wait, I know! You making the suggestion is a convenient distraction from your complete lack of counter-argument!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Sep 2014 #permalink

...they can run amok way more in countries that are not based on democratic principles.

This is a judgement call across two sets of countries, and it's not at all clear to me that that it is accurate - let alone that democratic principles are the causal factor.

Do you understand that countries that are "not based on democratic principles" still do have laws and legal systems that businesses must (in principle) comply with, just like they must (in principle) comply with them in democratic systems? And that companies that would like to "run amok" in different countries tend to find ways to limit the effect of those legal restrictions (by subverting enforcement of laws on the books, by modifying the laws themselves or preventing laws that citizens might want to get onto the books) that are effective in the system in question, but they tend to find them in every case?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Sep 2014 #permalink

Quite often at Deltoid, the idea of some type of benevolent, global dictatorship based on mitigating the climate is touted as the something we need to do about CC & AGW...

Quite often at Deltoid (and outside of Deltoid by those who are awfully concerned about UN Agenda 21 being a secret plot to steal all the golfs and lightbulbs, and by such eminently reliable commentators as Monckton who skillfully conflates "governance" on a single issue with "government" because he knows most of his readers aren't smart enough to spot the sleight of hand) we see this charge laid, but when the request for a citation is made there is either abject silence or laughably inept attempts at citing an example.

Who knows? Maybe this time will be different?

And if you get that far, how about:

"...and then by extension it is claimed that that idea or notion is supported by science."

Can you provide a cite showing people claiming "the notion is supported by science" where they clearly do not mean "the notion is a suitable policy response to scientific understanding"? Do you even understand the distinction?

Or is this all like your latest claim about something in the media that you can't actually cite, but you just know believe it's true?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 13 Sep 2014 #permalink

Lotharsson
I understand that you're basically arguing with your ideated version of Stu 2.
Otherwise known as a straw man.
It's sometimes amusing if nothing else.

Just to be clear Lotharsson.
We have had this discussion before.
I am not referring to a conspiracy theory re the UN agenda 21 & etc.
The well known & understood academic references are 'deliberative global governance' & 'deliberative global democracy'.

Quite often at Deltoid, the idea of some type of benevolent, global dictatorship based on mitigating the climate is touted

Shorter Lotharsson #60 - Put up or shut up, Stu2.

Put up.

Or STFU.

bollocks - make that "shorter Lotharsson #69".

The rest? Well, that's up to Stu2.

I understand that you’re basically arguing with your ideated version of Stu 2

Oh, that is why I'm engaging with what you actually write! So that I can simply ignore what you write and argue with a straw man!

Shit, why didn't anyone point out before that discussing what someone actually says is simply ignoring what they say?

Oh, wait, this is all just an attempt to distract from the fact that you appear to be unable to argue your case? Silly me, should have known...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Bear with me folks. This is long and multi-part...but so very entertaining if you're into this kind of thing.

We have had this discussion before. ... The well known & understood academic references are ‘deliberative global governance’ & ‘deliberative global democracy’.

[strums fingers, mutters quietly to self] "Curiouser and curiouser. I wonder what could possibly explain why Stu 2 is so strangely shy of citing easily Googled evidence for his claim?"

Search Deltoid for the phrase "Deliberative global democracy": "No results found."

OK, so that may not actually be a "well known & understood academic reference" that we have discussed at Deltoid. Perhaps that explains why he didn't cite an example?

Naaaaaah, surely there's more to his shyness than just that...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

...so let's try the phrase "deliberative global governance" at Deltoid.

Now we're talking! We get the Matt Ridley "sleight of hand" thread and the Dec 2013 open thread.

The former is the one where Jeff Harvey points out with respect to climate change deniers:

Some of their illuminati have used everything from ‘its a global conspiracy to create a world government under the auspices of the UN’...

and in response crowd favourite chameleon raises "the UN and the theory of 'deliberative global governance'", apparently conflating government and governance just like Stu 2 does, and she talks about them (UN and theory of deliberative global governance) being "funded by public money" which is also one of Stu 2's concerns. On page 6 she asks what she seems to think is a killer question that involves both government and governance (which Stu 2 hasn't seen fit to employ), and on page 9 she falsely alleges, so very much like Stu 2 does:

You are basically claiming that ‘science’ supports a particular political theory.

