U.S. climate change policy news

by Judith Curry

A roundup of some recent news on U.S. climate change politics and policy.

Interview with John Kerry

WorkingForJobs interviewed U.S. Senator John Kerry, who is arguably the Senate’s strongest advocate for climate action.  Some excerpts:

Q. The climate issue is barely registering in this election. Why has this issue fallen off the Democratic agenda?

A. For several reasons. No. 1, because huge amounts of money were spent to purposely discredit the facts. Some of the coal industry, some of your old power-plant owners, put money into branding cap-and-trade as cap-and-tax. The British university emails were exploited by the opponents very effectively, and a kind of pejorative set in about climate science as a result. I think the climate issue lost 20 or 30 points of support in the public arena.

So once the House of Representatives passed cap-and-trade, this onslaught of negative activity took place which had an impact. The people who claimed it was a hoax, nothing more than a liberal conspiracy to have a government takeover, spent a lot of money scaring our colleagues. And that’s what happened, they scared them. They created a certain credibility [problem] that was never answered. There was no counter.

Q. To enviros, Obama’s all-of-the-above energy strategy seems like a cop-out. Should the party be moving more aggressively away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy?

A. You have to be all of the above. Look, I’m the most ardent advocate up here for doing something about climate change, but you’re nevertheless gonna have to use fossil fuels. The question is, can you use them in clean and manageable ways? The answer is, Yes, you can, if you make the right sort of requirements.

Q. But we’re not just talking about using fossil fuels as a bridge to clean energy — the Obama administration is aggressively expanding fossil-fuel development in the U.S.  Rep. Ed Markey [D-Mass.] called it Obama’s “drill, baby, drill.”

A. If you’re going to use X amount of fuel and you’re using it in a clean way, it’s better to have it produced from the United States than to be dependent on other countries. So, do you want to expand it overall? No. Overall you want to find alternatives in renewables and other things. But you have to do what you have to do to meet our energy demand. You have to have scrubbers, you have to have standards, you have to take old power plants out of service and put in new power plants with higher standards. There are ways to do fossil fuels responsibly. And if we don’t do that, it’s gonna be catastrophic.

Q. The U.N. treaty process hasn’t been effective on climate change, quite obviously. What could and should the international community be doing to press forward on climate action?

A. It’s going to take political leadership, global leadership, and statesmanship. They have to find a way to get the Chinese to come to the table with leadership. I mean, United States and China represent more almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

In a sense, we have to go back to where we were. I mean, we really have to revisit what happened in Rio [in 1992], and in Kyoto, but come up with a different mechanism that hopefully can be more politically acceptable in various countries. It may not be a cap-and-trade system, but we have to go back to an emissions target that makes sense. And technologies will have to be made available to less-developed countries so they can grow without a huge carbon footprint.

Energy Commerce Hearing

The U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy Power held a Hearing last week on the topic of the EPA performance standards for power plants.   From the Hearing website:

The hearing will discuss EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standards for power plants, which would require new coal-fired power plants to install costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology that is not yet commercially viable. The result of such stringent new standards is a de facto ban on the construction of any new coal-fired power plants. To prevent American coal plants from becoming extinct, Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) has introduced a bill, H.R. 6172, to prohibit EPA from finalizing any rule imposing emissions standards from power plants unless and until CCS is proven to be technologically and economically feasible.

This hearing follows previous subcommittee hearings discussing the impact of EPA’s proposed NSPS standards on jobs, the economy, and consumers.

Witnesses:
  • Mr. Mark C. McCullough – American Electric Power
  • Mr. Eugene M. Trisko – on behalf of United Mine Workers of America
  • Mr. Robert Hilton – Power Technologies for Government Affairs
  • Mr. John N. Voyles, Jr. – LG&E and KU Energy
  • Dr. John R. Christy – University of Alabama Huntsville
  • Mr. Dan Lashof – National Resources Defense Council
  • Mr. John Thompson – Clean Air Task Force

John Christy’s testimony was discussed at WUWT.

EU’s airline carbon emissions scheme

Reuters reports:

[The] U.S. Senate unanimously passed a bill on Saturday that would shield U.S. airlines from paying for their carbon emissions on European flights, pressuring the European Union to back down from applying its emissions law to foreign carriers.

Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, the measure’s other chief sponsor, said, “It’s refreshing to see strong, bipartisan support for the commonsense notion that Americans shouldn’t be forced to pay a European tax when flying in U.S. airspace.”

So far, nearly all airlines have complied reluctantly with the EU law, but Chinese and Indian carriers missed an interim deadline to submit information required under it.

 Presidential election

The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has an article The Potential Impact of Global Warming on the 2012 Presidential Election.  Excerpts:

A new national survey finds that 7% of likely voters remain undecided about whom they will vote for President. The majority of these undecided voters say the Presidential candidates’ positions on global warming will be one of several important factors determining how they cast their vote.

The survey found that Undecideds are much more similar to likely Obama voters than likely Romney voters across a range of climate change and energy-related beliefs, attitudes, and policy preferences.

JC comments:  On the PBS post, it seemed like the substance of public scientific debate over climate change (as represented by Muller vs Watts) didn’t seem to be so far apart, despite the polarized reaction by the various ‘tribes.’  Now it also seems that U.S. policy divisions between the Republicans and Democrats don’t seem so large.  Democrats have abandoned carbon cap and trade,  and recognize the need for cheap abundant energy, preferably produced in the U.S.  And it seems that other countries who have been more supportive of the Kyoto Protocol, are beginning to come around to the U.S. position.  Am I reading this correctly?  Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?

562 responses to “U.S. climate change policy news

  1. Someone should tell NPR that the tide is shifting. “On Point” today was way off center on Arctic melt. I listened to David Robinson (Rutgers) for about 10 minutes. It wasn’t so much Robinson’s position that rattled my cage (resulting eventually in jamming my finger through the dash board radio button). Rather, it was that he kept insisting that as a scientist he was inherently skeptical and that it was the data that convinced him…except…that he didn’t want to be TOO convinced because the data wasn’t really conclusive…or maybe all that persuasive…and we really can’t say for sure how much is due to AGW…but the data is really super convincing. It was a clear textbook example of wanting to have something both ways. That is, he wanted to be “scientific” and he really wanted to bang the warming gong at the same time. It was painful to listen to and an epic fail.

    • His waffling may be a sign of the shift. Ambiguity is the point of the debate. The climate war has not fizzled, rather it has surfaced.

    • Ambiguity is the first step in retreat from the certainty of AGW dogma.

      Today’s world news shows the dominate concern of world leaders is the same concern that convinced them to abandon national boundaries and constitutions to establish the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945: Fear of energy (E) stored as mass (m) in cores of atoms (and stars)

      http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-09/27/c_131876379.htm

      The USSR hid information about Japan’s “genzai bakuden** (Atomic bomb) facility in Konan, N. Korea so guilt-ridden Allied scientists [1] and leaders would support forming the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 over the 1776 US Declaration of Independence, the 1788 US Constitution and the 1791* US Bill of Rights

      **http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf
      * http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html

      The whole story: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

      [1] Robert Jungk, Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists, Translated by James Cleugh (A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc., 21 Oct 1970) 369 pages [Originally published as Heller als Tausend Sonnen by Alfred Scherz Verlag, Bern]

    • As AGW promoters lose the global climate debate in public, they are working to give the UN control of the internet !:

      http://www.chooseliberty.org/Internet_manifesto_sign.aspx?pid=0926a

    • Pissant Progressive

      without meaning to send any ill wishes David Robinson’s way – no idea who he is – that comment gets a +1 for “funny/all too real”.

    • Are the ‘sands shifting’, or is it more a case that the ‘ice is melting’? “Are the climate wars fizzling”? Maybe like with the Cold War it’s more that it’s thawing?

      The Arctic ice has reached an all time recorded low, and world temperatures on a decadal scale are at an all time recorded high and yet the climate/sceptic deniers on this blog, and probably everywhere else too, have somehow convinced themselves that the worlds climate scientist’s and those who argue that climate action is just as important as it ever was are, as LA put it, like “Hitler in the Fuehrerbuker (sic) ”

      Danth’s Law says “If you have to insist that you’ve won an Internet argument, you’ve lost it badly.”

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth's_Law

    • Your Danth quote seems wildly misdirected given that the CAGW proponents like you argue not merely that you have won the argument but that there is no argument (that there is an argument being the skeptics’ basic position).

      For example the counter arguments to the simple ice and temperature arguments that you mention are well known and have appeared here at length many times. Yet you assert these simple arguments as though they were not debatable.

      Thus I propose this version of the Danth law: Anyone who denies the existence of an Internet argument when it is everywhere to be seen is losing that argument.

    • +1 & LOL

    • The Arctic ice has reached an all time recorded low, and world temperatures on a decadal scale are at an all time recorded high and yet the climate/sceptic deniers on this blog, and probably everywhere else too, have somehow convinced themselves that the worlds climate scientist’s and those who argue that climate action is just as important as it ever was are, as LA put it, like “Hitler in the Fuehrerbuker (sic) ”

      Except of course that the Arctic isn’t at an all time record low, and the decadal temperatures aren’t at an all time record high. Apart from that your polemic is impeccable.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Non-warming for decade or three more is certainly in the literature. As is decadal variability in Arctic temps. The problem is in not asking the difficult questions about climate. Most of the ice melt was natural. Most of the recent warming seems natural if we can believe the satellite records – and there seems little reason to regard the latest editions as at least credible. CERES goes beyond credible and shows the dominance of cloud radiative forcing in the last decade.

      If the data said something else I would say so – so would the IPCC and we would certainly see a great deal made of it.

      The new climate paradigm of abrupt climate change still has a way to go – although the idea of dynamical complexity in climate is compelling and there is considerable modern and paleoclimatic evidence. This is a widely accepted climate pardigm. Cutting edge work in climate studies is going down this avenue of investigation.

      ‘Ongoing research suggests mutual interaction between shorter-term variability and the stadium wave, with indication of ensuing modifications of multidecadal variability within the Atlantic sector. Results presented here support the hypothesis that AMO plays a significant role in hemispheric and, by inference, global climate variability, with implications for climate-change attribution and prediction.’ (“Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation And Northern Hemisphere’s Climate Variability” By Marcia Glaze Wyatt, Sergey Kravtsov, And Anastasios A. Tsonis) This is again a highly significant paper exploring dynamical complexity in Earth’s climate system. It is discussed here – http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/

      It seems not so much uncertainty as a certainty that much else is happening to drive climate. But we get only simple memes repeated ad nauseum – of something learned by rote and not – as Latif says – subject to hard questioning. It is redolent of groupthink – but this is a relatively small cohort of AGW space cadets although evangelically active and somewhat influential. The essential plausibility problem arises from non warming – much as they need to spin the data – and that seems not likely to go away any time soon.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      damn the lack of preview – …and there seems little reason not to regard the latest editions as at least credible…

    • Chief Hydrologist

      PS – your presentaion is total BS

    • As Muller says, depending upon aerosols, the attribution of recent warming may exceed 100%. And it likely does. Despite saying that something in the 20th Century was all natural, I suspect Tsonis thinks most of the warming in the 20th Century was anthropogenic.

      Despite a whole host of natural factors acting against it, the earth continues to gain energy.

      With the 20th Century as the prologue (1944 to 1980), the source of the decade or three or more, appears to be nothing more than a glance at a graph.

      And when natural factors begin pushing the temperature up, as they will inevitably do, warming will advance with its booster. Only this time it won’t be from a depressed launch pad, it will be from an elevated launch pad. Kiss .1C pd bye bye.

      Mid-century cooling, initiated by peak year 1944. Not exceeded until 1980. Pronounced downward trend for first 14 years.

      Early 21st Century “cooling”, initiated by peak year 1998. On the Dec through Nov timeframe, exceed 3 times in the first 14 years of “cooling”. Pronounced upward trend for first 14 years.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The periodicity is based on long term proxy data. These decadal variations have persisted for 30 to 40 years that we know of.

      Tsonis was talking about the transitions from cooling to warming and back again was natural – not that all the warming was natural. The usual stoty is that these variations mask and add to AGW. It is not really that simple.

      As well – as I say – the satellite records show all warming in the short wave. We shall see.

      It is not sonething that is amenable to a simple narrative or a wood for trees analysis. To try to do so is to explain away anomalies rather than ask the difficult questions.

    • Yes, finally, Tsonis was talking about the change in direction, not the warming. Took months.

      He says the climate could shift back to a warming regime at any time.

      Major differences between post 1998 and post 1944 include the levels of GHG, significantly warmer oceans, and changes in albedo.

      I agree that WFT is insufficient, but my presentation is accurate. I could have added all the natural phenomena that are currently aligned against continued warming, but so far failing to stop it.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Huh? What took months? You obviously mischaracterise the quote which I correct you on – and then you claim I have misunderstood it for months? This is descending into bizarre warminista behaviour. What you claimed is all the warming is anthropogenic – it is by no means the case.

      Could it change back at any time? Well that is the nature of a deterministically chaotic beast. Should unpredictable chaotic bifurcation be surprising? Why should it change to warming again necessarily?

      ‘The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

      You should ask the hard questions.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Wrong thread – time to give up.

      PS – your presentation is total BS

  2. The AGW dogma “has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Earth’s climate and absolutely everything to do with establishing a one-world form of the tyrannical government that George Orwell [1] described in 1948:

    http://www.george-orwell.org/1984

    The rest of the story: ress.com/about/#comment-1127

    1. George Owrell (Eric Arthur Blair), Nineteen Eighty-Four (“1984″) (Secker and Warburg, London, 8 June 1949): http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four-Centennial-Edition-George/dp/0452284236

    • Oliver, I generally ignore posts like these, but it is topical for me at the moment so I will comment.

      From your perspective in the US the debate may seem like the way you have characterised it, and it is even understandable, but from my perspective in Europe, it’s utter garbage. In fact framing the debate this way is precisely how you end up with this ridiculous and embarrassingly juvenile debate.

      The basic tenets for AGW are sound, and even most skeptics do not disagree with them. It turns out as we all now know that reality is different, and the initial concern misplaced, but it was never entirely unjustified. Humans have never been greater number of have a greater impact on the world they live in and it’s part of the growing pains of a modern society that we recognise that what we do could potentially be harmful.

      By framing the debate as a childish “liberals are trying to take over the world” you do much to entrench the tribalism that is the cause of so much stupidity, and it undermines the credibility of rational objections to the science and policy surrounding AGW. I have no doubt you think of yourself as rational, well so do those who agree with AGW, and many of them will be simply worried that human society does not inflict permanent injury on our environment. Telling them that they are just ‘trying to take over the world’ with their nefarious climate madness is not a recipe for engaging in reasoned debate.

    • “The basic tenets for AGW are sound, and even most skeptics do not disagree with them. It turns out as we all now know that reality is different, and the initial concern misplaced, but it was never entirely unjustified. Humans have never been greater number of have a greater impact on the world they live in and it’s part of the growing pains of a modern society that we recognise that what we do could potentially be harmful.”
      It is possible we more than “mostly harmless”.
      But we could also potentially be of much benefit.
      And be under populated.

      “By framing the debate as a childish “liberals are trying to take over the world” you do much to entrench the tribalism that is the cause of so much stupidity, and it undermines the credibility of rational objections to the science and policy surrounding AGW. ”
      Liberal may not interested in taking over the world, but totalitarians by their nature are trying to take over the world. And some liberals are totalitarians.
      But rather than liberal a better term for large percent of totalitarians are Lefties.All modern totalitarians are lefties [or claiming to be lefties]. Modern starting with the French. Though the Japanese weren’t lefties, but they were allies of Germany which was intending to conquer the world with Japanese having a place as allies with a having their sphere influence. But Japanese as with Italy and the middle eastern countries were probably temporary in the grand scheme of things as was Germany’s very more fleeting truce with Russia.
      One can have country which totalitarian with no real capability controlling the world, such as Cuba or N Korean, but they want it.

    • Oh, forgot about Iran- obviously they want to control the world. The communist were part of overthrown, but that small group more or less got wipeout- so it’s theological totalitarian regime. Not conservative in sense of American conservative- but one call them right wingers.

    • I agree, gbaikie, AGW dogma is not a “right-wing” vs “left-wing” issue.

      The AGW dogma “has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Earth’s climate and absolutely everything to do with establishing a one-world form of the tyrannical government” George Orwell described in 1948:

      http://www.george-orwell.org/1984

      The story: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

    • Thank you, Agnostic, for your comment.

      I personally endorse concerns about AGW and regret that this has turned into a debate about “liberals are trying to take over the world.”

      I was a left wing liberal most of my life. I am an environmentalist by nature, because I recognize the importance of protecting our bountiful surroundings from selfish abuse.

      I also recognize many benefits to society from the decision to form the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945.

      That is why I was so slow to connect these dots (*)

      * Energy (E) from U atoms destroys Hiroshima 19450806

      * USSR declared war on Japan 19450808

      * Russian troops invade Manchuria 19450809

      * Energy (E) from Pu atoms destroys Nagasaki 19450809

      * Japan’s “genzai bakuden” in Konan, N. Korea matches brilliance of the rising Sun 19450812 http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf

      * Russian troops occupy Japan’s Konan facility 194508??

      * Japan’s Emperor announces surrender to Allies 19450815

      * Allied occupation of Japan begins 19450828

      * Russians down US B-29 near Konan, N. Korea 19450829 http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf

      * Japan formally surrenders to Allied Forces 19450902

      * The United Nations is formed on 24 Oct 1945 with guilt-ridden Allied leaders and scientists [1] unaware of Japan’s “genzai bakuden” (Atomic bomb) facility in Konan, N. Korea.

      The whole story: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

      I regret that I was unable to connect these dots (*) earlier.

      Reference:

      1. Robert Jungk, Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists, Translated by James Cleugh (A Harvest Book, Harcourt Inc., 21 Oct 1970) 369 pages [Originally published as Heller als Tausend Sonnen by Alfred Scherz Verlag, Bern]

    • Agnostic,

      It turns out as we all now know that reality is different, and the initial concern misplaced

      Sorry, but you don’t know this. You may suspect it, you may sincerely believe it to be true, but you can’t possibly know it for sure.

    • andrew adams, we know for sure leaders of the scientific community tried to justify or ignore clear evidence of deceit recorded in

      A. Climategate documents in late Nov 2009

      _ http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

      B. A CSPAN news film [1] in January 1998

      C. Eisenhower warned [2] of January 1961

      1. NASA Administrator confirms deceit (January 1998)

      _ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco

      2. President Eisenhower’s deceit warning (January 1961)

      _ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOLld5PR4ts

    • Yes that is true Andrew. I don’t “know” for sure, and over confident statements like the on I made are one of the reasons the debate looks like it does. From the point of view of policy though I would have thought that we know enough to know that we don’t know enough to be doing what we are doing, if you see what I mean.

      The broad thrust of my post is just to object to characterising the debate as an attempt to establish a “world government” by alarmists. Even if it were true, and I really don’t think it is, I think many warmist/alarmists are motivated by genuine concern rather than an attempt to create an Orwellian society. That the concern then morphs into fear and panic is lamentable, and the term and psychological condition “apocoholism” is very apt.

    • Agnostic is correct: “. . . many warmist/alarmists are motivated by genuine concern rather than an attempt to create an Orwellian society.”

      In fact, few, if any, warmist/alarmists wanted to create an Orwellian society.

      However, that is exactly what happened.

      World leaders and leaders of the scientific community remind us of our Orwellian society every time they again try to ignore or to justify:

      1. Cold hard facts about the future of our economy
      _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GAO_Slide.png

      2. Unemployment from moving industries overseas
      _ http://tinyurl.com/8dqw3jw (See page 2)

      3. Deceptive government global temperature data
      _ http://tinyurl.com/yj5zuu3

      4. Precise experimental data that falsify AGW models
      _ http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn

      5. Our vanishing constitutional limits on government
      _ http://tinyurl.com/8llklxa

    • agnostic,

      OK fair enough. I don’t agree that we don’t know enough to warrant taking action but I understand the point you are making.

      To be perfectly honest as someone unashamedly on the liberal left myself I don’t see any possible political motivation for my calling for action on AGW, I just don’t see what those of my political persuasion would have to gain.

    • randomengineer

      Agnostic — what you and the rest of those outside the US fail to understand is the nature of Republics. The USA isn’t a democracy. While it’s fashionable for you who live in parliamentary democracies to refer to yourselves as “citizens,” you are nothing of the sort. You are subjects. You have been subjects one way or another since the heyday of Rome. You even *think* like subjects. The USA was founded by those who dared to think differently. In the USA there is a viable and strong argument — among CITIZENS, not subjects — regarding the proper role of government. This has been a fundamental part of US politics since the beginning. The US right wing (currently the republicans) always seeks to limit the scope and power of the government, preferring to let citizens figure things out for themselves. The US left wing (currently the democrats) seeks to expand the role of government in the name of protection of the citizens.

      This is the framing of the argument. What is called the “denier” crowd tends to be wary and dubious of any subject that can be used as an excuse for increasing the power of the government over the CITIZEN. I reckon I’m typical of what some call “denier”– I accept the basic physics and such re the Tyndall Gas Effect but am solidly against handing the government arbitrary power in the name of combating a gas without 100% proof that failure to do so results in doom. Mights and Maybes seem to be good enough for democracies to propagandise and lord over their subjects, but in a republic? Not good enough. Not happening.

      In short, the only thing juvenile here is your grasp of how a republic works.

    • Randomengineer,

      How the US was founded and what actually manifests itself in terms what you consider to be how it is governed seem to be 2 very different things from an outsiders perspective. I do know how a republic works but more specifically I also know how democracies of different flavours work, because in Europe they take many forms.

      For example, Switzerland has the highest representation of its electorate in the world. They have on average around 4 referenda per year. But many laws there, voted for by the population, would strike you (i would wager) as over-bearing and curtailing of personal liberty. Yet when they talk about the government, they use the word “we”, rather than “they”. Theirs is the language of inclusion and participation, not suspicion and mistrust. While you may celebrate a democracy in which you think enjoy the trappings of freedom, it is far from it compared to other models I can think of.

      Framing the debate as an attempt to gain control over its citizens strikes me as just as paranoid as alarmists predicting the end of the world because things have gotten a bit warmer. If you by-pass the nutters who wail unceasingly about CAGW and ask those whose concerns are more moderate, I guarantee that the motivation for their concern will be based on sincere desire not to do harm – an unselfish motivation. I do believe though, that following foolishly the mitigation-based policy, and allowing fear to cloud their judgement, they risk doing more harm than good – for example, tackling poverty in third world countries.

      More good would come of building a coal-fired power station in the third world, than using the same money to subsidised wind turbines.

      I’d suggest taking more care before accusing me of a ‘juvenile’ understanding of republics. My understanding or lack of it is irrelevant from the broader point I was making, and the characterisation could easily be made of you, from the comment you posted.

    • randomengineer

      Agnostic

      In the USA the purpose of the 2nd amendment of the founding document was to insure that citizens were armed for the sole purpose of defending themselves against the government. The antagonistic and suspicious nature is by design. Clearly you have no understanding of this.

    • Scott Basinger

      I think there needs to be a Godwin Law corollary for those who would abuse Orwell’s 1984 with ill-thought comparisons.

    • Orwell wrote Animal Farm describing the history of the rise of communism under Stalin – before the Second World War.

      After the Second World War, Orwell wrote “1984″ in 1948 predicting the future rise of a totalitarian government that would manipulate information and control people by electronic monitoring.

      Between the time Orwell wrote these two books,

      a.) Energy (E) released from cores of uranium atoms on 6 Aug 1945 and plutonium atoms on 9 Aug 1945 destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, and

      b.) Hideki Yukawa and Fred Hoyle published misleading information on energy (E) stored in cores of atoms [1] and stars [2] in 1946-1948.

      References:

      [1] Hideki Yukawa, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (1946); Introduction to the Theory of Elementary Particles (1948) http://www.nndb.com/people/759/000099462

      [2] Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-259 (1946); “The synthesis of elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-383 (1946).

      With kind regards,
      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA Principal
      Investigator for Apollo
      http://www.omatumr.com

    • Oliver K Manuel,
      Just on a point of information: Animal Farm was written in 1943 – 1944 and published in 1945. Which wasn’t pre-WW2 according to my history book.
      Have you actually read it? If so, you should have seen the parallel between the Battle of the Windmill and the German invasion of Russia in 1941.

    • Scott,

      Yes there should! Maybe Basinger’s Law if you’d like to come up with a formal wording. Maybe you could include both 1984 and Animal Farm.

      These two novels are oft quoted by the political Right especially in the USA. The irony of all this is that Orwell described himself as a Democratic Socialist and so would be regarded by those who quote him most as little different from a Communist anyway.

      I would suggest a suitable sentence for those breaking Basinger’s Law would be incarceration for just as long as it took them to read his other novels which would have to include Homage to Catalonia. Anyone reading Orwell’s two most famous novels, without reading his account of how in fought in the Spanish Civil War for the Trotskyist POUM ( Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista) won’t really understand the point of them anyway.

