Saturday, April 30, 2011

Bjorn Lomborg:- climate debate back to basic principles

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

Paul Comrie-Thomson: the climate debate in this country seems stuck at the Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire level. can't we do better than this? well consider the following: In the March 2011 edition of Quadrant magazine, we read this:

Paul Comrie-Thomson: Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and director of the Copenhagen Business Centre. His new documentary is called Cool It, and Michael, it's out in about three weeks. I cannot wait. Bjorn was speaking in Melbourne last Monday at an event presented by the Australian Institute for International Affairs.

Man-made emissions are likely to cause a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this century and this increase will continue to have a warming effect on global temperatures. But one of the disappointing distortions of the climate science debate is the claim that sceptics deny this relationship. What sceptics are sceptical about is the strength of these anthropogenic global warming effects.
That's from the Quadrant article 'The Intelligent Voter's guide to Global Warming' written by Geoffrey Lehmann, Peter Farrell and Dick Warburton.

But ten years earlier, in The Sceptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg stated this:

My book accepts the reality of manmade global warming but questions the way in which future scenarios have been arrived at and finds that forecasts of climate change of six degrees by the end of the century are not plausible. I shall argue that the limitations of computer modelling, the unrealist nature of the basic assumptions made about future technological change and political value-judgments have distorted the scenarios being presented to the public.
The initial response to Lomborg's dispassionate analysis was ugly. He was trashed by the environmentalist establishment. And over the next ten years it appeared he was labouring in the wilderness. Then, post-Copenhagen Lomborg was finally recognised by many as being the environmentalist that made the most sense.

In a recent address in Melbourne presented by the Australian Institute of International Affairs, Bjorn Lomborg recommended we bring the whole climate debate back to basic principles. Here now are edited highlights of his address.

Bjorn Lomborg: What is it we're actually trying to achieve, because we have a tendency in this climate debate to just jump right ahead and say that it's all about cutting carbon emissions. But let's just remember -- presumably this is about making a better world. And we've got to ask ourselves how do we do that. And I think a large part of what we do in the climate debate is mostly about feeling good rather than actually doing good. It's about something that's fashionable rather than something that actually does good, something that's rational. So I'd like to pause and say, 'What can actually work?'

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Russian Climate Warming

James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including 365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy, Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Truism of Eating S#%t ? ?

kaya (1,267) Says:
April 17th, 2011 at 9:05 pm

An experienced economist and a novice economist are walking down the road. They come across a pile of dog shit lying on the asphalt. The experienced economist says to the novice, “If you eat it I’ll give you $20,000!” The novice economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he’s better off eating the shit, so he does and collects the money.
Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another pile of dog shit. The novice economist says to his friend, “Now, if you eat this pile of shit I’ll give you $20,000.” After evaluating the proposal, the experienced economist eats the dog shit and takes the money.

They continue on. The novice economist starts thinking and finally says to his friend, “Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don’t see us being better off.”

The experienced economist answers, “Well, that’s true, but you overlooked the fact that we’ve just been involved in $40,000 of trade.”

ben (1,697) Says:

April 17th, 2011 at 9:22 pm

Kaya: haha cute example, but there is a gain from trade here.
The only way the experienced economist would offer $20,000 to the novice is if he got $20,000+x in enjoyment watching that.
The only way the novice would accept the offer is if he got $20,000 – y >  0, in surplus, if y is the cost to him of eating shit.
Rinse and repeat for the second episode.
Although they both walk away with the same money, there is a gain from trade of 2(x – y) > 0.
 Each has received enjoyment in excess of eating shit, which is a prerequisite for trade to occur.
Were that not true, nobody eats shit.
Taoism: Shit happens. Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it. Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else. Scientology: Crazy shit Hinduism: This shit has happened before. Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah. Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn’t really shit. Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us? Athiesm: No Shit.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Obama morphing to Bush? ? ?

comment avoicenmany 79p · 2 days ago

Let us do a little comparison between Bush and Obumbles the Clown here.

This is worded in such a way that regular commenter's here at big are IMHO non partisan, but more so fact based and Conservative. It is also so the likes of ones like, just to pull a name "huskerluvsbo" and the MM/Huffpo crowd might understand ( we all can have wishful thinking now), of course I know that those will find invalid ways to argue with these comparisons but Pfft WTF I like fiction.. Enjoy:-

~   If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

~   If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

~   If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?