At #42 she alleges the same of chek, equally incorrectly, and that does not fare well in responses at #48 and #52. By #60 she was bizarrely claiming that Jeff Harvey was:

...complaining that ‘climate change deniers’ believe that the UN, the theory of global governance and government grants are a conspiracy theory.

Er, no. There's the false and rejected conflation again. One can explain it over and over again and it just won't die.

Stu 2 and chameleon share a number of traits and pet issues, but chameleon appears to be even more prone to misinterpreting what people say. So unless Stu 2 wants to claim chameleon is his sockpuppet we can ignore that thread for this purpose and move on...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Now we come to the ever so tasty meat. The open thread is the one containing Betula's assertions that the U.N. Millennium Development Goals were really set up specifically in order to advance the ideal of globally redistributing wealth and that climate change was a hoax in order to "justify" doing so.

And then Stu 2 makes a grand entrance right here! He asserts that Betula's implication (via question) that the MDGs are not a conspiracy to redistribute wealth as such because redistribution is an overt goal and overt aims can't be conspiratorial aims is a "good question"(!) And he does this two comments after ianam points out that means are not goals via a simple analogy that your average high schooler can understand.

Stu 2 then implies in that same comment (and in #84 confirms it) that in his mind public investment in universities is also performed in order to redistribute wealth (rather than, e.g. in order to meet education and research goals), apparently conflating this with Betula's MDG/climate science conspiracy theory. It is at that point, dubbing them examples of "public money having been invested" that he links to a blog called "Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance", a powerpoint converted to PDF entitled "DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY and GLOBAL CLIMATE GOVERNANCE" and an abstract for a journal article entitled "Global Deliberative Democracy and Climate Change: Insights from World Wide Views on Global Warming in Australia". I can't speak for all the articles on the blog - he didn't link to an article or bother explaining why he linked to it than dubbing it an "example" - but the powerpoint and journal article do NOT talk about global government, let alone anything that could charitably be dubbed benevolent dictatorship. (There is a quote from Lovelock in the powerpoint suggesting that if things get bad enough democracy may need to be put on hold - but the entire powerpoint attempts to determine whether "deliberative democracy" can be used to avoid that scenario.)

So, no, no-one there is advocating a "benevolent global dictatorship" - if anything, they're trying to find ways to avoid feeling the need to suspend democracy by making democracy more effective.

And just in case you're under any illusion, it is simply not a Millenium Development Goal to redistribute wealth.

But heck, that isn't enough to stop Stu 2! Here he claims with respect to the MDG:

The point of contention here is the mechanism that is advocated as the only ‘right way’ to achieve such noble goals.
It is basically advocating that there is such a thing as a trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship.

Needless to say, as ianam points out in the very next comment, "No one has made this claim other than you". And even Betula acknowledges the underlying claim about the redistribution of wealth being a goal is his and his alone.

Not put off by this, Stu 2 returns in the hope that saying it again but using a different name will remove the falseness:

The point remains that while they are noble goals (but certainly not unique to the UN) it is the mechanism ( the how to achieve) that is the point of contention.
” Global Governance” and “Deliberative Global Governance” as per the earlier posted links is the current name of the mechanism. ... If you dislike the term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ you are welcome to call it something else.

Since Global Governance, whether Deliberative or otherwise, is not a benevolent global dictatorship, Stu 2 is still incorrect to allege that a benevolent dictatorship (under that name or another) is being touted by anyone at Deltoid.

Don't believe me on that former point? Try the definition ianam provided here (which contains a link to the source, a paper on different forms of global governance):

Deliberative democracy denotes a system of government in which free and equal citizens engage in a collective process of debate and argument, within the framework of a shared constitution, to determine law and policy. What differentiates deliberative accounts from alternative interpretations of democracy is that decisions should not be made exclusively on the basis of an aggregation of preferences, or strategic compromises between competing interests, but on the basis of publicly expressible reasons. This idea of public reasoning is the defining feature of deliberative democracy, specifying the norms that are to regulate its institutions and argumentative practices.