    • I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make Temptrain, but Orwell was totally disillusioned by what he saw the in the Spanish Civil War, he’d assumed that taking the side of the POUM he was taking the side of the “good guys”, what he saw disillusioned him completely, because the POUM didn’t behave like the “good guys”, so, wounded, he went back to Blighty with a new view of communism, which never left him. Hence both Animal Farm ( a splendidly short book for those who’ve never read it) and 1984 were critiques of what could happen if you let “fanatics” aka nowadays, “Environmentalists”, get control of the political process. This didn’t effect his socialism because, at that period of history there were many injustices and biases against the working people of every country in the world, and like Orwell I was a socialist until I decided that the injustices we were fighting against had largely been removed and the socialist movement was largely tyrranical anyway. The hard core of socialists were always after control of people, like the hard core of the opposite persuasion. They failed as capitalism adjusted itself to a more socially responsible position. Orwell today would recognise in the green movement exactly those personalities who wanted control people’s lives as he recognised in the socialist movement and would, like the left wing libertarian he was, have abhorred them in equal measure to the way he came to abhor left wing extremists.

  3. The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates)

    JC asks: “Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?”

    ___
    Interesting way of putting an interesting question. Exactly which “reality” is setting in? Political reality? Climate reality? The reality of the perceived uncertainty of it all? 10+ years of relatively flat tropospheric temperatures have certainly taken a certain edge off of an obvious urgency in some quarters. I remain quite skeptical that this issue is fizzling out– rather, ‘natural variability’ has its ups and downs in the poltical cimate as well, but I suspect this isn’t a topic that will allow us to dismiss it for long.

  4. Joseph O'Sullivan

    I think the climate wars are in a state of detente. A lot will depend on the results of the elections.

    A shift to a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency will probably mean an evisceration of environmental protection. Climate change action in particular will be DOA.

    Status quo, a Democratic President and a split Congress, will probably mean more climate action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and state programs, like California’s and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. I don’t think the Republicans will be able to revise the CAA, and enviro’s lawsuits under the CAA will force the president’s hand.

    If the Republican’s win the Presidency and if the Democrats retain control of the Senate, I am not sure what would happen. Enviro’s might not have the CAA to sue under, but that would require a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

    • “A shift to a Republican controlled Congress and Presidency will probably mean an evisceration of environmental protection. Climate change action in particular will be DOA.”

      It was dead on arrival when Obama had both houses.

      “Status quo, a Democratic President and a split Congress, will probably mean more climate action under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and state programs, like California’s and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. I don’t think the Republicans will be able to revise the CAA, and enviro’s lawsuits under the CAA will force the president’s hand.”

      Status quo is Dems continue to lose seats. Obama is killing the Dems, that why I like him so much. If Obama is re-elected, he will continue to his laws through executive mandate.
      EPA might tried for war crimes:
      “Blockbuster: EPA sued in federal court for conducting illegal human experiments”
      http://junkscience.com/
      And we have “Fast and Furious” to persecute and Obama administration in general has been the most corrupt, evar!
      This is what happens when you elect someone who has zero
      executive experience.
      So expect many hearings, and loads of dirty laundry.
      Plus Iran will probably have nuclear bomb test.
      So at minimum will will have a lame duck president- which really is no change from the leader who leads from behind. And on extreme side, well just loads of fun- interesting times.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      Status quo means
      Why EPA Regulating Greenhouse Gases Is Absurd…And Why It Doesn’t Matter
      http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2012/06/why-epa-regulating-greenhouse-gases-is-absurd-and-why-it-doesnt-matter/

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      John Nielsen-Gammon notes that the EPA will continue to formulate Climate Change. If the status quo in the US political leadership continues, the EPA will have to continue with it’s legally mandated actions.

    • “Most corrupt evar” written by someone who is oviously among the most ignorant ever! Time out from comments on climate. You’ve got some history reading to do!

    • ” “Most corrupt evar” written by someone who is oviously among the most ignorant ever! Time out from comments on climate. ”

      In your opinion when was there more corrupt US federal government?

    • David L. Hagen

      Joseph
      Re: “evisceration of environmental protection.”
      Current EPA policy is to prohibit efficient coal fired plants in the US using our most abundant cheapest fuel. Higher costs will eviscerate US industry and jobs. That forces manufacturing overseas to us more inefficient coal fired electricity with much lower environmental controls and thus greater NOx, SOx mercury and particulate emissions – which ends up as the “Asian brown cloud” causing greater impact to global warming.”dark aerosol emissions from China alone doubled between 2000 and 2006. ”
      That will increase US unemployment with negligible reduction in global temperature from US emissions, and increased global temperature from international emissions.
      Nothing like shooting yourself in the foot and claiming it feels good.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      “Higher costs will eviscerate US industry and jobs. That forces manufacturing overseas to us more inefficient coal fired electricity with much lower environmental controls”

      Historically the opponents of environmental regulation have overestimated the costs of environmental protection. Do you have a source for this claim?

    • See EPA’s cost of emission reduction estimates. How Much Would You Buy Willis Eschenbach
      On energy (in)efficiency see:

      China’s Energy and Carbon Emissions Outlook to 2050
      Zhou et al., 2011 LBNL-4472E

      China also announced a commitment to reduce its carbon intensity by 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020 in late 2009. In 2011, China announced dual goals of reduction of energy intensity by 16% and carbon intensity by 17% during the 12th Five Year Plan period (2011-2015).

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      David L Hagen, Willis Eschenbach’s extrapolation assumes the costs are going to be the same every year and cites Senator Inhofe’s paper. I find the extrapolation to be too simplified because as regulated groups adapt to regulations they find ways to meet the legal requirements at lower costs. Senator Inhofe has a record of playing to the crowd and not making reasoned and accurate claims. His report is more of this same behavior from his camp.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      From the National Academies of Science on the CAA:

      “Economic assessments of the overall costs and benefits of AQM in the United States indicate, despite uncertainties, that implementation of the CAA has had and will probably continue to have substantial net economic benefits.”

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10728&page=5

    • I strongly encourage you to first carefully study the very large differences between improving air quality and controlling climate via reducing fossil fuel consumption. They are orders of magnitude different. Reducing SOx, NOx and particulates was relatively easy. By contrast, controlling climate via mitigation of fossil fuels will be astronomically expensive and very very difficult. See:
      The Close Tie Between Energy Consumption, Employment, and Recession

      A Strange Relationship – A Close Tie Between the Amount of Energy Consumed and the Number of People Employed
      Since 1982, the number of people employed in the United States has tended to move in a similar pattern to the amount of energy consumed. When one increases (or decreases), the other tends to increase (or decrease). In numerical terms, R2 = .98.

      Especially See Graph: US Number Employed vs Energy Consumption
      Furthermore, how do you propose filling the gap of shortages in transport fuel as global crude oil begins to decline and alternatives are unable to come on stream fast enough?

    • Joseph, the NAS has a bald para on economic assessments, with no data, references or discussion. A recent thread on costs http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/ gave a great deal of contrary evidence and argument. Do the NAS back up their statement? If not, don’t take it as gospel.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      David L Hagen,
      “I strongly encourage you to first carefully study the very large differences between improving air quality and controlling climate via reducing fossil fuel consumption”
      I agree controlling greenhouse gases is different and will be harder than more conventional pollutants. My main point in citing the National Academies of Science (NAS) study was to show how an example of claims of economic harm caused by regulations was not true.
      The web pages you cited on the relationship between energy and the economy are interesting and show a high correlation but tend to gloss over causation.

      Faustino,
      I quoted the executive summary. The NAS study and the sources it cites go more into detail over the costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act. The study was not about regulating greenhouse gases.

    • Let’s not beat around the bush. CO2 sequestration requirement for new coal plants is going to redefine the phrase “chilling effect”. There’s no economical means of doing so right now and none on the horizon. Basically it amounts to a stop order on construction of new coal fired plants.

    • The worst part of this insanity is that it results in even more pollutants in a well mixed atmosphere. Many industrial processes use a lot of electricity and it’s a substantial cost item in the bill of goods for whatever they sell. If what they sell can be built overseas and shipped here for less then the manufacturing will migrate there. Goodbye fairly clean, efficient US coal fired electricity and hello dirty Chinese coal plant. This doesn’t even consider lost jobs and trade imbalance as part of the downside just so-called CO2 “pollution” getting worse by being exported. It’s already difficult enough for US industry to compete with Chinese due to cheap labor. Giving them another leg up with cheap electricity, yeah, smooth move there Ex-Lax. Incredible.

    • Are they going to fix Yuk-yuk Mtn. first? That was a sure thing too. Promises…for a price.

    • For the upcoming debates, it will be helpful to have the:
      Presidential Debate: Climate Change Cheat Sheet
      by Chip Knappenberger October 1, 2012

      Climate During the Obama Administration

      • Over the course of the Obama presidency the rate of global warming has declined.

      • Over the course of the Obama presidency the rise of the global sea level has slowed.

      • Over the course of the Obama presidency the emissions of greenhouse gases from the U.S. have declined.

      None of the above are a result of Obama Administration policies. . . .

      • Emissions growth from China alone would replace the emissions saved by an 80% reduction in the U.S. emissions in less than 10 years’ time—and thus completely wiping out our entire contribution to mitigating climate change.

      etc.

    • Until we can get some sensible people in office from both parties, the status quo is the most likely and best outcome of the election: Obama remains, Repubs gain seats in house and senate, but not 60 in senate – perhaps enough to check Obama on some issues, but not a veto-proof majority.

      Better to do nothing than to do something stupid.

      What happened to the political center?

    • “Until we can get some sensible people in office from both parties, the status quo is the most likely and best outcome of the election: Obama remains, Repubs gain seats in house and senate, but not 60 in senate – perhaps enough to check Obama on some issues, but not a veto-proof majority.”

      It shall be determined in just over a month.
      It’s still too far away in political time to make any guesses- but if the President is highly confident, he is probably taking drugs.

      I don’t think expecting sensible people is very reasonable.
      But I suppose would need to know what you mean by sensible politicians.

      So what past politician has been the most sensible?
      And which has been the most sensible vs who has been the least sensible.
      Now, I would think what is most needed is sensible press. It’s challenging concept, perhaps we have never had it before, but I think it would be a very good thing.

    • David L. Hagen

      Other bills in the House also seek to rein in the EPA. e.g.,
      War on Coal: A House Bill to Stop the Regulatory Assault

      H.R. 3409 would also repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and prevent the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

  5. From reading @ the Bish’s I get the impression the British are glacially coming to their senses about windmills and shale gas. I also don’t think Australian Cap & Trade will survive the next election. The Chinese have turned skeptical, over a billion strong.
    =================

  6. The Germans and the Spanish regret their solar panels, and the Germans are building new brown coal plants. The Japanese are going with nukes after all. There was a very interesting skeptical comment from the Chinese about natural climate processes at a recent meeting of the BRICs.
    ===================

  7. Oh, US climate change policy. Well, heck. I give the pollsters a D+.
    =====================

  8. From PATRICK J. MICHAELS’ Testimony before Congress in 2010:

    The Finding of Endangerment from greenhouse gases by the Environmental Protection Agency is based upon a very dubious and critical assumption

    The reluctance of the Senate to mandate significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions has resulted in EPA taking the lead in this activity. Consequently it issued an ―endangerment finding on December 7, 2009. The key statement in this Finding is adapted from the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC and from the CCSP:

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations.

    Here the EPA gives us a very testable hypothesis. ―Most means more than 50%. ―Very likely, according to the IPCC and CCSP, means with a subjective probability of between 90 and 95 %. ―Since the mid-20th century means after 1950. So, is more than half of the warming since 1950 a result of ―the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations?

    • Since 1950 we have had 28 years of slight cooling, 1950- 1978, and 15 years of flat-lining, 1998- 2013 caused by, I guess, those pesky greenhouse gasses. Or was it aerosols or was it the sun (spot on, some say) or maybe the milankovitch itch? It’s very likely that I’m 90-85% certain it was something.

    • It is more likely than not you are absolutely correct that being right on is less than a statistical certainty. Cheers.

  9. So, did the EPA get it right (see above)?

    ANSWER KEY:

    What happened after making vqrious adjustments based on findings of the peer reviewed literature? The non-GHG factors explained 56%—i.e., GHG could not have been more than 0.31°C of the beginning 0.70° and this was without any consideration of solar variability whatsoever.

    Consequently EPA‘s core statement (as well as that of the IPCC and the CCSP), ―Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations, is not supported. ~Patrick Michaels

  10. A. It’s going to take political leadership, global leadership, and statesmanship. They have to find a way to get the Chinese to come to the table with leadership. I mean, United States and China represent more almost 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

    I’d argue John Kerry is advocating for a wrong and impracticable policy. The Chinese are taking the correct approach for their citizens. The US can lead the way for the whole world. It can remove the impediments to low cost nuclear power. These impediments were mainly imposed in USA. The US has the capacity to lead the way in removing them. It’s citizens can solve the issue of how to cut global CO2 emisions in an economically rational way. USA can do this by removing the impediments that are preventing development of low cost, small, modular, factory built and refuelled, nuclear power plants.

    Virginia class submarines have fuel load for their life (33 years). They never need refuelling and cannot be refuelled. The US citizens could allow, no demand, that USA develops low cost nuclear power that is suitable for all countries.

    Don’t blame China or anyone else for wanting economic development. The US can lead the way.

    • Peter Lang,

      So you are saying that there is no need for political leadership? And that its all down to “US citizens [who]could allow, no demand, that USA develops low cost nuclear power that is suitable for all countries.” ?

      Should this “hands off” approach apply to all aspects of government policy or just on climate change? For example, if some foreign government posed some major military threat, there’d be no need for political leadership, but no doubt the citizens would club together and demand that more aircraft carriers etc be built. Maybe?

      I’m not totally convinced on the sincerity of this argument. Could it be that you don’t want any action at all on the climate? But then, if there isn’t, people on the political right will get all the blame, and you don’t want that. So you’d like to be able to say its all the fault of those lefties for opposing nuclear power?

      You probably think I’m such a cynic, Pete. Its no wonder you won’t have that drink with me when I’m down in Canberra next.

    • “You probably think I’m such a cynic”

      Nope. Just an arm-waving lefty who belongs in Canberra

      The point is SMALLER Govt, not no Govt. Stop misrepresenting other points of view (fat chance)

      In earlier threads, Peter Lang described in detail, with actual numbers, the real problems with “renewabubbles” purporting to provide base load. You were nowhere to be seen then; arm waving had no honest place

      Why do you think straw men have a place now ?

    • ianl8888

      I think you must be confusing me with someone else, I haven’t commented on how big government should be so can’t have misrepresented anyone.

      I would agree with Peter Lang on the question of renewables and base load.

      So its not really a question of straw men – more a question of non existent men.

      On base load I can’t see any alternative to nuclear power. It would be good if Peter Lang would actually work with others of perhaps different political opinions to himself in arguing for that, but he’s such a bigot, with an extreme prejudice against anyone who he thinks may be in the slightest way ‘progresive’, and I would say that’s quite unlikely.

  11. Unemployment and the economy are overriding climate alarmism
    It appears that pragmatic politics and jobs are carrying the day despite early EU dogmatism.
    Airline carbon tax talks with EU stall Updated: 2012-07-23 10:54

    Over 30 countries, including China, India, Russia and the United States, oppose the tax and have expressed a desire for any resolution to be part of a global emissions framework under the International Civil Aviation Organization. . . .
    The EU has offered a system of equivalent measures, Ederer said. This means that if a country takes measures to reduce aviation emissions, the EU will exempt them from the carbon tax. But the exact amounts of emission reduction and tax exemption have yet to be defined.

    The Civil Aviation Administration of China said in February that airlines should not pay the EU charge. Eight Chinese, and two Indian airlines, have yet to submit emission data to the EU.
    Companies that do not comply face fines and ultimately could be banned from using EU airports.

    India joins U.S. in opposing E.U. emission plan

    India has joined the U.S. and 15 other major countries in opposing European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which requires carriers flying to or from Europe to offset their carbon emissions.

    Europe considers suspending airline emissions charge

    Officials stress the need to avert a trade war with major economic powers such as China and the United States” . . .
    European officials signaled on Tuesday that they may recommend the suspension of the continent’s carbon emission fees for airlines to avert a trade war with major economic powers such as China and the United States, allowing time to forge a global agreement on climate charges for the aviation industry.
    China and India have prohibited their airlines from participating in the European trading system (ETS) because it will require airlines that fly to and from Europe to buy permits for all the carbon they emit en route, a measure they say infringes on their sovereignty. Beijing has also blocked purchases of European aircraft by its carriers – prompting alarm from Europe’s aircraft maker Airbus, which sees China as its fastest-growing market.

    • David Springer

      David L. Hagen | September 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Reply

      “Unemployment and the economy are overriding climate alarmism”

      Fiscal, political, and practical reality.

      Can’t afford mitigation – fiscal
      Can’t get international cooperation – political
      Can’t lower greenhouse gases enough to matter – practical

      Wait and see is all that will happen. Meanwhile search for energy source cheaper than existing ones will continue just because that’s the way we roll.

    • I agree with all that. That is what will happen and should happen, IMO.

    • Obama and the Democrat’s desire to get re-elected have changed their tune temporarily, but I don’t trust them to sing the cheap energy song once they are back in power. Just look at what they promised the last time vs what they delivered. They are not to be trusted.

    • jim2
      Despite what he claims, Obama’s current policies have strongly reduced drilling on federal lands. The increase in US oil production is due to technology change applied to private lands. His cancelling the Keystone XL pipeline is forcing US refineries to buy more oil from Chavez and the Middle East while forcing our Canadian friends to ship their oils sands to China. As US taxpayers end up paying more and going deeper into debt with higher unemployment.

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      Wouldn’t Obama, by forcing longer shipment routes, actually increase the amount of greenhouse gases emitted? The more fuel burnt on shipping, the more fuel is “wasted.”

      If so, one could argue by not supporting the Keystone pipeline, Obama is responsible for weakening efforts to combat global warming.

    • Brandon – that would imply Obama and the Democrats are rational – they aren’t.

    • LOL–they are rational enough to get re-elected though aren’t they

    • Rob – that isn’t due to the rationality of the Dems – it’s the stupidity of the idiots that vote for them!

  12. Liquefied natural gas is about 60% the energy density of gasoline, so using it for transport without large scale design changes to trucks/cars is entirely possible.
    If the US can frack enough natural gas to power its road transport for 50+ years it pretty much changes everything; government revenues, the trade balance, the strength of OPEC and Russia, and lots of things we cannot guess.
    Politicians on both sides can now see this and know cheap energy is a vote winner.

    • LNG cannot be used for transport at all, because it has to be kept extremely cold. This is achieved in LNG tanker ships by continuously evaporating some of the natural gas, as well as keeping it in extremely well insulated tanks.

      Compressed natural gas (CNG), on the other hand, is already widely used for transport. Lots of trucks and buses in the US are being converted. Its use for cars is restricted by the small number of service outlets at present (I think an average of about eight per state available to the public). But Honda have a CNG version of the Civic available for sale.

    • LNG has a much higher energy density then CNG, meaning that your 18-wheelers can go longer between refueling stops.
      All the problems associated with LNG has been pretty much solved and the only thing that is holding things back is the investment needed in the gas-station infrastructure.
      An LNG tank is just over twice the volume of a gasoline tank, for the same trucking distance.
      Here is a UPS LNG Truck being refueled

      http://blogs.courier-journal.com/watchdogearth/files/2011/02/UPS_LNG_refuel_preview.jpg

      Look at the pictures of the fleet that has been developed

      https://www.google.com/search?q=LNG+Trucks&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=QNBhUOeIGqrI2AWLsYHICw&biw=1024&bih=629&sei=S9BhUJ6zIInS2AWOjIGwCw

      If the US switched its 18-wheelers to LNG, and so gave the oil companies an incentive to have LNG at its stations, it would make a big dent in gasoline usage. With LNG refueling in place, local natural gas producers could start feeding into the system and normal motorists would begin to think about switching.

    • LNG must be cryogenic to stay liquid. Imagine handling that every day.
      Methane’s critical point is near: -82.7 deg C and a pressure of 45.96 bar to get it to liquefy. This is only slightly warmer and lower pressure than O2 (-119 deg C and 49.7 atm.) So how often do you find gallons of liquid oxygen in everyday use and long term storage?

      CH4 at 338 K and 500 atm has a specific density of 0.241.) For a steel tank, 25 inches in diameter, you would need 3 inch walls. Imagine that on 18-wheelers. The safety procedures to refuel will be non-trivial.

      Maybe a more practical way to store large quantities of methane is as a water hydrate? Nope. A room temperature methane hydrate tank will need to be designed for over 300 atm. You want those rolling around the freeways next to you? Not me.

      Methane to Methanol? Methanol is a lot safer to use than LNG in transport and to leave in a parking lot. But the Methane to Methanol conversion is still an expensive one, but it is the only practical way to store a methane based fuel in your home. 10 ml of methanol ingested can cause blindness. 30-100ml can kill. The trick with methanol is that it mixes easily with water to create a poisonous mixture, but it biodegrades in days.

      No matter how you cut it, gasoline, diesel, #2 Fuel Oil, JP-4, are all wonderful, room temperature, room pressure, low toxicity, dense energy fuels that are remarkably safe to handle by the general public. They are really hard to beat for transportation.

    • Stephen Ramsey
      I strongly warn you NOT to describe fuel as “low toxicity”. See: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Gasoline, Gasoline Toxicology Ch 2 Health Effects

      2.2.1 Inhalation Exposure, 2.2.1.l Death
      Several case reports of either accidental or intentional inhalation of gasoline vapors resulting in death have been published (Ainsworth 1960; Boeckx et al. 1977; Poklis 1976; Wang and Irons 1961). Inhalation of ≥5,000 ppm gasoline vapor (20,000 ppm for 5 minutes) has been shown to be lethal (Ainsworth 1960; Wang and Irons 1961). It has been postulated that the cause of death following inhalation of high concentrations of gasoline vapors is either central nervous system depression due to asphyxia leading to respiratory failure, or cardiac sensitization to circulating catecholamines leading to a fatal arrhythmia (Poklis 1976).

      Oral Exposure, 2.2.2.1 Death
      Accidental or intentional ingestion of large quantities of gasoline can cause death in humans (Camevale et al. 1983). The lethal ingested dose of gasoline has been estimated to be 12 ounces (350 g, or 5 g/kg for a 70-kg individual) (Anonymous 1989). The cause of death following ingestion of gasoline is either severe chemical pneumonitis resulting from the aspiration of gasoline that leads to asphyxiation, central nervous system depression leading to respiratory failure, or cardiac sensitization to circulating catecholamines resulting in the occurrence of fatal arrhythmias (EPA 1987a).

      The prudent practice is to emphatically warn people:
      DO NOT DRINK OR BREATH FUEL!
      Race drivers much prefer methanol over gasoline for its lower fire hazards. They “learned” not to drink or breath it!

    • I didn’t say non-toxic. But realistically, when is the last time you wore a mask and gloves to fill up your car? You can spill some on your shoes without calling 911. Given what these liquid fuels can do, they are remarkably safe to handle. Just don’t use a match to check to see if your tank is empty.

    • My grandma used to make a cold remedy containing kerosene, raw eggs, molasses, and hot water. I don’t know in what ratios, but probably not much kerosene. I forget whether you were supposed to drink it or inhale it.

    • I know next to nothing about LNG, CNG, or methanol, but I do know that 15 years ago I could drive around for 8 hours a day on a propane powered forklift, and I know I can buy a tank of propane for my grill at any grocery store or gas station. So what’s so hard about scaling up to roadworthy?

    • It’s not particularly hard:
      ” Worldwide, there were 14.8 million natural gas vehicles by 2011, led by Iran with 2.86 million, Pakistan (2.85 million), Argentina (2.07 million), Brazil (1.70 million), and India (1.10 million)”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_vehicle
      Wiki says it’s safer, I don’t agree with that.

    • “Wiki says it’s safer, I don’t agree with that.”

      After brief look at it, I changed my mind.
      The tanks are very safe, and if properly installed the other parts of system are also very safe.
      Pakistan had something like 43 death related to it them, none having
      to do tanks, and mostly due to poor installation and maintenance.
      The tanks have a rigorous certification- part of which including shooting
      armor piecing bullet at it. So using such tank, it should quite safe, though it also needs to be installed correctly.

    • Its hard because you need heat to vaporise liquid propane. North American and European cars in water will need a large heat exchanger to be installed on the cars.

    • “Cost and Maintenance:
      In most cases, CNG costs fifteen to forty percent less than the regular gasoline. However, the cost of CNG-powered vehicles are discovered to be about $3,500 more than the gasoline-powered ones. This is due to the high price of CNG fuel cylinders.

      On the good side, since CNG-powered vehicles are increasing in popularity, prices are expected to become lower in the future.

      In terms of miles per gallon, a regular gasoline-powered car averages thirty two miles per gallon while a CNG-powered car averages forty three miles per gallon.

      Lastly, the car oil in a CNG-powered car does not need to be changed as often as the gasoline-powered counterpart because of the cleaner burning ability of CNG.

      Functioning and Performance:
      Recent studies show that CNG has a higher octane rating than regular gasoline. Higher octane rating means higher and better engine performance. CNG-powered vehicles can overpower a gasoline-powered vehicle’s acceleration and speed.”
      http://www.allaboutcngvehicles.com/cng-vs-gasoline/

      It seems likely we will get more of these CNG vehicles in future, and if vehicle is designed from scratch to use CNG then seems one might get a better vehicle all around and cheaper fuel. And you fill it up at your house if you already getting natural gas: “CNG can be refilled at the comforts of one’s own home. A machine named “Phill” was invented in California in 2005 by the Fuel Maker Corporation. Phill allows car owners to refuel overnight in their own homes using their household natural gas line.”

    • David Springer

      Propane has twice the energy density of natural gas. Propane will liquify at -45F and remain liquid at much higher temperatures facilitating safe storage as a liquid in simple low pressure tanks. Natural gas doesn’t liquify until -260F and requires either expensive cryogenic storage vessels or extremely high pressure (read dangerous and heavy) steel vessels.

      In other words there’s a frakkin huge difference between propane and natural gas in vehicular applications that boils (pun intended) down to propane being practical and natural gas not so much. Natural gas is beyond excellent (because it’s uber cheap) for uses where it can delivered via pipeline as a gas at low pressure and ambient temperature.

    • David Springer

      CNG is carried in bottles at up to 3500psi. I have an oxygen tank in a welding rig that holds O2 at 2000psi. If the neck on that bottle breaks it becomes a steel rocket that will punch through a rock wall. Now imagine the exhaust powering the rocket has twice the thrust and is explosive when mixed with air. You really want every Texting Tom, Drunkard Dick, and Hurried Harry on the roadway riding a potential rocket like that? I don’t think so.

      Filling up at home? A PHILL is USD $4,500 plus installation. Moreover it requires about 2.5kWh of electricity to make a gallon of fuel so, depending on electricity cost add $0.25 (Texas) to $1.00 (California) to each gallon of fuel above the $1 in NG it consumes. An overnight refill (Honda Civic GX) from a PHILL is good for 100-120 miles of travel. So you’ll need a backup mode of transportation for longer day trips (i.e. a second car) adding even more expense. The service life of the PHILL is 6000 hours or 2400 gallons of fuel. So add another $2/gallon (!!!!!) to the cost of your fuel. Now, to add insult to injury, the CNG option on the Honda Civic is $8,000. So you pay $15,000 extra up front to have a vehicle with a range of 120 miles and fuel that costs $3-$4/gallon.

      Pardon me for asking but where’s the advantage in this?

    • David Springer

      Correction. The Honda Civic GX has an 8-gallon CNG tank and gets an advertised 24mpg city so you get a range of 180-200 miles not 120. The limit I mentioned is how much fuel a PHILL home-fueling device will deliver overnight.

      Oh, I forgot to mention the CNG tank is in the trunk. So kiss your cargo space in the trunk good-bye.

      What a deal. I can hardly wait to run out and buy a Civic GX to replace my gasoline powered 1998 Accord EX (a full-size luxury car in comparison) which cost less than a PHILL when I bought it two years ago.

      Oh wait. I don’t have natural gas at either of my homes in and near Austin, TX so I can’t even have a PHILL installed. ROFL

    • “SamNC | September 26, 2012 at 6:04 am |

      Its hard because you need heat to vaporise liquid propane. North American and European cars in water will need a large heat exchanger to be installed on the cars.”

      If the cars are in water, maybe you should get them out before they start to rust.

      Pardon me, but is there anyone else here that is as aggressively inarticulate as SamNC?

    • David Springer

      gbaikie | September 26, 2012 at 6:39 am |

      ““Cost and Maintenance:”

      I don’t know where you got your figures from but mine are from Honda for the Civic GX vs. LX. The fuel economy is almost identical at 24/39 city/highway and the price difference is $8000 more for the GX ($18,000 vs. $26,000 base sticker price).

      If you buy a Civic GX you are paying out the nose for an inferior vehicle gaining nothing more than bragging rights to loony left friends at best. That’s not what I would characterize as a rational decision.

    • David Springer

      WebTubHelescope…

      SamNC appears to be a victim of Damn You, Autocorrect which substituted water for winter.

      He’s right after we, as intelligent readers (well at least one of us) easily and automatically determines from context it’s winter, not water, he meant to write. The vaporization rate of propane slows to a crawl in cold weather. I happen to know because I own an RV with propane tanks and if it’s cold enough outdoors a single 10-gallon propane tank can’t evaporate propane fast enough to supply the space heater and the hot water heater at the same time. Vehicular requirements would be much greater than that so you would indeed need a means of keeping the propane tank warmed up. Probably not any more onerous however than needing a block heater for a diesel engine in cold weather. You wouldn;t need to heat a CNG or LNG tank however. Well maybe an LNG tank in Vostoc, Antarctica in the dead of winter.

    • David Springer,

      What do you think of CNG as a vehicle fuel? :)

    • “SamNC appears to be a victim of Damn You, Autocorrect which substituted water for winter.”

      SamNC appears to be the victim of a missing brain. He is as stupid as they come, and he can’t blame that on technology.

      I notice that Team Skeptic has to constantly ratonalize for their teammates mistakes.

    • I read recently that CNG works well for city buses for two reasons that might not apply to personal autos and long-haul transporation.
      1. CNG buses can mount their storage tanks in the roof to lower the floor.
      2. CNG buses have a regular schedule, including the ability to park overnight for refueling. Refueling a CNG vehicle takes time because you need to dissipate heat from the gas compression. Carbon-fiber wrapped tanks can have aluminum liners to help with thermal conduction.

    • Hey Stephen, good to know on the heat dissipation but it shouldn’t work that way with a bulk refiller which has the gas precompressed and tanked already at a few hundred psi higher than destination pressure. That way the destination tank gets cold on refilling because the gas is expanding as it goes into the vehicle tank. That’s how it works when you get tanks of virtually anything from a gas supply house. Your freshly filled bottle is frosty cold on the outside if it’s a high pressure tank. Low pressure gas like propane not so much but still cold right after refilling.

    • @Stephen

      re; city buses work well with CNG

      No, they work better than other CNG vehicles but they don’t work well. Diesel works well. Gasoline works well. Electric vehicles that get their juice from a third rail work well. Propane vehicles work better than CNG but fuel costs more than any of the above. CNG works better than a steam engine or a team of horses I suppose… :-)

    • A high pressure (3200 psi) bulk CNG refiller at a bus depot would be an unnecessary public hazard. Now you have a few large thick-walled tanks instead of thousands holding the same total energy. Risk vs Reward is doubtful.

      You might split the difference and have a pre-compression to 500 or 1000 psi at terminal tanks with the final compression to 3000 psi at bus refueling. But would you really short circut much heat dissipation? Maybe you would: integrate force*distance.

      Does most of the heating happen from 15 psi to 1000 psi? Or only a 1/3?
      Adiabatic Gas Compression T2 = T1*(P2/P1)^(k-1)/k, k = ratio of specific heats (1.4 for air). Mass at T2 and T1 are the same.
      So pressure ratio matters and a pre-compression from 15 psi to 500 psi in a fixed platform with good heat exchangers would have benefits.

    • “CNG is carried in bottles at up to 3500psi. I have an oxygen tank in a welding rig that holds O2 at 2000psi. If the neck on that bottle breaks it becomes a steel rocket that will punch through a rock wall. Now imagine the exhaust powering the rocket has twice the thrust and is explosive when mixed with air. You really want every Texting Tom, Drunkard Dick, and Hurried Harry on the roadway riding a potential rocket like that? I don’t think so. ”
      Pakistan is using them and they have had no fatalities involved with the high pressure tanks.
      Americans are using them in low numbers. The prices of natural gas going way down, as long as natural gas remain as cheap as it is and gasoline prices remain as expensive as they are, it seems this drive the switch to using CNG

    • Webby the climate jester is anti-science, has no sense of energy amount and has no sense of orders of magnitudes.

    • Why are these skeptic clowns even talking about LNG and CNG on this thread? Weren’t they all cornucopians when it came to crude oil reserves?

      Oh yes, I see. They are hypocrites.

      “Webby the climate jester is anti-science, has no sense of energy amount and has no sense of orders of magnitudes.”

      I have more sense than you will ever know.

    • a propane/butane mix – called lpg – is perhaps one of the best fuels for vehicles. In a properly tuned engine, there is no loss of power or efficiency, lower emissions of hc and it is a liquid and so fairly dense at much lower pressure than methane. Unlike methane, comparable range from comparable sized fuel tank is easy. It’s typically currently a waste product, and if required can be synthesised frommethane stock.

  13. A. In a sense, we have to go back to where we were. I mean, we really have to revisit what happened in Rio [in 1992], and in Kyoto, but come up with a different mechanism that hopefully can be more politically acceptable in various countries. It may not be a cap-and-trade system, but we have to go back to an emissions target that makes sense. And technologies will have to be made available to less-developed countries so they can grow without a huge carbon footprint.

    Yes. “ technologies will have to be made available to less-developed countries so they can grow without a huge carbon footprint.”. This really is the solution. Forget about the carbon pricing and targets. Just allow a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels and nothing else needs to be done. To do that we need to remove the impediments to low cost nuclear power (as I said in my previous comment). Only USA can really take the lead in achieving this.

    There is no need to return to 1992 Rio and Kyoto. We cannot get a political agreement that will disadvantage the developing countries, and nor should we. These approaches are proven failures. How many more times does that have to be demonstrated before people can accept the obvious. The approach is wrong.

    It’s good to see a growing realisation that carbon pricing and cap and trade cannot be a solution. That is progress.

    • David L. Hagen

      Economic Development Comes First
      India is striving to catch up with China in providing electricity for rapid development!
      India Has Big Plans for Burning Coal

      “India is poised to contend with China as the globe’s top consumer of coal, with 455 power plants preparing to come online, a prominent environmental research group has concluded.

      The coal plants in India’s pipeline — almost 100 more than China is preparing to build — would deliver 519,396 megawatts of installed generating capacity. That is only slightly less than pending new capacity in China, which remains the undisputed king of coal consumption.”

      The “surprising” step is for China to work with the EU to form its own emissions trading system ETS.
      Top CO2 Emitter China Agrees to Work with EU to Cut Carbon

      China, the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter, has struck a deal to work with the European Union to cut greenhouse gases through projects including the development of Chinese emissions trading schemes, the European Commission said on Thursday. . . .
      The European Union will contribute 25 million euros ($33 million) and technical assistance over a four-year period to three carbon-reduction projects. . . .
      The Commission wants partnerships with other emissions schemes as part of efforts to boost its own ETS, on which the price of carbon has sunk far below the levels required to spur green investments.

      From its past actions, I seriously doubt China will let any cap and trade mechanism to ever constrain its economic growth. I think China sees this as an opportunity to improve its energy efficiency and thus profitability, and to get the EU to help pay for that! This will also help politically in international negotiations. The EU needs help to resurrect its ETS system from obvious failure.

    • “The “surprising” step is for China to work with the EU to form its own emissions trading system ETS.
      And:
      “The European Union will contribute 25 million euros ($33 million) and technical assistance over a four-year period to three carbon-reduction projects. ”

      Generally if someone wants to give you 25 million euros, unless you can get more, you take it.

    • The “surprising” step is for China to work with the EU to form its own emissions trading system ETS.

      From its past actions, I seriously doubt China will let any cap and trade mechanism to ever constrain its economic growth. I think China sees this as an opportunity to improve its energy efficiency and thus profitability, and to get the EU to help pay for that! This will also help politically in international negotiations. The EU needs help to resurrect its ETS system from obvious failure.

      I agree, that is China’s agenda.

      It’s also interesting to note what is happening in the EU:

      European utilities are poised to add more coal-fired power capacity than natural gas in the next four years, boosting emissions just as the era of free carbon permits ends. “The economics for coal are near the best we’ve seen in five years,” Laurent Segalen, a director at ECMF, said yesterday in an interview from London. Buying UN credits for 2013, after they plunged almost 80 percent in the past year, is “an amazing bargain,” he said. Utilities will add as much as 10,600 megawatts of new coal plants in seven central European countries in the next four years, compared with 1,600 megawatts of new natural-gas capacity, Patrick Hummel, a UBS analyst in Zurich, said in the report. –-Matthew Carr, Bloomberg, 21 September 2012

      Germany’s largest utilities are shunning cleaner-burning natural gas because it’s more costly, while the collapsing cost of carbon permits means there’s little penalty for burning coal. Germany’s increasing coal consumption is part of a global return to the fossil fuel that’s cheaper than most alternatives. The amount of coal burned worldwide rose 5.4 percent to account for 30 percent of total energy use last year, the highest proportion since 1969, according to BP data.—Bloomberg 20 August 2012

      [Quotes are from today’s GWPF email newsletter]

      I repeat my point: if we want the world to cut GHG emissions, we must make available a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels. It won’t be renewable energy. The only viable option is nuclear power.

      The ‘Progressives’ need to recognise this fact and start working to change their anti-progress policies.

    • Forget about the carbon pricing and targets. Just allow a cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels and nothing else needs to be done.

      So you’re saying that someone needs to conjure up a much cheaper source of energy from somewhere which would also just happens to produce no CO2?

      Yes, for once, I would agree with you, if that were to happen the market would take care of the problem.

      Bu I must admit that I’m not totally convinced about this. No matter how much we might wish for this to happen that it probably won’t. For one thing, there are strong vested interests in favour of the status quo, and even if there weren’t, human nature being what it is, people are going to use coal if its just a few cents cheaper than a clean alternative.

      So if no cap and trade and no carbon tax how can the balance be tilted? The power of prayer?

    • Yes, those methyl clathrates in the warming Arctic coastal areas will some day look like they make good economic sense, and methane is just there for the taking. That would be the free market choice. (Game over for the climate, however).

    • similar to the mess overfishing has caused. they refuse caps.

  14. Below I provide a short summary of main the points I’ve been making on previous threads (all are substantiated in previous comments). The points are numbered to facilitate debate, but all should be read as one argument.

    1. Uncertainty about the problem (AGW) is a given; uncertainty about the chosen solution is inexcusable. This is to say, we should be confident that our solutions are going to be effective, and the more expensive the solution the more confident we should be. [1]

    2. The solutions most advocated are: carbon pricing (carbon tax and/or ETS), renewable energy (mandated and subsidised) and increased energy efficiency. However, these proposed policy ‘solutions’ have low probability of achieving the objective of mitigating AGW. These policies have very high uncertainty. This is inexcusable.

    3. Carbon tax and ETS will not work in the real world. [3]

    4. If CO2 tax and ETS policies are attempted, there is a high probability they will fail to cut emissions to the extent advocated. If they are ramped up high enough to cut emissions significantly there is a high probability doing so would cause significant economic damage and hardship, given that there is no viable alternative to fossil fuels. [4]

    5. Renewable energy is expensive, not likely to be viable in the foreseeable future, if ever, as a way to supply a large proportion of our energy, requires a lot of resources and avoids much less CO2 emissions than its advocates would like us to believe. Renewable energy is a high cost way to reduce emissions. It is economically irrational. It should not be mandated or subsidised. [5]

    6. A cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels is by far the least cost and by far the best way to reduce global emissions. The analyses published in Nordhaus (2008) [2] show the ‘cost competitive alternative to fossil fuels’ policy (called ‘Low-cost backstop’ policy) is far better than the ‘Optimal carbon price’ policy. In fact, it is better by 3 times, 5 times, 5 times and 49 times for Benefits, Abatement Cost, Net Benefit, and Implied Carbon Tax rate. Furthermore, CO2 emissions in 2100, CO2 concentration in 2100, Global temperature change to 2100 and abatement cost per $/°C avoided are all far lower with the ‘Cost competitive alternative to carbon pricing’ policy. [6]

    7. Nuclear power is nearly competitive with fossil fuels in developed countries now and is competitive in the large developing countries now. It could be far cheaper than it is. USA, with its knowledge and demonstrated capacity to innovate and meet engineering challenges could lead the way. This could provide an economically rational solution to cutting global CO2 emissions. [7]

    8. Nuclear power is the safest of all electricity generation technologies; it causes the least number of fatalities per TWh of energy supplied of all the electricity generation technologies. [8]

    9. Political ideology is delaying progress. The political so called ‘Progressives’ are blocking progress and have been for the past 50 years.

    10. The CAGW Alarmists are mostly of the ‘Progressive’ faith. If ‘Progressives’ and CAGW Alarmists are serious about wanting the world to cut CO2 emissions, they need to lead the way and remove the blocks they’ve placed on low emissions energy (i.e. nuclear). They need to convert their comrades from their irrational objection to nuclear power to becoming enthusiastic advocates for low cost nuclear power for all people of the world.

    [1] http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-242650

    [3] http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239089
    and Richard Tol’s response:
    http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239101

    [4] http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/12/the-costs-of-tackling-or-not-tackling-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comment-239112

    [5] http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/02/09/100-renewable-electricity-for-australia-the-cost/

    [6] http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/24/a-modest-proposal-for-sequestration-of-co2-in-the-antarctic/#comment-234611

    [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

    [8] http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html

    • Peter Lang,

      So you are saying that AGW is such an highly uncertain problem that there is no definite solution. In fact there may not be a problem anyway. But if there were a solution that cannot involve carbon taxes or C& T because they are too expensive. Like income tax or capital gains tax is too expensive? There could be a solution if nuclear power was used, and if it was cheap enough, but there can’t be because the Left oppose that.

      So, whatever happens don’t blame us Right wing free market types. Its never our fault, its always those progressives who are to blame on everything.

      You also claim that the world hasn’t progressed in the last 50 years, due to ‘progressives’ blocking that progress. So you are saying that the second half of the 20th century has seen less progress than the first half?

    • TTTT (Tempterrain the troll),

      Lot’s of strawmen arguments there, or perhaps just misunderstandings. You clearly have not been able to accept that the CO2 tax or ETS will not work in the real world. Even previous strong advocates John Kerry and Richard Tol have acknowledged that now. And 20 years of pushing these policy ideas in international negotiations have failed. And the EU ETS has failed. How much more obvious can it be?

      I realise all this is way beyond your ability to comprehend. You are clearly not prepared to do the homework and don’t want to know what threatens your ideological beliefs, so I see no point in answering your questions. Perhaps you should discuss your beliefs on sites that confirm them for you, such as SkepticalScience.

    • Peter Lang,

      The reason you won’t answer the questions is that you know you can’t. An assertion that carbon taxes or C&T won’t work, without proof or evidence, can be dismissed without proof or evidence.

      We can’t know whether they will work until they are properly tried. If that happens then of course there would have to be a rethink. The EU ETS hasn’t failed. Its too early to say that. As the G in AGW stands for Global, the solution too has to be global. Everything can’t just be left to the Europeans.

      You don’t want them tried, not because they won’t work, but because you are worried that they just might!

      You guys start off saying that there’s no global warming, then you say there is but its due to natural causes, then you say that it may be anthropogenic but its not big enough to worry about, then you say it may be large but its a good thing, and finally you produce some figures to show that even if its not quite such a good thing we can’t afford to do much about it anyway.

      Look, Pete, once you start talking crap about the climate, its hard to establish any credibility at all on the related subject of the economics of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

    • TTTT,

      It must be really hard to accept when something you believe in so strongly starts unravelling. It must be dreadful to see the basis of your faith being shown to be false. What a blow. But never mind. People who like to believe in end of the world scenarios will find another won to clutch to soon enough. So I am sure you will find another cause to sustain your need for a faith.

    • Peter Lang,

      You like to portray yourself as some sort of economic expert but in reality you are just another climate change denier. Just another Wagathon. That may be being a little unfair to Wagathon. I’ve seen more rational argument in some of his posts that your last one.

  15. So Republican money made Senate Democrats take a dive? That’s in interesting take. It was Kerry himself who denied he even knew what ‘cap and trade’ meant. It was really a classic ‘apostle Peter denying Jesus’ moment for Kerry. He fights for months for cap and trade, and then when it’s obvious it cant’ pass, he denies he knows anything about it. Yup, that’s my senior Senator. Good Grief.

  16. Foundations of environmentalism
    The shaky foundations of environmental alarmism are being exposed.
    “Silent Spring at 50: The False Crises of Rachel Carson”
    344 pages Cato Institute (September 16, 2012) ISBN-10: 1937184994
    (Reassessing environmentalism’s fateful turn from science to advocacy)

    “Carson made little effort to provide a balanced perspective and consistently ignored key evidence that would have contradicted her work. Thus, while the book provided a range of notable ideas, a number of Carson’s major arguments rested on what can only be described as deliberate ignorance.”. . .
    · Carson vilified the use of DDT and other pest controls in agriculture but ignored their role in saving millions of lives worldwide from malaria, typhus, dysentery, among other diseases. Millions of deaths, and much greater human suffering, ultimately resulted from pesticide bans as part of disease-eradication campaigns. Carson knew of the beneficial effects of DDT, but never discussed it; her story was all negative.

    · Far from being on the verge of collapse, American bird populations were, by and large, increasing at the time of Silent Spring’s publication. . . .
    once statistical adjustments are made for population age and tobacco use, the apparent rise in cancer rates that so alarmed Silent Spring readers disappeared.

  17. And how did Kerry vote on the airline bill?

  18. There are ways to do fossil fuels responsibly. And if we don’t do that, it’s gonna be catastrophic. ~John Kerry

    This — e.g., what we expect from leaders like Kerry and Gore — is what the 47%’rs will vote for.

    Even if reason prevails now and then these are the sort of leaders who serve in the minority for no purpose other than to act as gadflies that hector any and all who try to provide value to society. This is why Western civilization is dying.

  19. I have always felt that political action is reactive rather than proactive, and it will need a lot more climate change than we have had so far before people start seeing that the pot is boiling rather than just a bit warm for comfort, and before anything is done, and at that point it will be adaptation.
    From the scientific perspective, it is an interesting experiment we are doing with the earth system, as we are propelling its climate back at a rate of a million years per year in terms of CO2 content, and so climate scientists can study a rare transient climate state and biologists can study how the ecology responds to this rapid change first hand. Scientifically we are a fortunate generation to get a front-row seat in this. A lot will be learned and many papers will be published from this field experiment.

  20. “Q. The climate issue is barely registering in this election. Why has this issue fallen off the Democratic agenda?

    A. For several reasons. No. 1, because huge amounts of money were spent to purposely discredit the facts. ”

    Laughable.

  21. JC asked:

    Am I reading this correctly? Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?

    Yes. I think the climate wars are fizzling. I think people are becoming more realistic, more objective, more balanced, more sensible on this particular subject.

    The number of comments on many blog sites has decreased to what seems like about 10% of what it was a year or two ago. Australian Web sites like SkepticalScience, ClimateSpectator and The Conversation have lost any smblance of balanced and open discussion. They are now clearly shrill, alarmist web sites. The number of comments has decreased by about 90% (or so it seems to me).

    Unfortunately for Australians our Labor-Green ‘Progressive” government has implemented a carbon tax and ETS. It will be hugely costly to dump it, but despite the huge cost to dump it, it will be orders of magnitude cheaper to dump it than keep it going. What an attrocious policy decision this was. What a serious mistake for Australia. What incompetence

    • Brandon Shollenberger

      You think it seems like there are 10% as many comments as a year ago? You’re crazy.

    • Peter Lang,

      “I think people are becoming more realistic, more objective, more balanced, more sensible on this particular subject.”

      Maybe they’ve been reading your posts Pete. Balance eh? I wish I could be more like you. But, I’m one of those lefties who are clearly very partisan on this issue. I do like Malcolm Turnbull though who’s a Liberal , but I suppose you don’t think counts as “balance”. I do support nuclear energy but you never say anything nice about me for agreeing with you on that, so you must think I’m just a very unbalanced sort person.

      Not you though, you look at the problem from all sides and examine the pros and cons of every issue. Your clearly a very sensible and realistic person, one to look up to and we should all try to emulate your impartial objectivity.

      Did you notice that I’d managed to work all the key words of the sentence I’d quoted into my description of you? I also managed to add “impartial”? Don’t be too modest about the ‘impartiality’, Pete.

    • TTTT (Tempterrain the Troll)

      Keep trolling TT. Nothing useful, just rubbish and bating. What a twit. And yes, they are all motivated by your ideological beliefs and totally closed mind. A troll to a T.

    • Pete,

      Come on Pete, I say you’re sensible etc and you accuse me of “bating” you. Actually “bating” means “to lessen the force of” so that would be a good thing, maybe? Or perhaps you really mean “baiting” like bear baiting? Like someone would tease the poor animal and watch it roar and growl?

      I like bears. I’d never do anything like that.