Readers of English who have achieved year 10 proficiency will note that Deliberative Democracy is defined here as a form of democracy - the very opposite of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.

In response, Stu 2 continues to hand wave and then breaks my irony meter by quoting the dictionary definition of "hand waving", attempting to claim that the because the paper uses the term "Deliberative Democracy" it's not about "[Deliberative] Global Governance". Don't take my word for it:

Perhaps BBD and ianam have inadvertently hand waved about “deliberative democracy” rather than the posted terms: “global governance” or “deliberative global governance”?

He somehow fails to note that the title of the paper ianam drew the definition from is "Deliberation and Global Governance", and that the very first sentence of the abstract reads "The paper develops a critical analysis of deliberative approaches to global governance." In other words, not only was it not handwaving, the entire paper is about Deliberative approaches to Global Governance, a.k.a. Deliberate Global Governance, a.k.a. certain forms of Global Governance! (For those who like to follow all the action, ianam later points this out in rather emphatic terms.)

Undeterred, on the next page Stu 2 ploughs on characterising a preference for "some form of global social justice" as "...an unrealistic and a naïve belief in some type of non specific, trustworthy but benevolent global dictatorship."

Nope, that's the fallacy of argument from lack of personal imagination (and the fallacy of argument from inappropriate conflation). And incredibly, at #58, despite there being no more evidence to support his claim he tries it on again:

But leaving that aside; it does appear that many of the commenters here believe in some type of trustworthy and fair global benevolent dictatorship.

Nope. Still no evidence of that.

And then on the following page he digs himself still deeper:

As I said earlier ianam, if you want to call it something other than ‘benevolent dictatorship’ you are welcome to do that.
Jeff has coined it as a ‘managed democracy’ – meaning from the top down

1) Calling it something else still doesn't make it functionally a dictatorship. Stu 2 is either trying to assert that his name for it embeds an incorrect description (which would further validate the point that he's wrong to claim that anyone here advocated it), or is just as laughably trying to pretend that the objection to his name for it is not made on the basis that the name is a false description of what it is!

2) No, Jeff did not. He used that term to refer to our existing "democratic" systems.

And despite having it pointed out again, he tries the same shit on again!

The point remains that it appears most of the commenters here believe in some sort of trustworthy, benevolent global dictatorship. You are welcome to call it as many different names as you like but the mainstream research (fully accessible as it is mostly funded by government grants) usually calls it ‘deliberative global governance’ or ‘global governance’. ‘Deliberative democracy’ is a related term in some of the research.

No, really, the point most certainly does not remain. The point cannot remain because it never bloody well appeared in the first place. The allegation that it did is all in Stu 2's head, courtesy of a boneheaded determination to mischaracterise certain forms of governance. The terms in that quote do not denote any form of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise, whether named something else or not.

And for bonus points in that same comment he goes on to conflate Jeff's description of how "democracy" currently works with how a system of deliberative global governance might work.)

And just for completeness, I point out back then that Stu 2 is using Monckton's false conflation of government and governance (so yes, we really have had this conversation before ;-)

So, do we reckon that all explains why he declined to link to his earlier claims that people here were advocating a "global dictatorship" of some sort?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Oops, should have predicted that. The large comment went into moderation. Try again in smaller chunks:

Now we come to the ever so tasty meat. The open thread is the one containing Betula's assertions that the U.N. Millennium Development Goals were really set up specifically in order to advance the ideal of globally redistributing wealth and that climate change was a hoax in order to "justify" doing so.

And then Stu 2 makes a grand entrance right here! He asserts that Betula's implication (via question) that the MDGs are not a conspiracy to redistribute wealth as such because redistribution is an overt goal and overt aims can't be conspiratorial aims is a "good question"(!) And he does this two comments after ianam points out that means are not goals via a simple analogy that your average high schooler can understand.

Stu 2 then implies in that same comment (and in #84 confirms it) that in his mind public investment in universities is also performed in order to redistribute wealth (rather than, e.g. in order to meet education and research goals), apparently conflating this with Betula's MDG/climate science conspiracy theory. It is at that point, dubbing them examples of "public money having been invested" that he links to a blog called "Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance", a powerpoint converted to PDF entitled "DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY and GLOBAL CLIMATE GOVERNANCE" and an abstract for a journal article entitled "Global Deliberative Democracy and Climate Change: Insights from World Wide Views on Global Warming in Australia". I can't speak for all the articles on the blog - he didn't link to an article or bother explaining why he linked to it than dubbing it an "example" - but the powerpoint and journal article do NOT talk about global government, let alone anything that could charitably be dubbed benevolent dictatorship. (There is a quote from Lovelock in the powerpoint suggesting that if things get bad enough democracy may need to be put on hold - but the entire powerpoint attempts to determine whether "deliberative democracy" can be used to avoid that scenario.)

So, no, no-one there is advocating a "benevolent global dictatorship" - if anything, they're trying to find ways to avoid feeling the need to suspend democracy by making democracy more effective.

And just in case you're under any illusion, it is simply not a Millenium Development Goal to redistribute wealth.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

But heck, that isn't enough to stop Stu 2! Here he claims with respect to the MDG:

The point of contention here is the mechanism that is advocated as the only ‘right way’ to achieve such noble goals.
It is basically advocating that there is such a thing as a trustworthy and benevolent dictatorship.

Needless to say, as ianam points out in the very next comment, "No one has made this claim other than you". And even Betula acknowledges the underlying claim about the redistribution of wealth being a goal is his and his alone.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Not put off by this, Stu 2 returns in the hope that saying it again but using a different name will remove the falseness:

The point remains that while they are noble goals (but certainly not unique to the UN) it is the mechanism ( the how to achieve) that is the point of contention.
” Global Governance” and “Deliberative Global Governance” as per the earlier posted links is the current name of the mechanism. ... If you dislike the term ‘benevolent dictatorship’ you are welcome to call it something else.

Since Global Governance, whether Deliberative or otherwise, is not a benevolent global dictatorship, Stu 2 is still incorrect to allege that a benevolent dictatorship (under that name or another) is being touted by anyone at Deltoid.

Don't believe me on that former point? Try the definition ianam provided here (which contains a link to the source, a paper on different forms of global governance):

Deliberative democracy denotes a system of government in which free and equal citizens engage in a collective process of debate and argument, within the framework of a shared constitution, to determine law and policy. What differentiates deliberative accounts from alternative interpretations of democracy is that decisions should not be made exclusively on the basis of an aggregation of preferences, or strategic compromises between competing interests, but on the basis of publicly expressible reasons. This idea of public reasoning is the defining feature of deliberative democracy, specifying the norms that are to regulate its institutions and argumentative practices.

Readers of English who have achieved year 10 proficiency will note that Deliberative Democracy is defined here as a form of democracy - the very opposite of a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

[Sorry folks, 2 links at a time to be safe means a whole bunch of comments...]

In response, Stu 2 continues to hand wave and then breaks my irony meter by quoting the dictionary definition of "hand waving", attempting to claim that the because the paper uses the term "Deliberative Democracy" it's not about "[Deliberative] Global Governance". Don't take my word for it:

Perhaps BBD and ianam have inadvertently hand waved about “deliberative democracy” rather than the posted terms: “global governance” or “deliberative global governance”?

He somehow fails to note that the title of the paper ianam drew the definition from is "Deliberation and Global Governance", and that the very first sentence of the abstract reads "The paper develops a critical analysis of deliberative approaches to global governance." In other words, not only was it not handwaving, the entire paper is about Deliberative approaches to Global Governance, a.k.a. Deliberate Global Governance, a.k.a. certain forms of Global Governance! (For those who like to follow all the action, ianam later points this out in rather emphatic terms.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

[Fortunately y'all know how to use the scroll bar on your browsers, right? ;-)]

Undeterred, on the next page Stu 2 ploughs on characterising a preference for "some form of global social justice" as "...an unrealistic and a naïve belief in some type of non specific, trustworthy but benevolent global dictatorship."