      So you’ve learned the difference between ‘bating’ and ‘baiting’ , today – and you’re getting all this for free so you shouldn’t be so cross with me all the time.

    • TTTT, are you ever going to give up you stupid drivel. You don’t say anything constructive, just continually make a silly, irrelevant comments, instructively criticizing others but never posting anything constructive yourself. Your parents should seriously consider suggesting to your school that you perhaps need to repeat play school.

    • Peter Lang,

      I thought you said you didn’t read my posts? But I think you do really, in fact you seem to be hanging on to my every word.

      OK Let me ask you are serious question about the carbon tax. To be honest I don’t think anyone has really noticed any difference since it came in. I know no-one likes taxes but I’d rather have a carbon tax than say income tax. If Income taxes were abolished too would all Australians be better off? I think I would. If the carbon tax is “hugely costly” does that mean all taxes are the same? If the government didn’t waste so much money on GST, payroll tax, capital gains tax etc they’d so have much more to spend on everything else? Is that what you are arguing?

      So, if taxing carbon emissions is costly then the Government ought to be paying us to create more?

    • TTTT (tempterrain the Troll)

      Still trolling I notice!. Don’t feel you have to a post a response (invariably silly or as in this case nonsensical) to every comment I make (unless you can’t help your self of course).

      The answers to your questions are here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/what-the-carbon-tax-and-ets-will-really-cost-peter-lang/ and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13578 .

    • Pete Lang,

      The answers to your questions are here:

      No they aren’t for the simple reason you don’t have them.

      You don’t have an answer to the main question of how a clean fuel which may only be cents more expensive than coal ( a high CO2 emitter) can be made the rational economic choice without either a carbon tax, or a subsidy, or by using a C&T scheme.

    • Peter Lang,

      Stop wriggling and just admit neither you, nor anyone else, has an free market answer, to the problem that what might be an economically rational choice for one individual is not necessarily the right choice colectively. Its known as the tragedy of the commons. Free markets can work fine when everything has a clear and well defined ownership, but when there isn’t, like when common property is involved there can be a fundamental problem.

      But if you do, just explain it as simply, and concisely, as you can instead of pretending its hidden away in some article you wrote.

    • Stop wriggling and just admit neither you, nor anyone else, has a central planning answer, to the problem that what might be an economically rational choice for one country is not necessarily the right choice for all countries collectively.

      Give us an explanation of why the U.S., or the west combined, should commit economic sepuku when China, India and Russia will never follow our suicidal lead?

      (Leaving aside for the sake of argument whether decarbonization is good policy at all.)

    • TTTT,

      I’ve answered you a dozen times. You just don’t like the answer.

      I’ve also suggested you answer the reciprocal question: “Stop wriggling and just admit neither you, nor anyone else, has a regulatory, central government, carbon tax/ETS answer that can achieve the result you want.”

      You haven’t you done that?

      What you want wont work. That couldn’t be clearere. If you say it will work, then “just explain it as simply, and concisely as you can” and convince all those international negotiators that have failed to get agreement for the past 20 years.

    • Peter Lang,

      A cap and trade is to limit the amount of emissions on CO2 is to establish by process of a cap or a maximum. Anyone wishing to put CO2 in the atmosphere will have to bid for a permit on the open market. As those permits are limited the emissions too will be limited.

      The idea of a carbon tax is to just apply a financial disincentive. Just like governments apply a financial disincentive to smoking by taxing cigarettes heavily. So if it works with cigarettes, which it has, it can work with carbon dioxide too.

      My preference is for a carbon tax first, which can be switched to a C&T later. This avoids the need to have international agreement up front. This is the Australian course of action.

      Is this all simple and concise enough for you so far? Its easy to jump up and down and claim it won’t work. You have to say that, but you should really be saying you don’t want it work. There’s no reason why it won’t, and in any case we’ll see how well it all pans out after a few years and take it from there. Even if it doesn’t work, its not going to impoverish Australia to such an extent that the region will be flooded by boat loads of Australian refugees!

    • @Gary M & Peter Lang,

      How about just taking a step back from the Global warming issue and tell me how free market economics can tackle another ‘tradegy of the commons’ type problem. That of overfishing of tuna in the Pacific.

      The economically rational option, for any one individual, or any one company or country, is to catch the last of the stocks driving the species into extinction in exactly the same way as the passenger pigeon was hunted to extinction in North America in the 19th century. Because if you don’t do it someone else will. Free market economics doesn’t allow anything else.

      So yes, international agreements can be difficult to achieve but, trying to achieve those collective agreements has to be the sensible option, doesn’t it?

    • @GaryM: Give us an explanation of why the U.S., or the west combined, should commit economic sepuku when China, India and Russia will never follow our suicidal lead?

      Sounds like a Mexican standoff. China just has to point out that its per-capita emissions are only 20% of those of Australia and the US, so why should it commit “economic sepuku” when those bigger per-capita polluters aren’t willing?

      By the same token insurance premiums are “economic supuku.” Skip the premiums and you enhance your bottom line. By that reasoning, why would any intelligent person ever take out a life insurance policy, or any other insurance that wasn’t legally mandated?

    • VP obvious;y doesn’t have much time for insurance companies. Neither do I. What is the definition of an insurer? Someone who profits from risks taken by others.

    • Vaughn,

      I’m delighted with your “insurance” analogy! And I can see you’re just the sort of astute, sophisticated “thinking man” to appreciate the benefits of the “all-catastrophe” insurance policy, I’m currently offering to a very select clientele. Just send me all your money, Vaughan, and you’re instantly covered!

      P. S. Double-indemnity if an asteroid strikes the earth and destroys all life on the planet!

    • Since insurance has been around for at least 5000 years and is showing no signs of disappearing, carbon pricing as a form of insurance premium pricing is no less likely to disappear as long as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase far faster than it was doing a century ago.

      As I understand the complaints about carbon pricing being made here, the concept itself is not as bad as the current prices being set. Were carbon to be priced at a penny a ton, those objecting to carbon pricing would be doing so not for any practical economic reason but purely as a matter of principle.

      The more practical matter is the appropriate price. It would be great if that issue could be discussed on Climate Etc. without the (sometimes considerable) overhead of digressions into the abilities and qualifications of the debaters.

  22. Barack Obama shrugs, but the debt keeps mounting
    “A fiscal horror is unfolding on the president’s watch, yet few seem concerned,” writes Jeff Randall

    George W Bush left behind a set of books that were not so much unbalanced as vertiginous. At the end of 2008, US debt was $9.9 trillion, or 69.7 per cent of GDP, and the ballooning deficit was $683 billion. Since then, all the key indicators have worsened markedly. By the end of this year, gross debt is forecast to reach $16.3 trillion (the number to which Letterman was alluding), more than 100 per cent of GDP, or a rise of two thirds under Obama. The annual deficit is close to $1.5 trillion, 10 per cent of GDP. Worse still, according to official forecasts, US debt is on course to hit $20 trillion by 2016. If this is a country living within its means, one dreads to think what would happen if Washington decided to throw a party.

    Obama has been rapidly driving the US into bankruptcy. Forced payments on interest alone will soon overtake education and defense.

    The only sane policy is to take all possible measures to restore fiscal balance – or the US will rapidly plummet to the depths of Greece Spain and Portugal.
    Consequently, there is absolutely no room for expensive foolish “carbon mitigation” measures with negligible benefit. We must elect legislators and leaders with the guts to restore us back to fiscal sanity before it is too late.

    • Thanks, David, for the link to Jeff Randall’s story, Barack Obama shrugs, but the debt keeps mounting and the clear warning

      “A fiscal horror is unfolding on the president’s watch, yet few seem concerned.” Most shoppers know their dollar is worth each week, as the present government prints more money and grants more entitlements to try to stay in power.

      That is why many of us have been urging our senators to support the bill to “Audit the Fed”. It passed by a large measure in the US House of Representatives, but the US Senate closed down without voting on the bill.

      It appears that very clever use of propaganda by the USSR in late Aug 1945 has the US government now financing its own downfall:

      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

    • Triple-dip recession coming, 47% of the population looking government for a handout, zero-interest on the savings from a life’s work and mind-boggling inflation looming… George Bush did not build that — Leftist Stonkernomics did.

    • I agree, Wagathon. The treachery started in late July 1945 when the USSR hid evidence of Japan’s A-bomb facility in North Korea in order to deepen the sense of guilt in Allied scientists and political leaders and enhance their support for establishing the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 !

      See this story from the 3 Oct 1946 issue of the Atlantic Constitution: http://tinyurl.com/blm92lf

    • David L Hagen,

      Obama has been rapidly driving the US into bankruptcy

      This sounds a bit worrying. What would happen if the US actually were declared bankrupt? You guys owe the Chinese a $ trillion or so. Would the whole country end up being repossessed?

      Maybe you’d be lucky and you’d only have to sell off Alaska to balance the books? Or maybe Manhattan Island? You should make a tidy profit on both these. I don’t think you paid much for them, did you? There would be plenty of room in the rest of Mainland America for the rest of you and you have no debt to worry about at all. Problem solved.

    • David L. Hagen

      tempterrain
      Re: What would happen?
      Look at the unemployment rates that follow debt near or > GDP:
      Greece 24%, Debt/GDP 165%
      Portugal 15%, GDP/Debt 108%,
      Spain 24%, Debt/GDP 69%
      Italy 10% – Debt/GDP 120%.
      Ireland 15%, Debt/DGP 108%.
      See EU Debt/GDP
      Contrast US 8% unemployment, but Debt/GDP already 103%.
      It is only because the US appears less risky than the EU PIGS that it has such a low interest rate right now.

    • David Hagen,

      The main problem for the countries you mention is that they don’t have control over their own currency. They are stuck with the Euro.

      The USA has had higher debt levels in the past. The debt level is exactly the same as a guy who earns $100k and has debt level of $104k with interest payments on that of about 5% at most at the moment. So , sure, he’d rather not have the debt but it’s a gross exaggeration to say he’s nearly bankrupt.

    • David L. Hagen

      tempterrain
      Economics 101 teaches that spending 40% more than your earn is a sure path to bankruptcy!

    • temp-

      What you write IS NOT the main problem with those countries economies. The main problem is that those countries wish to provide more government services than they have the tax revenue to pay for. The result of their having their own currency will be that they will print more currency and as a result others will consider that currency less valuable when compared to the currencies of countries that are not printing more money.

      The probable result of current US policy will be inflation and draconian budget cuts. A possible alternative in the US will be the implementation of a value added tax as a means of collecting revenue from the 47% not currently paying taxes. BTW- the republicans are wrong about not raising taxes on the most wealthy in the USA. It would not raise that much revenue, but it is an issue of where else does the money come from.

    • David Hagen,

      Ok so you think I’m wrong about having control over your own currency and debt levels? If so, give me some examples to show I’m wrong.

      I can give you one example to show you’re wrong. Japan, with a strong currency which they control, the Yen, has a debt ratio of over 200%. Twice as much as the USA. Their unemployment rate? 4.3%

      Yes Greece and other Southern European countries have debt problems. But the Greeks can only repay those debts if they have jobs. Austerity measures lead to less money being spent and less money spent means fewer jobs. I don’t know about you but I only have a job because of people spending money. You don’t have to be a Keynsian economist to think that. That’s just the way it is.

    • David L. Hagen

      tempterrain
      Wishful thinking does not make it so.
      Japan’s aging population of supersavers own 95% of Japan’s debt. As they retire, much lower savings rates by younger Japanese will create massive changes in the near future. See economist James Hamilton
      How long can Japanese bond prices defy gravity?

      Hoshi and Ito (2012) note the consensus among academic researchers that Japan’s current fiscal path is unsustainable:

      Doi (2009), Doi, Hoshi, and Okimoto (2011), Doi and Ihori (2009), Sakuragawa and Hosono (2011), Ito (2011), Ito, Watanabe, and Yabu (2011), and Ostry et al. (2010) all find that without a drastic change in fiscal policy, the Japanese government debt to GDP ratio cannot be stabilized. . . .
      “who’s next?”, a contagion of fear that continues to rattle Europe at the moment. If the scales tip for Japan as well, it is hard to imagine that the willingness of the world community to continue to buy U.S. Treasury debt would continue to be unaffected.

    • When Obama moved into the White House, US jobs were decreasing at a catastrophic rate of 10 million a year. Over the past three years they’ve been increasing at a pretty steady 1 million a year.

      Which may explain the obsession in this discussion with GDP instead of jobs.

      Recent advances in automation should make it possible to improve GDP by reversing the climb in employment. Human employees are a serious drag on GDP, which should improve nicely as robots increasingly replace humans.

      This observation reduces voting to the simple decision whether you want to see more jobs or a better GDP.

      Ideally one would like both, but advancing automation is the obstacle there.

    • David L. Hagen,

      You give the quote: “note the consensus among academic researchers that Japan’s current fiscal path is unsustainable”

      Since when did you guys care about consensus and sustainability?

      Generally speaking, and on matters scientific, I’m all for the consensus. Not on economics though. That’s often described as the dismal science. In fact there is hardly ever a consensus among economists. The joke is that if there are N economists in a room there will be N+1 represented opinions.

      With economics, we are all on our own. No matter what our political opinions might be, whether they be on the extreme left or extreme right, or anything in -between, we can find an economic ‘expert’ to support our views. We all need to aware of that.

    • David L. Hagen

      Vaughan Pratt
      On robotics, you may be interested in evaluations of robots by economist/futurist Prabhu Guptara:
      2006: Will Japanese robots rule the world by 2020?

      First, global society needs time to digest the fact that these robots have been developed — and it needs time to agree on suitable socio-economic-political policies and arrangements to prevent mass-unemployment and political unrest. . . .
      Japanese robots, launched from 2010 at the latest, will rapidly displace most human jobs in both the developed and developing worlds.
      They will also replace the kinds of robotic machinery that is being installed in the “latest” factories, for example in China.

      Current state of robotics in Japan
      e.g. remote coal mining is being developed:
      2001: Recent advances in remote coal mining machine sensing, guidance and teleoperation, 2009 NASA on Teleoperation

      The future of mining – robotics and automation
      Now can we get a robot to eliminate most of the climate/environmental regulations that are throttling business and GDP?

    • The news is spreading. From the Australian Financial Review: “America consumes more than it produces, promises its citizens more than it can pay for, and writes IOUs to pretend it can go on. With debts of $US16 trillion, it can’t … This should be the biggest issue in the presidential election. http://afr.com/p/opinion/debt_dragging_the_us_to_its_doom_ajDvBCkiie3ccZ3FXOD98I

    • I hold some of those IOUs (Treasury securities), and I ain’t worried. The low interest rates on Treasuries that buyers like me are willing to accept reflects the lack of credit risk.

      Too bad everyone can’t borrow money as cheaply as the U.S. government.

    • If you were more knowledgeable you would be very very worried. A huge increase in inflation WILL OCCUR due to US budgetary policies.

    • Rob, you are right about my lack of knowledge. While I doubt the current low rate of inflation will continue indefinitely, I am not knowledgeable enough to know when inflation will start picking up and how huge the “huge increase” in inflation will get. If you believe you do know, and are confident in your knowledge, you should be short selling Treasury securities. If you are right, you will make money. Of course, If you are wrong, you will loose money.

    • Max

      The better play is to invest in good real estate right now. It is to difficult to predict precisely when inflation will kick in as people worldwide loose faith in the US currency as the standard.

    • I agree, real estate seems like a good bet now. Interest rates are very low, and debt on property gives you leverage and a hedge against inflation, so I will allocate more of portfolio to real estate and less to bonds and stocks. However, I ain’t betting the farm on real estate.

    • Real Estate? I thought you guys were all into Gold right now? The world is facing a financial Armageddon right? So when that happens you can all sit in your caves counting your gold bars. I’d have thought that tins of soup and beans might be a better investment for that eventuality, but what do I know about economics?

    • @DLH: Obama has been rapidly driving the US into bankruptcy. Forced payments on interest alone will soon overtake education and defense.

      David L. Hagen certainly has it in for Obama, though on what basis is hard to tell from this bald statement alone.

      Interest expense on the US Debt Outstanding (public debt) can be seen here.

      Here are a couple of questions one could ask about Bush 2 vs. Obama, and one about Obama vs. Romney.

      Q1. By how much did the annual interest increase when Obama took over from Bush? (I.e. 2008 vs. 2009.)

      A1.
      2008: $451 billion
      2009: $383 billion
      (So far from increasing, it decreased by a dramatic 15%.)

      (These are fiscal years, i.e. Oct. 1 – Sept. 30, so this charges to Obama 3.65 months of the interest that Bush racked up.)

      Q2. How fast did the interest rise during Bush’s second term compared to Obama’s first term?

      A2. (Using linear regression on 4 data points for each.)
      2005-2008: $32.052 billion per year.
      2009-2012: $1.408 billion per year.

      (Again off by 3.65 months. FY 2012 ends on Sunday, two days from now. The figure of $374.285 billion I’ve used for FY 2012 is estimated as 12/11 times the total for the 11 months October-August. For this to be an underestimate, September would have to be more than 55% higher than August. Relevant spreadsheet here, or here if you don’t at least have the free Excel Viewer.)

      Q3. How will Romney’s plan to cut more taxes than Obama avoid driving the US into bankruptcy?

      A3. Romney will explain this, presumably before November.

    • I give the pollsters a D+.
      =================

    • Vaughan Pratt
      Vaughan Pratt
      Compare the promises of “change” with the consequences of the change we actually got.
      In his campaign, Obama promised to cut federal budget deficits in half by 2012 . Instead, Obama is now spending 48.8% more than revenue! We got 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budgets each year. Consequently, under Obama, Total US Debt Soars To 101.5% Of GDP
      Obama added 50.7% to all previous debt in just 3.7 years.

      See: US Federal Debt Chart

      Obama’s National Debt Impact
      Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
      As of Sep 27, 2012: $16,015,131,024,563
      In 3.7 yrs increased: $5,388,253,975,650

      See US Debt Clock
      US National Debt per taxpayer now exceeds $140,400.
      Obama has added $47,200 in debt per taxpayer – onto our children – with no hope in sight for paying it off!

      Compare historical US Government Spending
      See the US Treasury for the official numbers., now exceeding $16 trillion in debt.
      The only thing saving the USA from the Greek debacle is the flight to the relative safety of the US dollar. Rising debt will reduce confidence, rapidly increasing interest rates.

      Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues Debt is still biggest threat to U.S. security
      Rising debt will raise interest that will force reductions in both education and defense.
      Compare the promises of “change” with the consequences of the change we actually got.
      In his campaign, Obama promised to cut federal budget deficits in half by 2012 . Instead, Obama is now spending 48.8% more than revenue! We got 1.3 trillion dollar deficit budgets each year. Consequently, under Obama, Total US Debt Soars To 101.5% Of GDP
      Obama added 50.7% to all previous debt in just 3.7 years.

      See: US Federal Debt Chart

      Obama’s National Debt Impact
      Upon Inauguration: $10,626,877,048,913
      As of Sep 27, 2012: $16,015,131,024,563
      In 3.7 yrs increased: $5,388,253,975,650

      See US Debt Clock
      US National Debt per taxpayer now exceeds $140,400.

      Compare historical US Government Spending
      See the US Treasury for the official numbers., now exceeding $16 trillion in debt.
      The only thing saving the USA from the Greek debacle is the flight to the relative safety of the US dollar. Rising debt will reduce confidence, rapidly increasing interest rates.

      Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues Debt is still biggest threat to U.S. security
      Rising debt will raise interest that will force reductions in both education and defense.
      Then on top of that he wants to bury $ trillions in holes in the ground for no measureable benefit.
      That is NOT good stewardship!

    • Apologies for double documentitis.

    • The biggest threat to U.S. security is our aging population. Old folks aren’t productive and can’t fight wars. They are a drain on our economy, and will lower our standard of living. Tell grandpa and grandma to get off their lazy butts and go back to work.

    • David L. Hagen

      Max_OK (actually NOT OK)
      The real security threat was caused by Planned Parenthood and their ilk killing our children. As a consequence of Roe v. Wade, there were 54,559,615 abortions since 1973. E.g., In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed 289,750 abortions, or approximately 23% of all US abortions. Killing off those children and their progeny, directly caused the severe reduction in working people that would otherwise have supported the elderly. See The Law of Harvesting What You Plant

      The far greater problem will be: China’s Long March to Retirement Reform

      In 1975, there were six Chinese children for every one elder. By 2035, there will be two Chinese elders for every one child. During the single decade between 1995 and 2005, China added 107 million working-age adults to its population. During the single decade between 2025 and 2035, it will subtract 79 million.

      China will probably be drawing down its investment in US Treasuries to feed its retired population. What will the US do with consequently higher interest rates and unfunded social security? – Put trillions of dollars into holes in the ground (aka “carbon sequestration”) for no gain? I pray we turn from our foolish ways to sound stewardship of our economy and climate policies.

    • Obama and Romney find little common ground on energy production LA Times

      With the stakes so high, President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney offer starkly divergent ideas on how to proceed. The split between the candidates on so many energy issues might be traced, in part, to a fundamental disagreement over the reality of climate change. Romney has said he is unsure of it. Obama has called it a “threat to our children’s future.”

      Obama on Debt!

      “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

      Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

      ~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006
      Instead we got “Change”!

    • On “energy” during the 1st Presidential Debate.
      Obama said:

      I think it’s important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America, . . .
      On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we’ve got to boost American energy production. . . .

      And oil and natural gas production are higher than they’ve been in years. But I also believe that we’ve got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments. . . .
      And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we can not only reduce the deficit, we can not only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we’re also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.

      Romney said:

      My plan has five basic parts. One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about four million jobs. . . .
      Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again, and I’ve described it. It’s energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan. . . .

      The third area: energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and license in half. If I’m president, I’ll double them. And also get the — the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I’ll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

      And by the way, I like coal. I’m going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies. I want to get America and North America energy independent, so we can create those jobs.

  23. “But we’re not just talking about using fossil fuels as a bridge to clean energy — the Obama administration is aggressively expanding fossil-fuel development in the U.S. Rep. Ed Markey [D-Mass.] called it Obama’s ‘drill, baby, drill.’”

    What a bald faced lie.

    Obama has done nothing to expand drilling in the U.S. In fact, he has done everything he could to prevent it.

    From effectively closing down the Gulf, to drilling:

    “It’s no surprise that during an election year the president doesn’t want to hype a plan that represents a giant step backwards for American energy production and keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas off-limits.”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/239529-president-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-must-be-replaced

    To halting the Keystone Pipeline, Obama has tried to dry up oil production in the U.S.

    The increase in production has been despite Obama’s efforts, an almost exclusively private land.

    “Energy firms face fewer costs and regulatory obstacles when drilling on state and private lands than they do on public lands, where oil production fell last year, a top Obama administration official said today.”

    http://rlch.org/news/drilling-leaves-fed-lands-because-state-private-acres-are-cheaper-says-blm-chief

    But that’s OK, one progressive CAGW activist has claimed that the ultimate CAGW activist, Barack Obama, has himself personally increased U.S. oil production in his own version of “drill baby drill.”

    Just like the brave Obama himself killed Osama bin Laden. (After, of course, three times refusing to give permission for the SEALS to take him.)

    All while the EPA’s decarbonization regs await only the November election for full implementation. Watch for incredibly fast implementation if Obama loses.

    And yet here we read:

    ‘”Democrats have abandoned carbon cap and trade, and recognize the need for cheap abundant energy, preferably produced in the U.S.”

    Indeed.

    Sorry, but I have to say it. What a bunch of suckers.

    Being a progressive means never having to say…the truth.

    Being a moderate means never having to confront the extent of the dishonesty of progressives.

  24. “Part of my problem with the whole process is, that it seems that the cleaner we make our energy generation capability… now we want to come up against an obstacle that nothing can come out of those pipes, we have already taken out the VOX, the NOX, the SOX, the POX, the TOX. Now it is the carbon dioxide and water that are coming out of those smokestacks that has to be stopped.” (Michael Burgess, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 109th Congress Hearings, Second Session, July 2006)

  25. Do we need a government climate change policy or a change the climate of government policy. We must understand that the maximization of personal achievement — as with all scarce resources — can only be hindered by bigger and bigger government–e.g.,

    “You need just as much drive to be a good businessman as you do to excel as an athlete. The difference is that the athlete knows how good he’s doing at the end of the day by looking at his results.” ~Eddy Merckx

  26. Yes, Dr. Curry, you are reading it complletely wrong.

    The Democratic Party is yielding no ground, but waiting for a better political climate. They will give lip service to cheap, plentiful energy, while they continue to shut down coal mines and power plants. The Harry Reid Senate will bury all Climate bills coming out of the House. Therefore, EPA will not be hindered by Congress. Obama Administration will continue with Executive Orders. Coal plants will still be shut down with unscientific 4 mg/ton mercury standards. Nuclear will go nowhere and can contribute nothing for another 10 years at the earliest. Electricity costs will “necessarily skyrocket”.