Nope, that's the fallacy of argument from lack of personal imagination (and the fallacy of argument from inappropriate conflation). And incredibly, at #58, despite there being no more evidence to support his claim he tries it on again:

But leaving that aside; it does appear that many of the commenters here believe in some type of trustworthy and fair global benevolent dictatorship.

Nope. Still no evidence of that.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

[Keep scrolling if you want the next topic...]

And then on the following page he digs himself still deeper:

As I said earlier ianam, if you want to call it something other than ‘benevolent dictatorship’ you are welcome to do that.
Jeff has coined it as a ‘managed democracy’ – meaning from the top down

1) Calling it something else still doesn't make it functionally a dictatorship. Stu 2 is either trying to assert that his name for it embeds an incorrect description (which would further validate the point that he's wrong to claim that anyone here advocated it), or is just as laughably trying to pretend that the objection to his name for it is not made on the basis that the name is a false description of what it is!

2) No, Jeff did not. He used that term to refer to our existing "democratic" systems.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

[2nd last one!]

And despite having it pointed out again, he tries the same shit on again!

The point remains that it appears most of the commenters here believe in some sort of trustworthy, benevolent global dictatorship. You are welcome to call it as many different names as you like but the mainstream research (fully accessible as it is mostly funded by government grants) usually calls it ‘deliberative global governance’ or ‘global governance’. ‘Deliberative democracy’ is a related term in some of the research.

No, really, the point most certainly does not remain. The point cannot remain because it never bloody well appeared in the first place. The allegation that it did is all in Stu 2's head, courtesy of a boneheaded determination to mischaracterise certain forms of governance. The terms in that quote do not denote any form of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise, whether named something else or not.

And for bonus points in that same comment he goes on to conflate Jeff's description of how "democracy" currently works with how a system of deliberative global governance might work.)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

And just for completeness, I pointed out that time around that Stu 2 is using Monckton's false conflation of government and governance (so yes, we really have had this conversation before ;-)

So, do we reckon that all explains why he declined to link to his earlier claims that people here were advocating a "global dictatorship" of some sort?

Place your bets: can we put to rest the canard that people here advocate some kind, any kind, of dictatorship to deal with climate change? Or will Stu 2 (or perhaps even chameleon) try it on again in another 9 months or so?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

That December 2013 Open Thread is a darned good thread to revisit, you have some tenacity there Lotharsson tackling this torturing of language in what BBD described there as a .

shitstorm of cognitive dissonance

More than that it illustrates what a shower of dishonest recyclers and socks we have around here.

I wonder where Betty went?

S2pidity and mendacity revisited. Thanks Lotharsson. Ianam was on corking form on that thread. I enjoyed the review ;-)

Lying little trolls that will not learn, eh?

Lionel

I wonder where Betty went?

S2pid perhaps? I've never been convinced, but sometimes I wonder.

... the idea of some type of benevolent, global dictatorship based on mitigating the climate is touted as the something we need to do about CC & AGW...
Christ, what a wanker.

By turboblocke (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Christ, what a wanker.

Doubtful, not enough anatomy.

Lotharsson
Between 52 & 89 you have posted no less than 15 times arguing away with me mostly about inconsequential stuff.
But thanks for confirming that I did not claim a conspiracy re Agenda 21.
I guess because it's already halfway through Sept & this open thread is still stuck in August, there is no moderator keeping a check on how many times one person posts?

Between 52 & 89 you have posted no less than 15 times arguing away with me mostly about inconsequential stuff.