    The UN IPCC won’t be disbanded and they will cede no ground. They, too, will wait for better political climate and pounce when the winds are favorable.

    The next EPA fiat will be a clean-diesel technology to reduce PM2.5 particulates after EPA “takes a fall” in the ATI suit filed today.

    Even if there is a change in administrations in January 2013, sufficient damage has been done that a regional power-grid blackout will be a likely event within 3 years. A great deal of damage will be done in the politial panic that will immedately follow. An engineered panic with “solutions” ready to go. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

  27. ” And it seems that other countries who have been more supportive of the Kyoto Protocol, are beginning to come around to the U.S. position. Am I reading this correctly? Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?”

    Yes, I think Judith is right. The fact is that people in many coutries do not see the dire climate changes occuring, so many are forming the opinion that the IPCC, politicians and economists are exaggerating the risks. Each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere requires a quantum of energy to advance to the next evcited state, but no one seems to know whether there is a next state available. If not, CO2 will allow earth’s emission to escape harmlessly into space. The IPCC should have looked a little harder at quantum thermodynamics.

    • @AB: If not, CO2 will allow earth’s emission to escape harmlessly into space. The IPCC should have looked a little harder at quantum thermodynamics.

      My impression was that a great many climate scientists have looked very hard at exactly the number of “next states available,” using the HITRAN tables. If you’ve looked even harder and have found evidence to the contrary, please indicate where we can see your calculations.

  28. The heat has gone out of the climate debate (as far as US politicians are concerned) because US emissions continue to decline. They have now reached 1992 levels. With increasing use of natural gas for power generation, that trend will continue.

    NB apologies if this ends up as a duplicate post. My earlier efforts seemed to disappear into the bit bucket.

  29. “Q. The climate issue is barely registering in this election. Why has this issue fallen off the Democratic agenda?

    A. For several reasons. No. 1, because huge amounts of money were spent to purposely discredit the facts. Some of the coal industry, some of your old power-plant owners, put money into branding cap-and-trade as cap-and-tax. ”

    What get from Kerry is he misdirecting the question away from Kerry’s failure pass legislation, by blaming it on other factors.
    But other then steering away from any details of how he was a complete failure, what he seems to be say is:
    Starting from the assumption that lefty think or claim that republicans are already bought tools big coal or oil Or Wallstreet. Or other dark and sinister forces- nor were Republican votes needed. This means the Republicans aren’t the ones being bought, but rather Kerry is suggesting his fellow dems are being influenced by huge amount money.
    Also it seems to suggest in an indirect way that if supporter of Dem pols would given enough money then there would less effect from the “huge amounts of money”.

    So due to Dems who were influenced by money, Kerry was unable to pass legislation.
    So not Kerry’s fault [and keep in mind Kerry is very rich and in safe seat]; and if the public had provided more money/support to dem senator pols, he could have passed the legislation.

  30. I can’t comment directly about US politics since they are all a mystery on this side of the pond.

    But I do observe that compared with three or four years ago when I first started taking an interest in matters climatical there is a perceptible change in the vim and vigour of the alarmist side. The swagger has gone. Their sense that history was on their side and that their victory was inevitable has drained away. Post Copenhagen, and post Climategate they see nothing but the wreckage of their hopes and dreams.

    There has been a relentless series of defeats wherever one looks. Germany – one of the few countries in the world where Green politics has a major electoral following is ditching low carbon nuclear power in favour of high carbon lignite (brown coal). Kyoto is dead – and there is no realistic prospect of the corpse being revived anytime soon. In UK we passed the foolhardy Climate Change Act in 2008, but it is now slowly being swept under the carpet as energy sanity sets in and disastrous subsidies for ‘renewables’ are reduced.

    The media – once to be relied upon to put ‘climate change’ stories front and centre of their coverage – have got climate fatigue……they recognise that it is a turnoff topic for readers and viewers. It is no longer trendy and is just falling into decline

    And the few remaining alarmists are still fighting only because they know no other way. They have no new ideas, They too can see the tide of worldwide political opinion swinging ever further from their grasp.
    There are no bright spots on their horizon. No rallying points to look forward to…no new vigorous leader to give them hope. Pachauri is 72, Hansen 71 and Romm is 52. Mann is younger at 46 but a very divisive figure. And that is it. There’s nobody else to lead them to the Promised Land.

    In UK at least one generation has had a complete school education laced with dire warnings of imminent climate-generated apocalypse. But the younger people show no more enthusiasm for ‘climate action’ than the old. There are few, if any, 20 and 30 something climate activists. It is a dying business to be in.

    We’ve heard a lot recently about the ‘Arctic Death Spiral’. Which may or may not be occurring as forecast. But watching the alarmist’s slow death spiral…

    No action, No people, No hope, No chance!

    is even more interesting.

    • Latimer Alder,

      You put it so clearly.

      Excellent explanation of the situation.

    • Wow

      See how bad things have become in the alarmist camp? When looking at leadership candidates, I genuinely forgot about Al Gore.

      Sorry Albert…but when you tie yourself so closely to a failing bandwagon, the crash is severe. From Nobel to Nobody in just five short years

    • Retirement means you become nobody?

      That’s depressing.

    • According to the wikipedia

      ‘Gore is currently an author and environmental activist’

      Says nothing there about him having retired. But that I could forget him so easily – and you could think he had retired – speaks volumes about his lack of effectiveness.

      I seem to remember that he hosted some sort of international internet activist floparooney last year. Then sank without trace. And earlier he had hoped to raise some funds at a climataboondoggle by charging $1200 for a small sub and a photo op with the great man. But nobody was stupid enough to pay and he cancelled.

      The problem with Gore, as with all the ‘leaders’ of the climate activists, is that they came to prominence in the days when the appropriate response to their drivelous outpourings was accepted as weeping gratitude from the supine media and and ritual calls to do unspeakable things to ‘deniers’. It was the unspoken assumption that they were indeed True Prophets of the Hell To Come..and so were immune from any criticism or questioning..

      But times have changed. The preachy infallibility of the ‘from Me to you’ style of discourse that they are used to is no longer fashionable. As Latif nearly said ‘people have started to ask the difficult questions’. And aren’t satisfied any more with superficial answers that boil down to

      ‘Listen sonny I’m a climate scientist and you’re a nasty little denier. I don’t have to answer your questions. Now bugger off. Capiche?’.

      which is the spectacularly unsuccessful Gore/Mann/Romm approach.

      So Gore might well have retired for all the use he is. But he thinks he’s still winning hearts and minds. Like Hitler in the Fuehrerbuker, he still thinks he has huge armies of followers at his beck and call. But they evaporated years ago and the rest of the world just ignores him.

      Poor Al.

    • Well, Gore did win a Nobel prize. I doubt you could win a prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

    • Latimer,

      Yr: “Like Hitler in the Fhuererbunker…”

      In all fairness to Al Gore, Latimer, I think his choice of a carbon-flaunt, beach-bunnie-ready (Eli up!), palatial Xanadu is a much classier and more stylish venue for one of those last-stand, “Rosebud”-moment, Gotterdammerung spectaculars than any old, smelly, poorly ventilated, damp and moldy, concrete bunker, any day.

    • Latimer,

      Great comment–thanks.

      Perhaps one more stress, currently afflicting the rapidly-dwindling, endangered, greenshirt population might be noted.

      In particular, that the lolwot’s, tempterrain’s, bbd’s, and even the Josh’sl–this chokes me up to even think about it–are all marked for a good-riddance, one-way, AYEEeee…SPLAT!!!!, drop down the memory-hole of good-comrade, progressive, world-historical consciousness by the “cause’s” current, on-a-roll, back-stabbing-power-play, gal-pal putsch per its utopian, screw-the-whiteboys!, final-synthesis, change-you-can-believe-in! big-plans.

      Though Robert will probably survive the upcoming, in-the-works, show-trial cull of the pale-face, good-ol’-boy Bolsheviks, I would imagine–as a harmless-weenie, exotic-pet curiosity, that is. You know, Robert displayed as a crowd-pleaser, freak-show attraction, modeled on the last dodo or passenger pigeon or thylacine exhibits of yore.

    • Latimer

      What a fine example of the personalise and demonise approach adopted by fake sceptics because they have no scientific case.

      Although personalising and demonising is superficially appealing it is also a dangerous tactic. Those adopting it become so engaged with their artificially enhanced vendettas against a handful of pre-selected targets that they forget something very important.

      They forget that they are wrong. They forget that the scientific consensus is not sensitive to being personalised and demonised, and they forget above all that the physics doesn’t care.

      Thus detached from reality, they’ll even imply that the accelerating Arctic melt isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, without apparently realising that they are whistling in the dark.

      People are easy. Throwing rotten eggs at Mann, or Hansen, or Trenberth is easy. Personalising and demonising radiative physics is not easy. And that’s what is going to give you a horrible ride sooner or later. Your only consolation is that we’re all in it together, although I doubt there will be much sympathy for fake sceptics when there’s no more room for manufactured doubt.

      Still, keep whistling. Keep your courage up by feeding it on delusions. Anything’s better than facing the facts, isn’t it?

    • BBD

      How about you write exactly what there is a scientific consensus on in regards to climate change? I’ll start- additional CO2 will lead to warming if other variables in the system remaing unchanged.

    • How about you go and do some reading? I’m not here to educate the lazy.

    • @BBD

      Does it ever occur to you that aggressively refusing to answer the question is unlikely to persuade people that you have the faintest idea of the subject you pontificate about?

      If not, it should.

    • I’m not here to tell lazy people things they can find out in ten minutes for themselves.

    • BBD

      You make a very typical response. You claim that something (in this case a consensus) exists but when you are asked the specifics it is shown that you have either no or very weak evidence to support your claim.

    • @BBD

      You’re extremely good at telling us the reasons ‘why you are not here’. But that begs the question of why you are here at all?

      Beats me,

    • “Latimer Alder | September 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
      You’re extremely good at telling us the reasons ‘why you are not here’. But that begs the question of why you are here at all?”

      Massive projection by Latie of his own inadequacies onto someone else. He can’t figure out himself why he is here, so he projects his psychosis on to someone else.

    • @webbie

      I’m here, in part, because its so much fun puncturing the immense self-regard of the alarmist obsessives who come here to lecture us all on our sins and their cleverness.

      As much fun as a night in the ‘Dog and Duck’, but cheaper and without the hangover.

    • “Latimer Alder | September 26, 2012 at 2:09 am |
      I’m here, in part, because its so much fun puncturing the immense self-regard of the alarmist obsessives who come here to lecture us all on our sins and their cleverness.”

      And I am partly here so I can get ideas for further research. You see, the more you guys deflect and misdirect, the more we get curious about what you’re building in there (to paraphrase Tom Waits).

      You are in fact a part of a team comprised of useful idiots … and I don’t care what kind of connotations that infers.

      Will I write a book about you and your strange ilk? Or will you write a book about the remarkable weirdness of those of us that follow conventional science? If not a book, how about a blog post?

    • @web hub telescope

      You’re right.

      I confess. I can keep my secret no longer. I am in fact part of a world wide sceptical conspiracy whose sole purpose is to have the planet immolated by three weeks come next Tuesday fortnight. By doing so we will all able to enjoy our riches until eternity while being both fried and drownded along with everybody else

      And there is no end to the depths of our depravity. A month ago I travelled incognito to a hidden building deep in the heart of the power elite of London. As a code name we called 1, Carlton House Terrace. – and with super post-modern irony it is only 5 doors away from the Royal Society.

      There, in a secret room called ‘The Conference Room’, I heard a presentation by ‘Mr Big’. For travelling purposes he calls himself ‘Steve McIntyre’ and affects a Canadian accent. But I’m sure you and I both know his true identity.

      Once we had received our secret orders and worked on our cover story, about a hundred of us adjourned to a ‘London Pub’, where we stood outside and pretended to act normal to dispel any suspicion. Using our code names I spoke to some others …Rhoda Klapp, Richard Betts from the IPCC, Prof. Jonathan Jones from Oxford University and his charming wife.

      Since the sceptic world is awash with big oil denier funded cash I felt no shame in being entirely extravagant and had a second Diet Coke.

      My expenses were

      Travel to London: Super Value Cheap Day Return : £8.50
      Bus fares twice: £2.70
      2 x Diet Coke : £3.00

      Total: £14.20 (abt $23)

      When you write up this clandestine meeting, you may wish to check with the contemporary accounts

      http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/16/steve-mcintyre-at-the-gwpf-cartoon-notes-by-josh.html#comment18863134

      BTW – I haven’t found anyone yet to submit my expenses to.

      Here endeth my confession. I hope you will be merciful.

    • Scott Basinger

      Latimer wins this entire thread. One day when I travel to the UK from Canada I’d like to buy you a pint just for cheering up my day.

    • @scott basinger

      I’m easily bought.

      For two drinks I’ll even meet you off the plane at Heathrow.

      Ciao.

    • Latie, with his fake rhetorical skills, could perhaps win a high school debate, but that is damning with faint praise. Glad that he amuses you and your ilk.

    • @web hub telescope

      Wow!

      Now I have ‘fake rhetorical skills’.

      I’m used to you accusing me of being a ‘fake sceptic’ and worse.

      But how do you imagine ‘fake rhetoric’ works? I can’t grasp the concept.

      ‘No rhetorical skills’ I can understand. But ‘fake rhetoric’?

    • I agree. Latimer wins and its humour that will always win.

    • “Peter Davies | September 27, 2012 at 3:54 am |

      I agree. Latimer wins and its humour that will always win.”

      You are right. Humor does always win. The clown is always the funniest guy in the room. Latimer Alder fits right in amongst the other clowns.

      http://tinyurl.com/ClimateClowns

      What gets me rolling in the aisles is when Latimer Alder adopts one of his sockpuppet identities. Do you remember the time that he took on the name ‘Stirling English’? That was sooooo funny, it was so funny that I forgot to laugh. Or how about the time he used the name “Wilma’s Mom”? That cracked me up.

      It’s a close call between Latimer and “Joes’ World” for funniest Climate Clown. Latimer also battles it out with Oliver Manuel, but Oliver is more like a Sad Clown. Alder might in fact be more funny like Herman Alexander Pope is funny, like when he takes his little rhetorical bike out for a spin. It is so humorous watching those two riding their little tiny bikes.

      But the English are always the funniest, especially when they act like ninnies. You know like a Monty Python skit. Or when he adopts an indignant posture, kind of like Basil Fawlty. None of this Benny Hill stuff, that’s too low-brow. It’s more like Mr. Bean, the self-centered clown, ignoring everything that goes on in the world around him, because it doesn’t directly affect him..

      So I give up, Latie does win by a mile. Humor, especially highly refined English humour, wins by a mile. No one can complete with a sophisticated clown twit.

    • @web hub telescope

      Rats!

      Your laser-like mind saw through my little wheeze and you guessed that it was I who wrote the ‘Wilma Hub Telescope, (Mrs)’ remarks that were so well received a while back.

      Was it the ‘as told to LA’ tag at the bottom that was the giveaway?

      Or did you do some sophisticated mathematical textual analysis published on your unread website that led you back to my evil deniers lair? (offstage sound of Montgomery Burns laughter)

    • Comedy is subjective.

      Science isn’t.

      Get over it, little buddy. God loves you, deal with it.

    • Yes WHT, we all know about Latimer and Sterling and other nome de plumes that have been used by this contributor. I must confess that I enjoy the periods of lightness when they occur.Otherwise it can be heavy going threading one’s way through the carping and abuse that goes on on this blog.

      I am not driven by any agenda and simply seek to find the truth, and IMO it lies somewhere between the POVs of both sides of the debate. It does seem odd, however, that there seldom seems any agreement on the basic science behind climate and that is disturbing.

    • @webster hub telescope

      You write

      ‘Comedy is subjective….science isn’t’.

      H’mmm

      ‘Hard science’ probably is less subjective than most. With ‘hard science’ you can make predictions that come true.

      And it doesn’t matter if it is Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton, the most rabid alarmist or the most sceptical realist who makes them. You can get men to the moon and back with that sort of ‘science’. And do so even when things do not go at all according to plan. You can find out things about galaxies tens of billions of light years away. You can ‘hear’ the Big Bang. You can do truly amazing wonderful things with ‘hard science’

      And then there is ‘climate science’. Which at best is a mush of noisy statistics and a whole host of subjective interpretations of those statistics. No predictions of any value beyond a vague idea that its probably getting a bit warmer. And an idea that CO2 may have something to do with it.

      Even the supposedly most important number in ‘climate science’ – the climate sensitivity – hasn’t been determined to any reasonable accuracy after 30 years of trying. And depending on who you talk to and which method they use you will be quoted different values. It often comes down to the entirely subjective method of ‘which protagonist do I trust more – if anybody’. Nothing scientific there.

      And then we get to the really subjective bit. The subjective interpretation of the subjective results of the subjective ‘science’.

      You – my dear Paul Pukite – can worry yourself into a permanent froth of concern and angst that you believe that we have passed the peak production of crude oil. But for me, I remain unmoved. Even if it is true (which I take leave to doubt) I cannot see what the fuss is about. And you have just assumed that it is self-evidently atrocious news and that we must all immediately ‘do something’ about it. While I file it away as another piece of information as we try to navigate the chart of our existence (if that doesn’t sound more high-falutin’ than I want it to).

      Our good Aussie cobber Peter Martin (Tempterrain) subjectively worries himself into a total panic about temperatures and sea levels.
      He is genuinely scared that a three foot rise over 100 years will have dire and awful consequences. Maybe its because I work right by the tidal Thames and watch the rhythm of its ups and downs every day, but I genuinely cannot envisage the problem.

      Peter however is so fixated by his subjective fear that he cannot conceive of anyone not sharing them – apart from because of ‘nefarious’ purposes. He can’t answer any argument against his fears beyond accusing the questioner of being ‘driven by ideology’…an accusation that he presents scant evidence for.

      So Webbie – you are partly right. Hard science is pretty non-subjective. But the further you move away from that the less any observational facts there are and the more the subjective interpretation holds sway. You are extremely naive if you believe that its any other way.

      And even more gullible if you fall for the old myth

      ‘I’m a Climate Scientist, Trust Me’

    • MattStat/MatthewRMarler

      WebHubTelescope: Massive projection by Latie of his own inadequacies onto someone else. He can’t figure out himself why he is here, so he projects his psychosis on to someone else.

      Pop psychoanalysis is the first refuge of the intellectually defeated.

    • “Pop psychoanalysis is the first refuge of the intellectually defeated.”

      No doubt. Some of us don’t mind wading into the total absurdity of alternative climate “science theories” . And this place is the ultimate strange attractor of all sorts of bizarre ideas. By definition the advocates of conventional science will get a pounding, because this outlet is obviously necessary as a relief outlet. It gets back to “Why do people believe in weird things?” It’s a harder problem than predicting the climate.

    • @BBD

      Thanks. Since our last interaction effectively ended with you making an entirely unfounded accusation of that I was lying and threats that ‘I will be watching you’, I don’t think I need any lessons from you in ‘personalisation’ or ‘demonisation’. Nor in common courtesy. Perhaps the BB part of your nom de plume is short for ‘Bovver Boy’?

      And as it happens in my essay above I did not make reference to Hansen or Trenberth, and my only remark about Mann was that he was a ‘divisive figure’. You need only to read the Climategate e-mails to see that this is true – even among his own allies.

      As to radiative physics or the arctic sea ice, I don’t think I have ever expressed an opinion on either topic but I promise to treat your advice on these matters with the respect it deserves.

      And I note that – among all your other stuff – you do not advance any counterargument to my central thesis – which is that the activist/alarmist cause is rapidly becoming moribund. A lack of leadership, seemingly endless political defeats, the Copenhagen fiasco and Climategate have all conspired to leave just a disorganised and demoralised rump of tired campaigners hoping that ‘something will turn up’. Even you can manage little better than ‘but we’ll be proved right eventually’….which is more a resignation than a rallying cry.

      Still – at least you didn’t call me a liar this time around. Progress indeed.

    • You were lying about having read the references and it is silly of you to bring it up again. I made no threats; this is another lie. I shall start keeping a tally of your lies and misrepresentations though, and I will use it against you until you stop doing things like this. As for common courtesy, you do not deserve any because of behaviour like this.

      The point is simple: climate liars can get away with manufacturing doubt for just a little while longer. Then it will be game over. I suspect that when you look at the temperature curves and the Arctic, and OHC and all the rest of it, you have a horrible, deep doubt.

      I’m guessing you are an old man, but with a bit of luck you will live long enough for that horrible doubt to consume you.

    • @bbd

      I don’t think I need to waste much time on replying to your rant..

      Suffice it to say that I am very glad you do not make threats.

      Otherwise I might interpret your remark

      ‘I shall start keeping a tally of your lies and misrepresentations though, and I will use it against you until you stop doing things like this.’

      in a far less benign way than the spirit of friendly debate that you obviously mean it

      /sarc

    • “Otherwise I might interpret your remark

      ‘I shall start keeping a tally of your lies and misrepresentations though, and I will use it against you until you stop doing things like this.’”

      Isn’t that how the British legal system would interpret it?

      Latimer, according to British defamation law, you would have to prove your published allegations and assertions to be true. This is different than the USA, where we would have to disprove them.

      So this would mean that Latimer would actually have to crack a textbook, and start doing some detailed scientific analysis. That would be so rich. No time for clowning then, eh?

      I wouldn’t bring this up, but Latimer actually tried to pull this on me once before, threatening me with one of these laws. I thought it was funny, coming from a twit like Latimer.

    • @web hub telescope

      Have you stopped taking the meds? Or been overdoing the lunchtime firewater?

      Your post on British defamation laws is pretty much incomprehensible. And I don’t think that you understood my prior post to Bovver Boy D at all.

      Suggest a nice lie down and then you’ll feel better.

    • @web hub telescope

      OK…your post does make a bit more sense if I assume you got the interaction with Bovver Boy Dave totally backasswards

      He is the one wearing the black hat making the threats that he would have to prove in court. I am (as ever) wearing the white hat and being the injured party subject to BBD’s threats.

      So if we just turn the dramatis personae in your post on its head it is perfectly logical

      Here’s the corrected version:

      ‘BBD, according to British defamation law, you would have to prove your published allegations and assertions to be true. This is different than the USA, where we would have to disprove them.

      So this would mean that BBD would actually have to crack a textbook, and start doing some detailed scientific analysis. That would be so rich. No time for clowning then, eh?’

      Capiche?

    • David Springer

      Surface cooling is dominated by latent processes not radiative. That’s physics too, dopey anonymous coward.

    • Proof positive that you do not understand why radiative balance is calculated at TOA not the surface…

      What was your MOS? You never did say.

    • ‘radiative balance is calculated at TOA not the surface…’

      Typically in science one measures things. In climate science they guess them and call it a ‘calculation’.

    • Springer does not understand the definition of “anonymous coward”. If you have a handle, then you are not an anonymous coward. This is used at sites such as slashdot for those people that don’t want to use a handle, in that case, “anonymous coward” is the default handle.

      To me, BBD is not anonymous. He has a point-of-view which I can glean insight from, and then watch how his thinking evolves over time.

    • David Springer

      BBD | September 25, 2012 at 2:53 pm |

      “Proof positive that you do not understand why radiative balance is calculated at TOA not the surface…”

      Huh. So all the surface temperature sensors are just a waste of money because we know all we need to know by TOA radiative imbalance.

      You’re comical.

      “What was your MOS? You never did say.”

      Meteorological Equipment Technician

    • Rob Starkey

      Since you are apparently too lazy even to check wikipedia for useful links I have done so for you.

    • BBD

      Since you do not like to let facts and actual data get in the way of your incorrect statements and conclusions I’ll offer you information from a recent survey of climate scientists.

      The questions and the responses:

      1. Human activity has been the primary cause of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures in the last 250 years. (About 90 percent of respondents agreed- there was a consensus)

      2. If governmental policies do not change, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will exceed 550 parts per million between 2050 and 2059. (There was no consensus)

      3. If and when atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach 550 ppm, the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000 will be 2-3 degrees Celsius, or 3.2-4.8 F. (There was no consensus)

      4. If governmental policies do not change, in the year 2050, the increase in global average surface temperature relative to the year 2000 will be 1.5-2 degrees Celsius, or 2.4-3.2 F). (There was no consensus)

      5. The likelihood that global average sea level will rise more during this century than the highest level given in the 2007 assessment of the IPCC (0.59 meters, 23.2 inches) is more than 90 percent. (There was no consensus)

      6. Since 1851, the U.S. has experienced an average of six major hurricane landfalls (> 111 mph) per decade. The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2011-2020 will be seven to eight. (There was no consensus)

      7. The total number of major hurricane landfalls in the U.S. from 2041 to 2050 will be seven to eight. (There was no consensus)

      8. Given increasing levels of human activity, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be kept below 550 ppm with current technology — but only with changes in government policy. (There was no consensus)

      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2012/05/scientific-concensus-stronger-than-scientists-though/ BTW- This was a survey of concerned climate scientists and one would have expected that there views would be more in support of the upper end of the IPCC’s estimates.

    • Rob Starkey

      Personally, I’m not very interested in polls, but the spin you put on an article entitled Scientific consensus stronger than scientists thought? is so bizarre it merits comment.

      The article you link begins:

      More than two decades after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began publishing the latest scientific consensus on the globe’s changing climate, widespread doubts persist in the U.S. over whether there really is widespread agreement among scientists. It’s the primary argument of those who deny basic scientific foundations of warming.

      But new and innovative survey results suggest the consensus among scientists might actually be stronger than the scientists themselves had thought.

      It continues:

      Now, from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Minnesota Institute on the Environment, comes a fresh study on the question of scientific consensus. Its findings offer something new: scientists appear actually to underestimate the extent to which they, as a group, agree on key questions related to climate change science.

      In sum, the newly released poll results identified surprisingly common points of agreement among climate scientists; and yet for each point, those scientists underestimated the amount of agreement among their colleagues.

      The author of the study is quoted:

      “Our biggest concern is that people may underestimate the amount of agreement among climate experts … and we think that may hinder effective decisionmaking — that if people perceive disagreement, that would be a reason to not act,” Kriss said. “If that perception is inaccurate, it would be nice to correct it.”

    • BBD

      They or you can try to “spin” the article as you wish but the questions and answers are exactly as I wrote. There is a consensus on the concept of AGW but not much else and the data showed and you can not refute.

    • Note: Web Hubble Telescope believes hoarding data, losing data, and being generally incompetent falls withing the realm of “conventional science.” Very interesting!

  31. Another observation

    In US it is suggested that the ‘climate issue’ is failing because

    ‘because huge amounts of money were spent to purposely discredit the facts. Some of the coal industry, some of your old power-plant owners, put money into branding cap-and-trade as cap-and-tax.’

    Maybe so, maybe not so. I’m not in the US so can’t comment.

    But – even if true – such an argument doesn’t work for the UK. When we still had a substantial coal industry it had been in public ownership since 1948. And it nearly all closed down in the mid-1980s. There are a very few privately owned mines left, but they are insubstantial contributors to our power generation.

    And yet, ‘climate change’ has fallen way off people’s radar in UK. The Prime Minister, despite being elected on a promise of ‘the greenest government ever’ has been completely silent on the issue. Politicians run away from it like scared cats. And the ministerial responsibility is parked with a junior minister from the junior coalition partner.

    This effect cannot be blamed on coal or oil or tobacco industry lobbying since we do not – to any great extent – have any of them.

    There needs to be a better explanation. My best guess is that the mass of people listened seriously to the story when it first came out twenty-odd years ago, And since it was told by apparently reputable sciency types, they were happy to go along with some of the actions proposed.

    But when it actually became apparent that none of the shroudwaving predictions were coming true, and that not all the sciency types were of pristine moral character and entirely objective motivations, they began to question just how true the CAGW narrative actually was.

    And they quickly concluded that there was an awful lot of special pleading by those who made their careers from exploiting the climate change scare. And at that point the individual members of Joe Public powerless to do anything individually just stopped listening. And they have stayed that way. The quickest way to turn people off a discussion is to try to talk about ‘climate change’. It is yesterday’s ’cause du jour’, and about as interesting as last week’s newspaper.

  32. New legislation is not required for GHG emission controls, bacause EPA is moving ahead. They can probably do cap and trade under the CAA. They can certainly clamp down on emissions. So unless EPA can be stopped, which requires difficult new legislation, the alarmists have won, not lost.

    The policy debate is far from over, but it is now the dabate over stopping EPA. Interestingly this may not require 60 votes in the Senate, just a simple majority. But the law allowing regulations to be vetoed by Congress is new and has never been used. This creates its own balance of power difficulties. Plus voting against environmental protection is a hard road. So interesting policy times lie ahead.

    • David,
      But the law allowing regulations to be vetoed by Congress is new
      Correct me if I am wrong, that “law” does not yet exist as law. It has no prospect of becoming law under either a Democrat Senate or Obama White House.

      Mind you, it is a very good idea as it restores power of checks and balances back to elected people and away from civil “servants.” “The key to understanding the American system is to imagine that you have the power to make nearly any law you want. But your worst enemy will be the one to enforce it. ” – Rick Cook.

    • Stephen, I am referring to the Congressional Review Act, which is indeed law. It allows Congress to veto regulations, but so far this has never happened.

    • Thanks for the Reference. I missed it in my own link. The CRA appears quite toothless.

    • David Wojick,

      Just one example:

      http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/09/smokeless.shtm

      By the way, the CRA that you think gives the Congress the authority to rescind regulations…was an act of Congress.

      Congress has delegated authority to federal agencies by statute. If can rescind that authority by statutes.

      The CRA provides a streamlined procedure to avoid filibusters. It is hard to see it as the “source” if Congress’ authority, since Congress is the source of the CRA.

      Now procedurally, to have a regulation removed from the Federal Register, the CRA may (or may not, I haven’t researched it) be necessary. But it is certainly not the source of congressional authority over regulations enacted by federal agencies.

      I don’t know of a Supreme Court case on point, but since the issuance of rules by any federal agency is done pursuant to a delegation of legislative aurthority by Congress, there is no limit I can see on Congress’ power to revoke that delegated authority, in whole, or in part.

      A simple act providing that “EPA shall issue no regulations restricting the emissions of CO2″ would seem to be sufficient. And I can’t think of a legal challenge to such an act that would have any basis in law.

    • A minor point, but no new legislation is needed to “allow[] regulations to be vetoed by Congress….”

      Congress created the EPA, and can rescind any regulation, or disband the EPA, if it so chooses. Whether it is politically likely, or will survive a veto are different questions, but Congress already has the authority to act.

      The Congressional Review Act, which insulates some legislation from the filibuster in the Senate, is also not necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Senate can change its rules to do the same thing once Republicans are in the majority. The EPA regs could also probably be rescinded under reconciliation, if the act were structured as EPA shall expend no funds to enforce such regs.

      The CRA just gives the GOP political cover, rather than exercising the “nuclear” option. or engaging in a semantic fought over whether reconciliation is appropriate in this instance.

      As for the prospects of rescission of those regs after the election, if Republicans win control of the House, Senate and White House, rescission is almost guaranteed. If they fail to win all three, then there is still a good chance that there will be enough Dems who will want to be re-elected some day, that they will back away from the abyss, just like they did in the days before Copenhagen. But it will be close.

    • Gary, Congress can indeed disband the EPA but that is not a realistic possibility. It can block funding for specific regulatory development or enforcement. That it can rescind a regulation absent CRA is not clear to me. Has it ever done so, in the 100+ years of regulation?

    • David Wojick,

      The Democrats have always thought so.

      “Spokesmen for the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said they shared their colleagues’ desire to overturn some of the regulations but were waiting for guidance from the administration before adopting a specific strategy.”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/12regulate.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www

      Even with respect to the current pending EPA regulations.

      http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/01/congress-vs-the-epa-round-ii/

      The primacy of Congress’ authority in federal legislation isn’t really up for debate by any serious legal scholars that I know of.

    • Gary, the Congress can amend existing (Congressional) laws in ways that nullify the regs written under the old laws, but I do not think they have the power to directly nullify Executive Branch regulations, except under the new CRA, which has yet to be tested. It is a balance of powers issue. At least I have never heard of it being done, and I have been doing regulatory studies for forty years, hence my request for an example.

    • David Wojick,

      Regulatory rescission is not a balance of powers issue. Congress has the power to pass the CRA to give itself power to rescind legislation, but it can’t do so absent its own prior delegation of power?

      The CRA does not grant Congress any power at all, it is merely procedural. It seeks to avoid the normal legislative process, including filibusters. But it does not expand Congress’ power.

    • Gary, we are talking about rescinding EB regulations, not legislation. When CRA is used it will go to the SC to see if Congress can give itself this power over the EB. It will be an interesting case.

    • David,

      The Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case, and I doubt anyone would bring it. You are just plain mistaken about the authority of Congress.

      Why would an act of Congress,. the CRA, create power for Congress where there was none?

      Again, the only reason the EPA can issue any regulations at all is because the Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate some of its legislative authority. Where do you get the idea that Congress may not then restrict or revoke that delegated authority?

      What provision of the Constitution, or Supreme Court precedent, has ever so limited Congress’ authority?

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      The CRA has apparently been used once. Harvard Law Review has an article on it:
      The Mysteries of the Congressional Review Act
      http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/vol_122_the_mysteries.pdf
      The take away message of that article is that the CRA is not a big deal, and no questions of it’s constitutionality were raised.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      I agree with David Wojick on this issue. Interesting policy times do indeed lie ahead.

    • Joseph O'Sullivan

      In the enviro community there was hope that the CRA would be used to change some of Bush’s regulatory decisions, but that never came to fruition. CRA is in something of a grey area. If it is used there might be some litigation over the balance of powers questions.

  33. Dr. Curry,

    Re: your comment that “Democrats … recognize the need for cheap abundant energy, preferably produced in the U.S.” Leaving to one side whether it is the D’s or the R’s (or both) who are the ones changing (or not changing) their views, the fracking political wars show that policy divisions remain large, both nationally and locally. The extended process for consideration of fracking in New York State is illustrative of the back-and-forth – see the most recent installment of the story at http://theloopny.com/blog/new-york-to-review-health-impact-of-fracking/ . The political debate over the nature of the resource from which that energy can be produced (gas/oil vs. renewables) and the costs/subsidies for the respective sources, is very much alive and divided.

    I hope this is useful.

    Regards,

    MK

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      MK,
      Those claiming there are unacceptable health consequences to frakkking are lying.
      Frakking has been used for over 50 years.
      If there were any health implications there would be, you know, like evidence.
      Instead there are anti-industrial extremists making up bs and getting public finance to fund their fabrication of evidence.

  34. Our hostess asks “Am I reading this correctly? Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?”

    I think there are, in fact, three realities. There is the Economic Reality (ER), the political Reality (PR), and the Scientific Reality (SR).

    The ER is that we in the G7 countries enjoy a very high standard of living largely because we consume huge quantities of cheap fossil fuels. The rest of the world hopes to enjoy a similar standard of living. So, the ER is that the world will consume every last barrel of oil, every last cubic meter of natural gas, and every last ton of coal.

    The SR is in debate, but the perceived scientific reality (PSR), is that CAGW is real.

    The PR is caught in between the two other realities. I have had two actual conversations with my MP, David McGuinty, trying to convince him that CAGW is a hoax, base on sound science. He has one argument I cannot counter. “How can Jim Cripwell possibly be correct if all the learned societies say he is wrong?”. Politicians are stuck between the ER, and the PSR. They cannot afford to reduced the use of fossil fuels, but they must try and reduce CO2 emissions.

    I think the question our hostess is asking is something like, “Are politicians veering away from the PSR, towards the ER?”. I suspect, and hope, the answer is yes. But as long as the PSR exists, politicians will continue to make stupid decisions like passing the Carbon Tax in Australia, cancelling the Keystone Pipeline in the USA, and refusing to build a third runway at Heathrow in the UK.

    So the key question we ought to be asking is “What is the true Scientific Reality?”. I know our hostess believes that CAGW is true, at least in part. That is why she chooses thread after thread which start off with the assumption that CAGW is real. What I am pleading for is for Dr. Curry to forget her own beliefs, and make part of Climate Etc. a SCIENTIFIC forum where we can debate the science of what is the scientific reality. So far as I know, this sort of forum does not exist anywhere else. We skeptics have made a list of the subjects we feel need to be debated.

    So, to our hostess, are you prepared to discuss any of the subjects we skeptics have listed as those which we feel should be the subject of proper a scientific debate, in order to try and answer the question, “What is the true scientific reality with respect to CAGW?”?

    • can you summarize the list, send me an email, and I will start a new thread focused on this. thx.

    • Manacker @ 4:12 PM on 9/21/12 on the Skeptic’s Case II thread.
      =================================================

    • As part of determining the Scientific Reality, care should be taken to discover which foundational studies of the subject, Climate Science, have actually and factually been successfully replicated…not just ‘generally accepted as correct’.

    • It wont matter jim cripwell refuses to read any science and is still stuck on stupid sky dragon level. he uses technology that relies on the truth of radiative physics while denying its truth. He shouts show me the evidence while he closes his eyes and ears

    • Easy, boy, easy.
      ==========

    • I agree with Kim Steven and, if you don’t mind, please define how you define Scientific Consensus of IPCC conclusions and CAGW.

      So much dialogue over poorly defined terms.

    • David Springer

      Down boy! Good dog.

      http://www.ohmidog.com/2012/07/06/down-boy-the-politics-of-humping/

      They don’t call him moshpup for nothing.

    • “He shouts show me the evidence while he closes his eyes and ears”
      You believe in CO2 global warming BS despite of lack of CO2 physical properties causing any warming. You are the one closing your eyes and ears. H2O is regulating the Earths’ temperature not the CO2.

    • Judith, I don’t know if you’ve seen this paper but I suspect it is going to cause quite a stir.

      http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf

    • Thanks. Yes it is interesting. I wonder what Bob Tisdale thinks about this paper.

    • Interesting may be an understatement. You either have a huge natural cycle previously unidentified or you have huge spurious warming from at least 3 models. If you know which drugstores are close to universities buy stock. Excedrin sales will be going through the roof.

    • or you have models that will not match observed conditions and therefore are of little to no value

    • Chief Hydrologist

      ‘The variability of El Nin˜o/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) during the Holocene epoch, in particular on millennial timescales, is poorly understood. Palaeoclimate studies have documented ENSO variability for selected intervals in the Holocene, but most records are either too short or insufficiently resolved to investigate variability on millennial scales1–3. Here we presenta record of sedimentation in Laguna Pallcacocha, southern Ecuador, which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability, and
      covers the past 12,000 years continuously. We find that changes on a timescale of 2–8 years, which we attribute to warm ENSO events, become more frequent over the Holocene until about 1,200 years ago, and then decline towards the present. Periods of relatively high and low ENSO activity, alternating at a timescale of about 2,000 years, are superimposed on this long-term trend. We attribute the long-term trend to orbitally induced changes in insolation, and suggest internal ENSO dynamics as a possible cause of the millennial variability. However, the millennial oscillation will need to be confirmed in other ENSO proxy records.’
      http://ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/moy2002.pdf

      ‘ENSO causes climate extremes across and beyond the Pacific Basin, however evidence of ENSO at high southern latitudes is generally restricted to the South Pacific and West Antarctica. Here we report a statistically significant link between ENSO and sea salt deposition during summer from the Law Dome (LD) ice core in East Antarctica. ENSO-related atmospheric anomalies from the central-western Equatorial Pacific (CWEP) propagate to the South Pacific and the circumpolar high latitudes. These anomalies modulate high latitude zonal winds, with El Niño (La Niña) conditions causing reduced (enhanced) zonal wind speeds and subsequently, reduced (enhanced) summer sea salt deposition at LD. Over the last 1010 years, the LD summer sea salt (LDSSS) record has exhibited two below average (El Niño-like) epochs, 1000-1260 AD and 1920-2009 AD, and a longer above average (La Niña-like) epoch from 1260-1860 AD. Spectral analysis shows the below average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2-5 years, while the above average epoch is associated more with variability around 6-7 years. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910-2009 AD) is below the long-term average. In addition, recent rainfall declines in some regions of eastern and south-eastern Australia appear to be mirrored by a downward trend in the LDSSS record, suggesting current rainfall regimes are unusual though not unknown over the last millennium.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1?journalCode=clim

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=Vance2012-AntarticaLawDomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg

    • He has one argument I cannot counter. “How can Jim Cripwell possibly be correct if all the learned societies say he is wrong?”.
      ___________

      The question is why hasn’t that occurred to Jim Cripwell ?

    • It’s ‘an extraordinary popular delusion, and madness of the crowd’, that’s why.
      =============

    • A. Delusional Jim is popular with a mad crowd?

      B. The popular crowd is mad at delusional Jim?

      C. Jim’s delusion about the popular crowd is mad?

      D. Delusional Jim is mad because he’s not popular with the crowd.
      _________

      I’ll go with D.

      Jim is delusional?

    • Max_OK you write “He has one argument I cannot counter. “How can Jim Cripwell possibly be correct if all the learned societies say he is wrong?”.
      ___________
      The question is why hasn’t that occurred to Jim Cripwell ?”

      Of course this question has occurred to me. I have tried to find an answer that I could give my MP. I have failed.

      But then you write “I’ll go with D.
      Jim is delusional?”

      This I really resent. What I was taught by my mentor Dr. GBBM Sutherland, when I started studying Physics 101 at Cavendish Labs Cambridge, was that the way science is done is to present MY ideas of what is right or wrong. I must never accept something is right just because someone in authority says it is correct. And that is what all the professors at Cavendish Labs taught us. And I have never forgotten it.

      No scientist is delusional because she/he disagrees with opinions. That is what scientists are supposed to do, to query the opinions of anyone. What we must base our ideas on is not opinuion, but empirical fact. As Wordsworth wrote “To the solid ground of Nature; Trusts the mind that builds for Aye”. Prof. Sidles states “Nature cannot be fooled”, and he is right.

      But to claim that I am delusional because I dare to suggest that all the learned societies in the world are wrong? That is an insult. I just hope, Max_OK, that you are sufficient of a scientist to apologise to me. I am not holding my breath.

    • Jim, Max_OK has a foolish apology below. Moshe, above, is in line above to offer you one for his foolish mischaracterization of you.

      You might try my suggestion and explain to your MP that it has been a ‘Madness of the Crowd’. He may have enough political sense to see, from the way windmills and shale gas are going over there as compared to just a year ago, to sense the popping of the bubble, the ameliorating of the madness.
      ===================

    • Max_OK

      When you refer to “delusional Jim”

      do you mean Dr. James E. Hansen?

      Thanks for clearing this up for me, so I can take your little quiz.

      Max not from OK

    • What idiots such as Max from OK do not seem to get is that all the learned scientists are not saying the same things.

      1. There is no scientific consensus on the rate of warming. (at least not with a reasonably tight margin of error)

      2. There is no scientific consensus on the rate of warming that should be associated with a doubling of CO2

      3. There is no scientific consensus on the net long term harms vs. benefits of the world being warmer

      4. There is no consensus on the likely rate of sea level rise

      5. There is no scientific consensus regarding what the economic response should be to warming

      What is so difficult to understand and communicate?

    • Rob, while there are differences of opinion among scientists on the details, the leading scientific societies(e.g., NAS, NSF) say on balance global warming is likely to be bad for humanity.

    • Max

      What is the source of your belief that warming will be on balance bad for humanity? It might have been based on analysis that was conducted based upon the outputs of GCM’s that have been demonstrated to be inaccurate- is such analysis vaild?

      I am not aware of any valid analysis that there is any consensus on that show a warmer world is worse for humanity overall over the long term. If I write an analysis stating that if it get warming that everyone can grow money trees in their backyard- is it a valid analysis? Obviously not, but many of the analysis of future conditions are equally invalid.

    • Rob,

      Obviously not, but many of the analysis of future conditions are equally invalid.

      What’s your basis for that statement. Have you personally reviewed them? Do you have the necessary knowlege/expertise to make that judgement?

    • Rob, for starters try NAS. In so many words, NSF says global warming will be a bad thing, not a good thing, or a makes-no-difference thing.

      http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/19/19greenwire-national-academy-of-sciences-urges-swift-us-ac-95280.html

    • Andrew

      Yes I have read them and have read AR4. The analysis of conditions that were described as harmful were forecasted based on the outputs of GCM’s and other flawed models that have subsequently been shown to be unreliable. I have also looked at how well GCMs predictions match observed conditions.

    • Did you happen to read the link you posted or to visit the NAS website to see the basis of their projections?
      It states—“The NAS report includes a laundry list of impacts, including increases in the frequency of intense rainfall, decreases in snow cover and ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, rising sea levels, and widespread ocean acidification.
      Projections of future climate change range from a warming of 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit during this century. The numbers vary widely in part because they are based on different scenarios of energy use over that time, the academy’s analysis notes.”

      They made their predictions based on models with a very poor track record of reliability. Not at all different than my “predicting” that Max will find a money tree in his backyard. Perhaps the relevant question is why you and other believe what they are saying when their models have been so often wrong? After all, my prediction about the money tree in your backyard had never been shown to be wrong!

    • I point to the first sentence:

      > Did you happen to read the link you posted or to visit the NAS website to see the basis of their projections?

      I point to a sentence that follows:

      > They made their predictions [...]

      I also emphasized.

      That is all.

    • Jim, I don’t think you are delusional. I was just fooling with Kim.

    • Max_OK

      How about going with:

      argument from evidence

      instead of

      argument from authority

      The latter is a logical fallacy..

      Max_not from OK

    • Because there are two kinds of people:

      1. People who are authorities. They know more than people who are not authorities.

      2. People who are not authorities. They know less than people who are authorities, and some non-authorities don’t know shit.

    • Max_OK you write “. People who are authorities. ”

      You are absolutely correct. In our society there are people who are authorities. They get their authority under the laws of the land. Some examples. Judges are authorities. When the Supreme Court gives a ruling, it is binding on the whole country. Doctors are authorities. Our Canadian College of Physicians and Surgeons rules on all things that doctors in Canada are allowed and not allowed to do. Professional engineers are authorities. They rule when a new design of structure is safe or not safe to build. And so and and so forth.

      There are NO authorities in science. None whatsoever. Zero, nada, zilch. There is no law that states that any scientists has any authority at all. The authority in science always was, still is, and always will be the empirical data. That is all we can ever actually rely on.

      There are experts in science, but that is another issue, and is what I suspect you meant.

    • Max_OK

      This may not surprise you, but I have to agree with Jim Cripwell on this one.

      The only thing that matters in science is scientific evidence based on empirical data (Feynman).

      HOW beautiful the hypothesis is doesn’t matter.

      HOW wonderfully the model simulations agree with one another doesn’t matter.

      and

      WHO said it doesn’t matter.

      IOW
      argument from evidence matters
      argument from authority does not

      Max not from OK

    • Once, a long time ago people called them, facts.

    • F 15, NAPFATG
      Those kind of days.)

    • @max_ok

      ‘Nullius in Verba’

      The motto of the Royal Society.

      Should it be a long time since you passed your Lit. Hum. Mods (see Google), a reasonable translation is

      ‘Take Nobody’s Word for It’

      Sound advice – especially in the murky and shark-infested waters of climatology.

    • > [Nullius non verba is] sound advice.

      Not if Nullius non verba.

      If Nullius non verba, there is no such thing as a sound advice.

      But please don’t take my word for it.

    • @jim cripwell

      FYI The refusal to build a third runway at Heathrow isn’t necessarily a permanent decision. Recent government changes suggest that it’ll be up for debate once more.

      And the argument for not doing so relates not to climate change but to the amenity of those living under the flight path…and their propensity.to vote for the governing parties. With prevailing westerly winds, landing aircraft have to approach right over Central London and the western suburbs. Which makes for a great view as a passenger, but a lot of noise for some of the affluent parts of the city.

    • That’s right. Objections to the third runway have nothing to do with emissions or climate change. Im not really in favour of a third runway simply because the infrastructure around heathrow is already at capacity. It’s hard to see how it could be expanded to cope with the extra passenger numbers a third runway would allow. Also I agree that air traffic over that part of London is at the upper end of what’s tolerable.

    • agnostic
      I was at heathrow airport this very morning and seeing the vast and functioning infrastructure already in place made me realise that it would be impossible to shift it to the other side of london, where it would be inaccesible to a large part of the uk population.
      tonyb

    • Jim, thanks for putting the focus back on SR. My list of items that need to be understood include.
      a) Measurement of climate sensitivity. What is the sign and magnitude? Why are we not designing stationary satellites to measure positive and negative feedback?
      b) How reliable are the terrestrial temperature measurements. Is Tmax-Tmin a proper way to characterize this factor?
      c) How can we get a third party audit of climate models, climate science publishing, and the entire IPCC process?

      If the Climate Scientists want to convince me of CAGW this list is a good start.

    • Jim, what an excellent way to frame the problem. I enjoyed that post. WRT the authority argument, I have two or three observations.

      1. Steve McIntryre pointed out in his London talk a few weeks ago that policy makers have a duty to accept the scientific advice they are given, even if they personally think it smells a bit. The problem is not to question the conclusions but to ask them to investigate the right things.

      2. From my reading of climate literature, the conclusions made are often not entirely consistent with the body of research. There is often some mention of AGW supporting it in some way, even as the actual research has little to do with it or possibly even undermines it, or that the step to make the connection is an over-reach. The “learned societies” are simply reflecting the orthodox opinion within climate science which was created by the loudest voices. What learned institution not actively doing research in climate science has actually carried out their own in-depth assessment of the science? I suspect the statements made are just a conservative reflection on the most famous of assessments – the IPCC.

      Furthermore, is there not an irony in taking the word of a society such as the royal society whose ethos is “take no ones word for it?”