Good to hear you say that your falsehoods about what is advocated here are "inconsequential stuff" ;-)

Maybe instead of counting posts of the people pointing out your inconsequential stuff bullshit and pondering about whether moderation is called for, you should spend a little more time ensuring that what you post isn't bullshit, and in particular isn't the very same bullshit whose bullshitness was pointed out to you in no uncertain terms the last time you tried it on here?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

You could even call ensuring what you post isn't well-known bullshit "self-moderation" if that helps you internalise the concept.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 14 Sep 2014 #permalink

Look, for God's sake, will you please all stop chanting "I belieeeeeeeve", it's driving me mad and there is now a real emergency.

With arctic sea-ice growing bigger and bigger all those 'poor likkle, cuddly, polar bears' - by the way, I thought you lot told me they were dying out! - now have to walk miles and miles and miles to reach the sea where they can kill and eat all those disgusting seals and things.

Something must be done!

By David Duff (not verified) on 15 Sep 2014 #permalink

Room 101 - in the Radio/TV series sense (not Orwellian, maybe they will qualify for that latter at a later date) for Duff and 2Stupid now.

I mean, how many times does Duff need informing that it is not a question of belief that being left to the likes of Ridley,

Further, how much more tortured nonsense from 2Stupid does the world need? Maybe the Orwellian sense of Room 101 is more appropriate in his case after all.

The LA Times reviews Naomi Klein's 'This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climat', a dichotomy only briefly mention in 'Capital in the Twenty-First Century' by Thomas Picketty btw.

Now I have not read Klein's latest yet but some points of interest from the review:

Not only that, Klein observes acidly, but "[w]e sacrifice our pensions, our hard-won labor rights, our arts and after-school programs. We send our kids to learn in ever more crowded classrooms, led by ever more harried teachers. We accept that we have to pay dramatically more for the destructive energy sources that power our transportation and our lives.... We accept that a public university education should result in a debt that will take half a lifetime to pay off."

Whereby the population is ill prepared to counter the uttering's of such as Ridley, and Ridley understands this only too well. The tampering with UK education by the demonic Michael Gove is but one force at work in the UK. Educated people can get uppity and threaten the status quo.

A few moons ago a university course in which I was engaged included a seminar on Comparative Education where the systems and results of different countries were examined.

Therefore the contents of this document judgement about education in Texas PDF H/T Eli do not surprise me.

Every stae in the US is different, but I doubt the trends in Pennsylvania, the Carlonas and Virginias are much different in essence, similarly for Louisiana, George, Kentucky and Tennessee to name but a few others.

It is under these conditions that Home-schooling flourishes with the dangers of increasing social isolation and adoption of unrealistic cognitive frameworks. Perhaps Oregon, home of Art Robinson and his offspring, could be mentioned in this context.

This, combined with the 'gun-culture' is a powder keg waiting to go off and the stressors of climate change could well set the fuse. There are already many groups in he US with a siege mentality building bunkers stocked with supplies and armed to a degree that would put Blackwater operatives to shame.

There was much disquiet back then when I was at Uni', in the mid-1980s, of the machinations of the likes of (Sir) Keith Joseph and his successor Kenneth Baker (since Baron Baker of Dorking). It was that latter who, with considerable braggadocio, pronounced how well equipped were the schools of the UK with computers.

By being at the coal face I knew how far from the truth this was. One primary school complex of Infant and Junior had one BBC Micro between them. But it was worse than that for that one spent most of its time in a cupboard because the staff were too intimidated to use it, particularly in classes with child numbers in the mid-30s.

Computers in education was the subject of my dissertation within which I quoted the then Mr Baker.

As a student teacher on final TP I took advantage of the computer on the one day a week, having offered help to staff otherwise. I took my own computer, a baby brother to the BBC but which shared many similarities so that after some tweaking to some software I could run them on both computer types. I also took in my dot matrix printer. Thus the children could in their own time take it in turns to learn simple elements of mathematics and logic using a Turtle Logo application and also produce articles for a newspaper.

The school was in an impoverished area of South Wales in the shadows of Llanwern steelworks and many pupils had 'family' issues, some being old before their years.

In the meantime I have come face to face with the results of social deprecation and can spot the dissembling used to mask it. Socially, this country has taken a further lurch backwards in the last decade to compound the effects of 79-97 with no sign of recovery.