      Finally, ask your politician that before supporting the commitment of billions or even trillions towards mitigating AGW if there has been a proper engineering quality due diligence audit of the supporting science by a disinterested 3rd party contractor. Only until that has been carried out should the politican be confident that the science, and more importantly the evidence, data, and measurements, are sound enough to carry on on that basis.

    • The learned societies simply go to / read the opinions of (a) the MSM and (b) the officially appointed spokesman / organisation on the subject. Neither the learned societies nor the politicians make any attempt to critically examine the subject.

      The same is true for the MSM who simply publish whatever is fed to them by what they see as the individuals and organisations they recognise as the go to authorities, Green Peace, IPCC, GISS, etc. etc.

      The learned societies statements on the subject show that they have not examined any of the contrary arguments and so cannot be said to have come to an authoritative conclusion.

      However, you are unfortunately flogging a dead horse. The average politician simply doesn’t have the intellect to examine the issue, and nor do they have the interest or time. It is quicker and easier for an MP to simply form their opinion and vote according to how they have been informed by the mainstream media.

      The ongoing decline in solar activity and widely expected further decline will eventually broaden the minds of some of the politicians as a prolonged and deepening cold period sets in.

      There will of course remain a sizeable number who will adhere to their existing co2 religion and will even blame the drop in temperatures on mankind’s failure to heed their prophecies of doom, and will further pronounce that the extreme cold weather was foreseen by the climate models without of course offering any proof of this, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that they hadn’t published this outcome before it happened.

      They will continue to push vociferously for co2 reduction measures no matter what the weather or climate does, even if we get down to LIA temperatures or lower. But by then they will be in a minority as the rest of the Northern Hemisphere prioritises warmth, energy and food security.

    • J Martin, you write “The learned societies simply go to / read the opinions of (a) the MSM and (b) the officially appointed spokesman / organisation on the subject. Neither the learned societies nor the politicians make any attempt to critically examine the subject. ”

      That surely has to be the most depressing thing I have ever read on Climate Etc., and for me this is first thing in the morning. What a way to start a day!

      If that is what our learned societies are doing, then thay are behaving completely irresponsibly. Hopefully, this will be temporary. But it is a huge indictment against that noble institution, the Royal Society. But a justified one.

      I hope, in the long run, that you will be wrong.

  35. They have to find a way to get the Chinese to come to the table with leadership.

    Chinese hydro + renewables generation will be #1 in the world this year. It surpassed the total US hydro+renewables generation for 2011 by the end of August in 2012 and will surpass the EU-27 by the end of the year.

    Wind, Hydro and Nuclear are cheaper then burning coal in China. There are non-economic factors slowing deployment. I.E. The wind blows primarily in the west and the north and the people tend to live in the South and the East…which means building massive transmission infrastructure.

    The whole ‘energy-climate’ debate is filled with dogma. The average price of coal on global markets hasn’t been below $80/ton since 2008. There is nothing ‘cheap’ about $80/ton coal. (US and Australian domestic markets the average is closer to $40/ton).

    The US is currently leading the world in emissions reductions…without cap and trade. The whole purpose of cap and trade was to send a ‘price signal’. The shale gas revolution and decreases in coal mine productivity provided the ‘price signal’. No additional action is required at the present time.

  36. Policy news in the USA in September of an election year?

    As transient a condition as the green on leaves in upstate New York, and as straightforward as a corkscrew in a funhouse mirror.

  37. Arggg! The state of US politics is a result of leadership failure in the congress and executive branch. Instead of taking a pragmatic approach and coming up with sensible solutions to problems we have pandering to an ideological electorate in return for votes so as to remain in power. What does a sensible energy policy look like? For me: 1) It has minimal governmental involvement where regulations are simple, inexpensive to incorporate, and are easily enforced. 2) It relies on market forces to determine the type of energy production without subsidy and minimal taxation. 3) It removes itself from binding international agreements that are not favorable to the US. 4) It provides infrastructure to make the best use of energy resources. 5) It protects the environment by regulating emissions that have proven and observable adverse effects (see point #1).

    • Good points. Free enterprise capitalism and the market system is required for the most efficient allocation of scarce resorces, including energy. Imagine a society saying–e,g., “Ok, we understand the value of individual liberty and we must unleash the unlimited potiential of a free people for the collective good and that means people need to be free to get around but we also need rules and one of them is that from this point forward all travel within the US must be done using horses.”

    • I like horses. I don’t trust people who say disparaging things about horses. I suspect thay are evil.

    • Max_OK

      I like horses, too.

      I don’t trust horses asses.

      I suspect they are stupid.

      Max_not from OK

  38. “As reality sets in…”
    The notion of lopsided funding for manipulative Skeptic messages remains the main pillar of supporting Warmist policies in. However, any evidence of skeptics spending even 10% of money being spent for lobbying / education / media on this issue seems unfounded.

    Judith, since almost every pro-AGW repeats this line as pure fact, could somebody please do a guest post establishing some evidence for this?

  39. lurker, passing through laughing

    It is nice to see that Sen. Kerry is still clueless and in complete reliance on talking points.
    It is humorous that the husband of the woman who gives millions through the Heinz foundation to AGW promoters relies on conspiracy delusions to explain the failure of the policies he supports.
    Teh “British University” euphemism for climategate is touching. Kerry is a well trained blowhard.

    But the question Dr. Curry asks is spot on: Reality is setting in, there is no climate crisis, and those who pushed for “drill baby drill” are going to prevail.
    When economic reality sets in, the windmills littering the landscape will largely be shut down as the things they require, tax payer operating subsidies and guarantees, go away.
    Reality is good.

    • Let’s just remind ourselves about Climategate which Kerry rather disingenuously calls ‘the British University e-mails’

      While it is true that a couple of the major players (Jones and Briffa) were working in the UK, the majority of the dramatis personae were US based.

      Here’s just a few:

      Mann – Pennsylvania
      Schmidt – NASA – New York
      Wigley – UCAR – Colorado
      Peterson – NOAA
      Karl – NOAA
      Overpeck – Arizona
      Solomon – NOAA
      Santer – Lawrence Livermore, California.

      Kerry’s naive attempt to divert attention across the pond is rather futile. Anyone who reads the e-mails will soon realise that the US was very well represented among the perps.

      Climategate – the gift that keeps on giving!.

    • I should of course give credit to Messrs Mosher and Fuller for their excellent work ‘Climategate – The CRUtape letters’.

      The list of dramatis personae and their affiliations comes from Chapter 1.

    • Same stale old baloney. A dog wouldn’t eat it.

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      And here is Max_OK, denying (ahem..) the reality fo the e-mails.
      Wow.
      Even the guys who wrote them are not that out of touch with reality.
      What a hoot.
      Thanks, Max
      ttfn

    • Come on Max. Surely you can do better than that.

      Couple of years ago you;d have been frothing at the mouth about ‘stolen e-mails’ and ‘had-working climate scientists’ and ‘exonerated by a zilliion independent inquiries including St Peter himself’ ‘forces of denialism’ ‘normal discourse between professionals’….

      But now all you can manage is ‘same old baloney’

      I said earlier that the vim and vigour had leaked out of the alarmist cause. You make a great illustration.

      Does anybody know what happened to the subsequent careers of the cast? They seem to all have faded from public view. Even Mann is busy spending more time with his lawsuits than his treerings.

  40. I’ve been following the politics and legislation/floor action via The Hill for bout a year now and I can’t believe the spin I’m reading about the Obama Administration.

    Sen. Kerry attempted to sneak a Cap and Trade provision into The Law of the Sea Treaty. This is fundamentally unethical not only because it flies in the face of public opinion but also because Treaties don not receive standard legislative debate in both Houses of Congress.

    The contention Obama is “all of the above” is completely inaccurate. The Oil permitting process now requires 10 times the length of time to complete which exacerbates domestic production; 30 days is now over 300 days to clear a permit. Its even worse when one realizes the rigs have moved overseas from the Gulf. Any increase in drilling is solely due to the private sector in Texas and North Dakota.

    The Obama administration and Senate Democrats have refused to pass legislation related to the Keystone pipeline and refuse to pass legislation to properly govern the EPA. The war on coal and the Senate stonewalling of legislation to protect personal property rights is beyond egregious.

    The Obama administration doesn’t even have an energy policy.

    The EPA’s activity is a Saturday Night Live parody sketch and includes:
    - EPA designates Hay to be a pollutant
    - EPA designates roadside ditches and gullies on private property to be “waterways”
    - EPA seeks to regulate Farm Dust
    - EPA uses tax dollars for covert flyovers of pasture land
    - EPA re-regulates its own regulations from other parts of various Clean Acts

    The list of Obama and Senate nonsense goes on, and on, and on….

    • In case you missed this unrelated but humorous video.

      Improv group parodies Obama campaign videos
      http://thehill.com/video/administration/234363-improv-group-parodies-obama-campaign-videos

      Chicago’s famous improv comedy group Second City on Friday mocked one of President Obama’s campaign aides with a parody video that aims to show deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter “really letting her hair down.”

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      John,
      The Obamtons are are starting to see the wall they are speeding towards and are hoping they can fool people once again.
      Obama is for ‘all of the above’ as long as it lines the pockets of his pals and does not actually reault in any useful products, but at great cost to the tax payer.
      And of course “all of the above” cannot be nuclear, coal, Alaska, the East Coast, the West coast, rational regulations and must include converting more of our food crops to fuel.

    • Its overstated but very close to the consequence of their administration policies.

      Biofuel policy is an example supporting “must include converting more of our food crops to fuel”. The current administration has forced biofuels on the DOD. At ridiculous cost per gallon to the military, taxpayers are picking up the tab for this foolish policy. DOE grants to support appropriate engineering makes more sense and a clear framework for non-crop biofuels is key. The policy is cart before the horse as is usual from government.

      “lines the pockets of his pals” has been stated in numerous articles documenting federal spending for “Green” solutions under his administration. Dr. Chu took the fall for many of the failures and The House recently passed the ‘No More Solyndras Act’.

      Yet in the face of the opposition, EPA boosts biofuels target amid oil-and-gas industry resistance.
      http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/249631-epa-boosts-biofuels-target-amid-oil-and-gas-industry-resistance

      The Obama Administration is clearly using the EPA to perpetuate failed engineering and policies Congress doesn’t support.

    • David L. Hagen

      The US EPA is forcing almost 50% of the US corn crop to be used as fuel in 2012. On top of drought, this has caused corn prices to increase to 220% of 2010. All for NO greenhouse benefit.

      Obama’s US policy is to force all consumers to pay more to subsidize the 1% of corn growers – to buy votes from Senators of corn growing States.
      Consequently, taxpayers must further subsidize the US poor by giving them food stamps.

      However, the real harm is done to the 2 billion people living on less than $2.50/day, or the $1 billion living in extreme poverty on less than $1.25/day in developing countries. 81 countries import food from the USA. A large portion pay 60-70% of their income for food.
      With corn prices increased 220% by Obama’s policies, how can they afford that?

      Contrast a bit of sanity in the EU:
      EU Commission to cap food-based biofuels in major shift

      The European Commission announced a major shift in biofuel policy on Monday, saying it plans to limit crop-based biofuels to 5 percent of transport fuel, after campaigners said existing rules take food out of people’s mouths.

    • I agree David, the current administration couldn’t have done a worse job on the energy front. Actually, its extremely tough to find any front where they are insightful.

    • “And of course “all of the above” cannot be nuclear, coal, Alaska, the East Coast, the West coast, rational regulations and must include converting more of our food crops to fuel.”

      You hit the nail on the head with the phrase “rational regulations”.

      Let’s take desalination as an example. The US is the third largest user of desalination in the world. Yet, California failed to plant a area the size of Rhode Island this year due to the lack of fresh water. The lack of fresh water id due to the Delta Smelt ruling and lack of desal. plants in the area.

      Carlsbad, CA has been attempting to implement one of the largest desal. plants in the Western Hemisphere for over ten years. Guess what caused the hold-ups and cost overruns. Yep, Green groups gaming the system and regulations/permitting process.

      The Zetas And The Surfriders
      Extremism In Defense Of Environmentalism Can Be A Catastrophic Vice.

      “If the country has so hamstrung itself with regulatory process and tolerance for greens gaming the system that public agencies responsible for the water supply think that contending with the Zetas in Mexico is a more attractive option than contending with the Surfrider Foundation in California, are we facing an environmental crisis of existential proportions — or a governance crisis of existential proportions?”

      http://hbfreshwater.com/uncategorized/the-zetas-and-the-surfriders

    • The really odd part of the Surfriders aspect to this example.

      I took the time to chat with several Surfriders and explained the situation. None of them support the Surfriders position related to desal. and they went on to explain that the only reason they were members was to get current surf conditions so they didn’t waste time looking for waves.

      How many “Green” organizations are there that claim positions their own membership reject.

      Climate Science “Consensus” and IPCC conclusions is a good example.

    • Complain all you want but there is an overwhelming probability that the current administration will be re-elected.

    • Heh, it’s ‘settled’ political science.
      ============

    • They’re statements of fact not complaints Rob. If voters were fully aware of the facts instead of the spin, the race would not be to close to call.

    • http://www.examiner.com/article/ohio-lawmaker-asks-attorney-general-holder-to-dispatch-federal-election-monitors

      “The presence of federal election monitors will help restore the integrity of the voting process.”

      Why am I not comforted?

      Andrew

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      Rob S,
      Carter was ahead of Reagan, according to the public polls at this point in 1980.And Reagan was presented as much worse than Romney in the press.
      Calling this election now is an act of faith-based prophecy.

    • Hunter

      I am not a fan of Obama’s economic or energy policy and think Romney would be better for the country, but when I look at the state by state polling my conclusion is that Romney is highly unlikely to reach 270 ev’s. Virgina, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconson, Iowa, and CO are the keys and Ronmey needs to take all of these. He has not helped himself by communication poorly and he should have agreed that taxes will need to be raised on high income Americans-because it is true.

    • for Rob
      Romney tells voters ‘don’t be expecting a huge cut in taxes’
      http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/258813-romney-to-voters-dont-expect-much-of-a-tax-cut

      “By the way, don’t be expecting a huge cut in taxes, because I’m also going to lower deductions and exemptions,” Romney said, according to various news media reports. “But by bringing rates down, we’ll be able to let small businesses keep more of their money, so they can hire more people.”

      GOP takes aim at ‘skewed’ polls
      http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/251413-gop-takes-aim-at-skewed-polls

      They argue many mainstream polls skew in Obama’s favor because of sample sizes that base 2012 turnout projections on 2008, when Democrats — and Hispanics, blacks and young voters in particular — turned out in record numbers.

      “I don’t think [the polls] reflect the composition of what 2012 is going to look like,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said in an interview.

    • John

      You may be correct that the polls are incorrect, but I am skeptical of your conclusion because I don’t see any supporting information. I would expect large variances in different polls if your conclusion was correct.

    • I agree Rob,
      The likely voter polls appear to be the most accurate. I’m not claiming Romney is in the lead at this point but the election can go either way based on the debates and turnout.

      I’ve been encouraging people who can’t see the logic of a vote for Romney to vote for Mickey Mouse. The Mouse is likely to do very well in West Virginia.

    • John from CA,

      “You may be correct that the polls are incorrect, but I am skeptical of your conclusion because I don’t see any supporting information. I would expect large variances in different polls if your conclusion was correct.”

      Go to RealClearPolitics.com

      Look at Rasmussen and Gallup (showing a 1-3% difference vs. the more political polls that show 7 to even 11% advantage to Romney.

      You can find the internals of some of the polls by clicking on the individual poll results. The “mainstream” polls right now are sampling about 7-10% more Dems, more than Obama’s advantage in 2008.

    • Thanks GaryM

    • Current Rasmussen Tracking Poll shows the Romney v. Obama race as a “Tie”

    • John

      Please remember that the national polls are almost meaningless. What matters is the polling in the swing states that I highlighted earlier and if Romney doesn’t win all of those states he can’t get to 270 and Obama wins.

      You and I may hope for a different outcome, but like winning the powerball it is a low probability.

    • If Obama does win, lets hope the Republicans take the Senate and force him to comprise so he doesn’t bankrupt the nation and bloat government.

    • Rob,
      I just took a look at the Ohio poll results as reported on The Hill and it turns out the Ohio poll was from Democratic outfit Public Policy Polling.

      Does anyone believe this poll is accurate?

      The one thing we know for certain, the Democrats will lie, cheat or steal to win in November. Pretty tough nut to crack with slanted press and slanted polling.

    • The other thing we know is Republicans are pure white, clean and neat, and incapable of lying, cheating, or stealing. Everything they have was earned while being generous to the poor. Theaaaaaa’s saints.

    • Rob Starkey,

      The samples in the polling in the swing states are being weighted even more heavily Dem than the national polls. Whenever you see a result that seems to defy belief, check the internals.

      It’s like seeing a new graph from Michael Mann. If you take it at face value….

      Polling this skewed is designed to reduce contributions to the GOP, and turn out. The pollsters always have put their thumbs on the scale in the past, but this year they are doing what they did for the last abject failure as president, Jimmy Carter. Using polls to try to affect the outcome, and sampling as many extra Dems as necessary to get the result they want,.

    • Just in case anyone might be interested in reading about why the methodology of tracking polls leads to different results than other polls, why results of state polls differ from national polls, etc. – instead of reading GaryM’s mythology:

      http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/sept-20-obamas-convention-bounce-may-not-be-receding/#more-34814

      Also, just in case you’re interested – here’s a link to climate change “skeptic” J. Scott Armstrong’s forecasting website – which details forecasts that project an Obama victory:

      http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com/

      Oh, and here’s another highly sophisticated source that aggregates data across different polls

      http://election.princeton.edu/

      But reading your theories is certainly entertaining, fellas.

    • Oh – and lest we forget, hunter, Gary, and John – now might be a really good time for you to take advantage of the “skewed” polls. Check out Intrade – Obama’s at close to 75%.

      http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743474

      You fellas can really clean up!

      Better jump on it quick before they realize how they’ve been using “skewed” polls to make their probability estimates. Good thing that they don’t have your savvy to do things like consider how imbalances in political identities of those sampled might affect the results. Just consider how much money

      Hilarious.

    • Judith -

      Polling this skewed is designed to reduce contributions to the GOP, and turn out. The pollsters always have put their thumbs on the scale in the past, but this year they are doing what they did for the last abject failure as president, Jimmy Carter. Using polls to try to affect the outcome, and sampling as many extra Dems as necessary to get the result they want,.

      Do you ever stop to think about why this kind of conspiratorial thinking correlates so strongly with climate “skepticism?”

    • “In a recent Ohio Newspaper Assn. poll that had Obama up by five in Ohio, Romney was preferred by independents 54–25. Obama took independents by nine points in 2008. That’s a full 38 point swing away from Obama, yet he’s purportedly beating Romney by a greater margin than he beat McCain in 2008. Neat trick.”

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/328592/why-isnt-romney-ten-points-contd-peter-kirsanow

      Or this:

      “Pennsylvania 2008 exits: 44 percent Democrat, 37 percent Republican, 18 percent Independent.

      Pennsylvania New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 39 percent Democrat, 28 percent Republican, 27 percent Independent.

      Somehow a D+7 split has turned into D+11 split, and Republicans’ share of the electorate is nine percentage points less than they were four years ago.

      Florida 2008 exits: 37 percent Democrat, 34 percent Republican, 29 percent Independent.

      Florida New York Times/Quinnipiac 2012 sample: 36 percent Democrat, 27 percent Republican, 33 percent Independent.

      Each party’s share only shifts a few percentage points, but the overall split goes from D+3 to D+9.”

      And what does the NY Times article posted by Joshua say about these internals, the over weighting of Dems in the samples? Why nary a single word. What a shocker.

      Ask yourself, after decades of hearing that electioons are won “in the middle,” how is Romney ahead 29 points among independents in Ohio, but trailing Obama by 5 points overall?

      Sometimes, you have to believe your lyin’ eyes.

      You can believe what you are told to believe like Josh, or you can look at the actual polls yourself. I recommend the latter.

    • Gary – do you realize that polling outfits take over-sampling into consideration?

      Do you realize that aggregating outfits like the three I listed take into account factors such as over-sampling, “house effects,” differences between land-line or automated polls with other types of sampling methodology, etc.?

      I mean your mythology does make for really good reading, and polling this far out has a relatively weak predictive value (although we are getting close to the point where that is no longer true) but seriously, bro.

      Just out of curiosity – say that Obama does win – will you blame it on the conspiracy of pollsters to rig the election through their fault polls, or will you attribute it to a terrible choice of candidate who couldn’t even beat an incumbent during a terrible economy?

    • And what does the NY Times article posted by Joshua say about these internals, the over weighting of Dems in the samples?

      Wow! You really don’t even know that they adjust for over-sampling, do you?

    • You can believe what you are told to believe like Josh, or you can look at the actual polls yourself. I recommend the latter.

      Yeah – you can consider sophisticated analysis with conducted with transparent methodologies to be viable but not conclusive – or you can believe that it’s all a conspiracy to rig the election.

      If only I had you sophisticated outlook, Gary. If only.

    • Joshua,

      You can’t possibly be as dumb as your comments make you seem.

      The numbers reported regarding the weighted sampling ARE the adjustments.

      They adjust the total raw responses to conform to their “projected” turn out. They weight the responses according to their own subjective expectations. Should sound familiar to you, as a CAGW drone supporter.

      Good grief. Maybe I’m giving you too much credit. Maybe you really are that dumb, not just blinded by partisanship.

    • Good point, Gary. You believe in conspiracies, but I’m stupid.

      Read what Silver has to say about the differences between tracking polls, state polls, and national polls.

      You might also find this interesting:

      The 105 polls released in Senate and gubernatorial races by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, missed the final margin between the candidates by 5.8 points, a considerably higher figure than that achieved by most other pollsters. Some 13 of its polls missed by 10 or more points, including one in the Hawaii Senate race that missed the final margin between the candidates by 40 points, the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998.

      Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that it issued.

      If one focused solely on the final poll issued by Rasmussen Reports or Pulse Opinion Research in each state — rather than including all polls within the three-week interval — it would not have made much difference. Their average error would be 5.7 points rather than 5.8, and their average bias 3.8 points rather than 3.9.

      Nor did it make much difference whether the polls were branded as Rasmussen Reports surveys, or instead, were commissioned for Fox News by its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research. (Both sets of surveys used an essentially identical methodology.) Polls branded as Rasmussen Reports missed by an average of 5.9 points and had a 3.9 point bias. The polls it commissioned on behalf of Fox News had a 5.1 point error, and a 3.6 point bias.

      Rasmussen’s polls have come under heavy criticism throughout this election cycle, including from FiveThirtyEight. We have critiqued the firm for its cavalier attitude toward polling convention. Rasmussen, for instance, generally conducts all of its interviews during a single, 4-hour window; speaks with the first person it reaches on the phone rather than using a random selection process; does not call cellphones; does not call back respondents whom it misses initially; and uses a computer script rather than live interviewers to conduct its surveys. These are cost-saving measures which contribute to very low response rates and may lead to biased samples.

      Rasmussen also weights their surveys based on preordained assumptions about the party identification of voters in each state, a relatively unusual practice that many polling firms consider dubious since party identification (unlike characteristics like age and gender) is often quite fluid.

      But you’re probably right. It’s all a conspiracy. And climate change “skeptic” J. Scott Armstong, Intrade, etc.? They’re all in on the conspiracy.

      You’re beautiful, Gary.

      So tell me, if Obama wins as the polls are predicting – will it be because Romney is a terrible candidate, or will it be because of the grand pollster conspiracy. I’m really curious to find out your answer.

    • The train of gravy will have another 4 years to go. The poor Americans will have less money in their pockets.

  41. It was all over in the summer of 2008 with the meltdown. Momentum made it look more recent. When Mayor Bloomberg called for enviro-frakking, the last nail was driven in the anti-frakk coffin.

    A lot of the pro-domestic fossil fuel is being driven on the increasing instability in the Middle East. Also, the Democrats see this as a way to improve the economy of Blue rust-belt states.

    My hope is that AGW research will revert back to foundational science and away from the bullcrap what-if studies spouting a reign of terror.

    Where are Joshua, BBD and The Fan of More Discourse? The top politicians are abandoning them like yesterday’s tweets. How depressing to be shut out of the smart-cool kids club: It’s back to sandwich boards and rattling tin cups.

    • I think the Fan of More Discourse was last seen joining a Franciscan Order….

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/22/pbs-ombudsman/#comment-244552

      …but perhaps I am mistaken. It is rare that his posts are clear enough to be completely comprehensible. Incisive they are not.

      BTW – does anyone know if Franciscans take a vow of silence?

    • > Does anyone know if Franciscans take a vow of silence?

      No. Benedictines. And it’s not really a vow. Cf.

      http://www.theawl.com/2012/06/how-silence-works-trappist-monks

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Can’t say – I have taken a vow of silence. Now that would be funny. I once lost my voice – and everyone just fell about laughing.

    • Why I’m here dear friend.

    • Sorry I missed that. Anytime I see a post by L.A., I skip by so quick I missed your shooting all those fish in a barrel. Chicken-hawk tea-bagging deniers looking for wisdom in the post Art Bell era are sure fun to tweak. I can’t fault you for that.

      You are right, however. It’s hard to personalize the absence of scientific consensus on low and high-frequency natural variations, ocean currents, paleo-climatology, transient and equilibrium feedbacks and aerosols as a giant fossil-fuel corporate conspiracy.

      Fortunately, uncertainty deniers are past their political sell-by date.

    • David Springer

      Brutal!

      :-)

    • Oh, I don’t think there’s quite so very much uncertainty as all that. See Huber & Knutti (2011) Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance

    • BBD | September 25, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

      You are absolutely right. Uncertainty is not mentioned once in the paper by Hubris and Nutty. Friggin deniers.

    • David Springer

      @Howard

      You’re mispronouncing Huber in “Hubris & Nutty”. Huber is French. The H is silent. So the paper is Uber Nutty 2011.

      ROFL – I kill me sometimes.

    • Tech policy is also a systems engineering-driven process. If the politicians in charge of setting policy ignore the bigger picture, which includes the fossil-fuel infrastructure setting the foundation, then we are selling ourselves short.

      As a case in point, consider that the furious development in the Bakken formation is an instance of the Red Queen in action.
      http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9506

      It’s shaping up that the development has to continue to accelerate, not just maintain, to make up for already dwindling production, which describes the Red Queen from Through the Looking Glass.

      That will make Latie mad, as mad as a hatter.

      It’s really a test to watch how he simultaneously tries to marginalize and rationalize why none of this is important.

    • @web hub telescope

      ‘That will make Latie mad, as mad as a hatter.’

      I am singularly unmoved. My hat remains in the wardrobe.

      But let me explain something.

      I – and everybody else in the frigging world who’s ever thought about it – know that oil fields and gas fields and coal fields eventually come to a point where their production starts to decline.

      Webbie – it is not news. It is not scary news. It is ‘so what’ news.

      We grasped the point the first time. It is not a hugely difficult concept. It does not need profound mathematical analysis to grasp. You do not elevate yourself into the Pantheon of seers and visionaries with Nostradamus and Uri Geller by constant repetition of this simple fact.

      Go find another ‘message’. Your current one is boring and worn out.

    • See I indeed am right. This thread is about climate change policy, and that knowledge about fossil fuel reserves should drive policy, don’t you know.

      But now really, it is so easy to get Latie into a contradiction. On the one hand he says:
      “I’m here, in part, because its so much fun puncturing the immense self-regard of the alarmist obsessives who come here to lecture us all on our sins and their cleverness.”
      but then he admits that all that I say is true, and boring to boot! Great, I like boring. I don’t see alarm bells from any of this stuff either, only opportunities to risk mitigate and adapt.

      So the real raison d’etre of a Latie is to service as a knee-jerk au contrarian!

    • Chief Hydrologist

      But of course – it is so what because because US liquid fuels supply increase to 2035 and beyond in the normal course of economic substitution. As anyone who has any sense realised long ago.

      AGW is as well paradigmatically incorrect. The correct paradigm is climate catastrophism – in the sense of Rene Thom.

      Can’t sleep webster? Take a glass of milk – and see a psychiatrist later in the morning.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      It is hard top get past the data – but I am sure you can keep trying.

    • @webbie

      I see no contradiction.

      You keep on wittering on about how clever you are.

      In your imaginings you think that you are the first to notice a pretty obvious fact but cannot understand why everybody else remains unimpressed by your supposed great feat of intellect.

      Constant repetition of ‘mom, mom. look what I’ve found’ does nothing to enhance your reputation as a one-trick pony. And I bet it drives Wilma round the twist

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      LA,
      I think the guy named after a satellite may have more than a bit of the autistic spectrum disorder” Asperger’s syndrome” shaping his outlook.
      He fits right in with the rest of the trolls and freaks and fans.

    • @lurker

      I’ve long shared that suspicion too. I’m told that Asperger’s sufferers can have very high IQs bit not much of an ability to apply them to a range of problems. Which kind of explains the peak oil obsession and the literal mind.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Many of the webster behaviours fit in with autism spectrum and it is not something to be unkind about.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      The four polls that I personally care about are the four polls that Mother Nature cares about:

      • Are the earth’s polar regions and mountain glaciers losing ice-mass?

      • Are the earth’s oceans heating and expanding?

      • Are the earth sea-levels rising?

      • Will these trends accelerate in the coming decade?

      In the thermodynamical energy-balance world-view that James Hansen and his colleagues have been advocated ever since 1981, the simple no-quibble prediction for all four polls is yes, and more each decade.

      Aerosols are of course the “swing vote” in Mother Nature’s climate-change election. To the extend that the USA switches to gas, and China imposes pollution controls, the aerosol swing vote will be “bring the heat!”.   ;)   ;)   ;)

      And that is why I track ARGO, and satellite altimetry, and satellite gravimetry, each with close attention. Because these are the “polls” that most accurately sample Nature’s intentions over the entire globe.

      In particular, the aerosol wild-card puts the world in an awkward situation, rather like obese patients whose weight loss releases toxic pesticides. Yikes!   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

      Perhaps we ought to prepare for a decade in which many “Black Swan” climate-change events are seen (like the Great Arctic Melt and the Great American Drought of 2012) … every nation, and every political ideology, and every religious faith, and every economic creed, needs a concrete “Plan B” in the event that these plausible climate-change events *do* happen more-and-more often, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

      At least three faith-based solutions to humanity’s climate-change dilemma are widely preached:

      Faith in God  `Cuz God doesn’t let bad things happen!

      Faith in Markets  `Cuz markets don’t let bad things happen!

      Faith in Human Nature  `Cuz human nature doesn’t let bad things happen!

      When it comes to political elections, view as test of competing faiths, my personal opinion is pretty much that attributed to MLK: “God is on our side, but He is not going to do all the work!”

      And this reasonably skeptical view regarding the power of religious faith is associated similarly (IMHO) to reasonable skepticism regarding faith in the power of markets, and faith in the power of human nature.

      That’s just common-sense, eh?   :)   :)   :)

    • To A Fan of More Discourse:

      Faith in a *certain* future is not common sense. It’s catastrophism. A mental illness, well documented in the scientific literature, and characterized by communication with 6-foot tall rabbits, phat tail hallucinations and black swan fantasies.

      Carl Jung identified this once rare doomsday fetish that has been recently exacerbated and popularized by the ultra-security and information overload of modern civilization. The cocoon-complex results in purely psychic self-castration of the Wildman archetype. Fear of loud noises, inclement weather and success are the typical signs of infestation. Testosterone and X-Game style hobbies are thought to reduce the occurrence of symptoms.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      It is simple common-sense prudence to have a “Plan B” in regard to any vitally important strategic issue, eh Howard?

      That is the common-sense reason why, we should all of us be asking, of the earth’s carbon-based energy economies, the very same scientific, economic, strategic, and moral question that an experienced leader like David Petraeus wisely asks: “How does this end?”   :?:   :?:   :?:

      According to our present scientific, economic, strategic, and moral understanding, the wise answer is “As soon as possible”, eh Howard?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    • Been there, done that. Kyoto, Rio, Copenhagen, etc etc etc: The world-wide consensus is to ignore the recommendations of the hysterical conferees. Plan B is we are smart. We will deal with it if it comes rather than try to solve the problem before we know what it is.

      Petraeus is a great example of wasting more lives and money on a failed mission. He was ordered to improve statistics, and did. Bully for him. How many limbs and lives did that cost the youth of America? Iraq is still a murderous cesspool and we should have pulled out before the surge. You are even more of a tool than I thought possible. I didn’t know you were a chickenhawk? It fits with the previous diagnosis.

    • It’s true too. Cry-me-a, river. On it flows.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Howard’s post is correct in regard to the eerie parallels between neoconservative cognition regarding regime-change and neodenialist cognition regarding climate-change:

      Howard asserts “The  world-wide  whitehouse-wide consensus is to ignore the recommendations of the hysterical  conferees  war-plan critics.”

      The disastrous consequences attendant to the ideology-driven failure to prepare a viable “Plan B” for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan — and earlier wars too — are by now so well-known as to require no futher comment.

      Howard asserts “Plan B is we are smart.”

      Howard, will the strategy “Plan B? We don’t need no stinkin` Plan-B!” work better for the present decade’s climate-change neodenialists, than it did for “no-Plan-B” regime-change neoconservatives during the decades 1958-2008?   :shock:   :oops:   :shock:

      The world wonders, eh?   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

    • Scott Basinger

      Faith in GCMs and their predictive power? Not doing so well apparently…

      http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/how-far-off-are-uncertainty-intervals-computed-using-red-noise/

    • David Springer

      Mother Nature doesn’t “care” about anything Sidles. Get a grip.

  42. steven | September 25, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Reply

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2012_jclim_karnauskasetal.pdf

    Holy canned editors, Batman!

    First Dessler 2012 (AMS Journal of Climate) gives props to GCMs sans external forcings for reproducing no warming in past 14 years now this paper gives props to the same models sans forcing, in the same journal, for reproducing Pacific ocean SST trends.

    The editor of AMS Journal of Climate will surely soon be looking for a job when the usual suspects threaten to boycott the journal for having the temerity to rock the CAGW bandwagon. Learn him a lesson they will.

  43. Permit me to recommend
    Curry, J. A., and P. J. Webster. “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 92, no. 12 (December 2011): 1667–1682. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

    Of particular interest (to me) is the discussion of what can be done about it.

    Then, of course, there is then the problem of cleaning up the observation data.

  44. Defending the global warming hoax may be the only service the AGW True Believers provide. Ok with me but what the non-47%’rs must do ASAP is stop paying for it. The productive should not be funding anti-Americanism in the UN or in academia.

    • Wag:

      You prove that Lew was fake, but accurate! FYI, the 47% you lambast is probably 60% deniers. *You people* remind me of the teabagger protest sign that read something like: Get government out of my Medicare.

    • Howard

      Are you claiming that 60% of US federal taxpayers are deniers of the concept of AGW? That sounds a bit absurd.

    • Rob:

      I’m joking that more than half of the so-called moochers (the 47% Romney cited) are deniers. Cranky retired folks and poor white trash.

      Absurd is right!

    • Bad prior post on my part- Howard would seem to be claiming that 60% of the 53% who pay federal taxes are deniers. Also seems absurd.

    • The global warming alarmist absurdists of academia — fascilitators of the AGW hoax — have become the joke.

  45. “I am here to sound the alarm about our direction as a human family, says Ban Ki Moon

    The severe and growing impacts of climate change are there before our eyes – yet too many people in power seem willfully blind to the threat. ”

    He should change his name to Ban Ki Moonbat.

  46. “the need for cheap abundant energy”

    Such a need would of course rule out coal, oil, and natural gas, which are ruinously expense.

    Perhaps we need a second debt clock for the huge costs incurred with fossil fuel burning.

    “Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?”

    Nope, the inactionists are pretty much still in denial of the scientific reality.

    Global warming is one of a large number of issues on the back burner as the public is focused on the recession and the unemployment rate. It’s highly ironic that the right, which caused the recession, benefits from the distraction it causes, but there you are.

    Politics, unlike physics, changes rapidly. Most of the public are not climate deniers; they don’t have the fundamental capacity for dishonesty that allows deniers to ignoring the destructive effects of global warming. So as the damage continues to mount, the political consensus will likely move towards action, as the swing voters already seem to be.

    • “So as the damage continues to mount, the political consensus will likely move towards action, as the swing voters already seem to be.”

      Maybe you could provide us a list of the catastrophes that are attributable to “global warming?” (And aren’t you supposed to be saying climate change?)

    • Robert,

      Your comments reveal you are in a state of denial.

      “the need for cheap abundant energy”
      Such a need would of course rule out coal, oil, and natural gas, which are ruinously expense.

      What is the basis for that statement? I would have thought the opposite is the case. Coal, oil and gas are the cheapest form of energy, given that we’ve made nuclear far more expensive that it should be.

      Even with all positive and negative externalities included, fossil fuels are still the cheapest form of energy, given the impediments we’ve placed on nuclear.

      Global warming is one of a large number of issues on the back burner as the public is focused on the recession and the unemployment rate. It’s highly ironic that the right, which caused the recession, benefits from the distraction it causes, but there you are.

      That is revealing about your mental state. Clearly you are in a state of denial.

    • Peter Lang,

      There’d be no need to reveal your mental state. I think we know what that is already. Ideologically you are incapable of seeing the interconnected energy and environmental problems in any terms other than the $ and cent price paid by those who consume that energy. Your ideology makes you oblivious to the wider costs to the community as a whole, even to the point of denial that such costs actually exist.

    • TTTT (Temp Terrain the Troll)

      There’d be no need to reveal your mental state. I think we know what that is already.

      Back to trolling. You couldn’t even help yourself for an hour could you?

    • So, you mention Roberts “mental state”, and that’s fair comment? But I mention yours, and that’s trolling?

    • John Carpenter

      “Perhaps we need a second debt clock for the huge costs incurred with fossil fuel burning.”

      Like other debt clocks, it would go ignored by the public. Meaningless numbers whirling away while people go about their usual business. Virtual symbols…. Virtual action.

  47. Judith

    You ask:

    Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?

    A good question, but maybe it is (at least in the USA):

    “Are the climate wars fizzling as the presidential election draws nearer?”

    Max

  48. This is who and what they really are and this is an example of what liberal fascism is all about:

    “It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar,” Mr. Eckhart wrote. “If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”

    ~Threatening July 13, 2007-letter written letter by Michael T. Eckhart (president of ACORE, and EPA-member group) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, CEI senior fellow (as discussed at a Congressional Hearing with the Director of the EPA)

  49. The people who spent eight years blaming George Bush for the Sun rising are the same people who now blame scientific skeptics for being right global warming alarmist demagoguery. The AGW catastrophists don’t care about polar bears because everyone knows now polar bears are fine.

    The AGW fearmongers do not give two ice sheets about confronting real evil in the world, or addressing real problems in America like growing unemployment or looming bankruptcy. They’d rather be paid to dream up rules and regulations to hamstring society, spin the economy into an inflationary spiral with monopoly money and tell others what they must do to address the non-problem of global warming.

  50. I agree, Wagathon, it seems that “AGW fearmongers do not give two ice sheets about . . . addressing real problems . . . like growing unemployment or looming bankruptcy.”

    I also agree with Agnostic, very few, if any, warmist/alarmists wanted to create an Orwellian society.

    Nor did Former Vice President Al Gore nor U.S. Senator John Kerry. But they advanced a totalitarian (Orwellian) society. Why?

    They and their science advisors did not grasp that the Principles of Science are as sacred as prayer or religious scriptures. How?

    Throughout recorded history, reality (God) has been realized by meditation, prayer, observation, experimentation and contemplation. Science is only one of several different paths to The Force, Reality, Truth, God, Spirit of the Universe, etc.

    Today our society is crumbling and world leaders do not have the tools to address “real problems . . . like growing unemployment and/or looming bankruptcy.” Why?

    FRTGSoU is benevolent, but unyielding and all powerful.

    For sixty-seven years (2012 – 1945 = 67 yrs) world leaders paid scientists handsomely to give them the answers they wanted to hear. For a few pieces of silver, scientists violated basic Principles of Science!

    For the sake of society, it is imperative that they now change their ways and correct deception revealed by Climategate emails in Nov 2009.

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127

  51. We know what Hansen and the government say but what would Jesus say? We know that the government wants to rule your life but what about global warming? It is not even remotely true that current temperatures are extraordinary in any way. The Earth has been cooling since the time of Jesus. During the time of the Romans the climate was much warmer than it is today.

    “The real inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperature has been falling for 3,000 years as revealed by the Greenland ice core data. Current temperature changes are but tiny blips in the overall cooling. The temperature has dropped some 3.75 degrees Fahrenheit since the Minoan Warm Period some 3,300 years ago. The ultimate irony will be that if the long term trend continues shivering future generations may look back and wonder why we saw warming when the next ice age was staring us in the face.” (Meteorologist, Art Horn)

    • Greenland icecore temperature isn’t global temperature. So art horn is spreading lies.

    • @lolwot

      So where can I go to actually measure ‘global temperature’?

      Where must I set up my measuring device?

      Hint – if you conclude that ‘global temperature’ is in fact an artificial construct composed from many individual measurement sites, do you want to reconsider your accusation that Mr Horn is ‘spreading lies’?

      If not, why not?

    • No. The idea that recent warming is tiny compared to holocene changes is a lie. A common lie that skeptics like you propagate. Either suspend art horns misinformation or become complicit.

    • @lolwot

      What evidence can you present that he is ‘lying’?

    • @lolwot | September 26, 2012 at 4:27 am |

      What exactly is the lie here? I thought oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores was supposed to be a proxy for global sea-surface temperature? Are you saying that for Greenland ice cores this is not the case? Or are you saying that the Greenland ice core data Art Horn is referring to has been contaminated?

    • Vvariability in Greenland is far higher than the globe. So when Art Horn says “The temperature has dropped some 3.75 degrees Fahrenheit since the Minoan Warm Period some 3,300 years ago” that’s not global. Not remotely. The global change would have been far smaller.

      His conclusion: “Current temperature changes are but tiny blips in the overall cooling.”

      Is simply balls.

    • @lolwot

      ‘Variability in Greenland is far higher than the globe’

      How do you know? Which bits of the globe with comparable records have been sampled? What variability did they show? How much of ‘the globe’ did the sampling represent?

    • http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

      Central Greenland is the one in light blue with the large peaks. Other regions do not correlate. That means the global average has significantly less variation than central greenland.

    • @lolwot

      There was a grand total of 8 sample sets. Not the 800 or 8000 that I was expecting. Just 8. And they came from a variety of different sources (sediments, ice and pollen) and methods of analysis. The two that came form the same region (central Antarctica) don’t even correlate very well with each other..presumably because of different methods.

      And then they somehow think that adding up these eight records and giving an average will actually tell them something useful about the climate. Leaving aside the fact that Antarctica is double counted on this method, even the authors sound some pretty string notes of caution

      ‘Since there is no scientific consensus on how to reconstruct global temperature variations during the Holocene, the average shown here should be understood as only a rough, quasi-global approximation to the temperature history of the Holocene’

      So based on this sample of 8 datasets, do you still stand by your assertion that Mr Horn is ‘spreading lies’?

      If you are, you must be a climatologist and I have a nice bridge I’d like to draw to your attention….

    • Mr Horn is only using one dataset!

      So even by your own questionable argument he is spreading lies.

      But it’s not like I can’t see you deliberately trying to obfuscate the point.

      The point being that Greenland is not a single location. That other areas do not correlate. And therefore the global mean changes must be less than at Greenland alone.

    • David Springer

      Wagathon | September 26, 2012 at 12:23 am | Reply

      “We know what Hansen and the government say but what would Jesus say?”

      Give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s?

  52. The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a study titled

    Is News Corp. Failing Science? Representations of Climate Science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Pages

    “UCS’s analysis finds that:

    • Over a recent six-month period, 93 percent of Fox News Channel’s representations of climate science were misleading (37 out of 40 instances).

    • Similarly, over the past year, 81 percent of the representations of climate science in the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section were misleading (39 out of 48 instances).”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf

    • @Max_OK

      It took me ten seconds to discover that the article was written by a press secretary and an ‘outreach intern’. Nothing ‘scientific’ about them.

      And the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ is not what it seems either. Perhaps it should be renamed the

      ‘Union of Concerned Credit Card Holders and Dogs’

      Anthony Watts had no difficulty in enrolling his dog Kenji is a proud member.

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/

      Kenji may indeed be concerned about many things. If he’s anything like mine, its is ball, food, squirrels and sleep. But I think we can all take leave to doubt his scientific credentials.

    • Latimer, the Union of Concerned Scientists web site gives the following description of the organization:

      ” What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.”

      Does it say UCS is an alliance of people and dogs? NO !
      So how did Anthony Watts get his dog, Kenji, admitted? He lied. He misrepresented the dog as a human bean on the application form. What more proof do you need of Watts’ criminal behavior before deciding he’s not to be trusted?

      OK, I will admit there’s a possibility Anthony Watts thinks his dog is a human, maybe even a relative. The more I think about it, that’s probably the explanation.

      d face lie, unless he thinks his dog actually is a human, which I will admit is a good possibility.

      Perhaps

    • @Max_OK

      Seems to me that the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ is more worried about one’s credit card than anything else. As Watts says in his write-up:

      ‘all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address’

      He made no misrepresentations about the dog. He was not required to give any credentials. Not even date of birth – which might have been a giveaway. No scientific qualifications needed.

      The misrepresentation, it seems to me, is in the organisation’s name. It is not a ‘Union of any sort of Scientists’ that I can discern.

      BTW I noticed this very strange advert on their site too

      ‘Science is under attack like never before and here at the Union of Concerned Scientists, we’re fighting back—but we can’t do it without your help. Become a member or renew your UCS membership by September 25 and your gift will be doubled, making it go twice as far!’

      In UK we have a scheme called ‘Gift Aid’, where donations to a registered charity attract a tax refund (usually 20%) from the government. But this is clearly not the same. The doubling of income has to come from somewhere…and it is not clear where. Any ideas?

    • David Springer

      Is there somewhere on the enrollment form that lists the species which may join?

      This is stupid even for you, Max.

  53. I’m getting too sleepy to write. Please disregard the fragments at the end of my previous post.

  54. Latimer said:
    “He made no misrepresentations about the dog.”
    _____

    Yes, he did. Look at the application form.

    https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/SPageNavigator/join_do
    nate_lbox.html?s_src=tasknavJ

    See where the application form asks for “billing information.” Anthony Watt’s dog Kenji can’t be billed, but he puts the dog’s name on the application anyway.

    See where the application asks for an e-mail address ( a required field). Dog’s don’t use computers.

    You are disgracing yourself defending this clown. Why aren’t you angry about his unethical behavior?

    • @Max_OK

      I followed your link.

      I got this

      ‘We’re sorry – the page or function you tried to access could not be found on our web site.’

      So I cannot see the application form. Shame. I was going to see if my little dachshund could join too. He is very concerned about breakfast at the moment.

      But to your specific points:

      1. It is the credit card, not the person, that is billed and to whom the ‘billing information’ refers. The card could belong to a company or a charity or an employer. It doesn’t need to be a real person. Or the subscription could be made as a gift from a third party on the subscribers behalf.

      2. Similarly an e-mail address is purely for communication purposes. I imagine in pre-computer days they’d have been quite happy with a box number. My mum (88yo) cannot use a computer, but I doubt they’d refuse her money if she used my e-mail address.

      Your attempt to discredit Mr Watts fails. He did nothing wrong in getting his dog enrolled as a member. I’m sure he leaves forgery and other stuff to alarmists like Gleick and his ilk.

      The simple fact that his little exercise showed is that the

      ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’

      is not what it says on the tin. You do not need to be a scientist of any description to join. All you need is a valid credit card. Their name is misleading.

      Any ideas on where the doubled money is going to come from? The Humane Society?

    • @max_OK

      In fact I’m struggling to see where the ‘Scientists’ come into this ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ at all.

      On their website, they introduce what they call their four ‘experts’

      Here – taken from their bios there – are their qualifications.

      President: Kevin Knobloch:. Bachelors: English and Journalism, Masters: Public Administration

      Executive Director: Kathy Rest : Masters: Public Administration. Doctorate : Health Policy

      Director of Science and Climate Change: Peter Frumhoff. Bachelors: Psychology, Masters : Zoology, Doctorate :Ecology

      Strategy: Alden Meyer. Bachelors: Political Science and Economics. Masters: Human Resources and Organization Development.

      I think I’d nominate myself – with a Bachelor and a Masters Degree in Chemistry – to be at least as much of a scientist as the whole ‘expert’ team of the UCS.

      It is no more than just another policy lobby group flying under the false flag of ‘Concerned Ccientists’. Do not be fooled.

      PS. I read also that Mr Meyer has two King Charles spaniels…Charlie and Chester. I wonder if they are members along with Kenji?

    • Are they lead authors for AR5?

    • @peter lang

      It sees that Frumhoff wrote a bit about Forestry in IPCC AR4.

      http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch9.html

      He was one of 15 lead authors and 17 contributing authors. Since the whole chapter is only 35 pages, we can reasonably assume that he wrote about a page.of it.

      Whether this qualifies him as an ‘expert scientist’ I leave to other readers to judge.

    • What about Charlie, Chester and Kenji? Are they authors or administrative assistants? Perhaps they perform the shredding function.
      :)

    • Update 1.

      Thought I’d look at the UCS funding. Their website does not list absolute amounts, just proportions.

      http://www.ucsusa.org/about/funding.html

      They suggest a minimum yearly subscription of $35. And claim 400,000 members.

      Simple arithmetic gives an annual income of at least $14,000,000. We can add to that any ‘generous gifts’ such as the one from an anonymous donor that is matching all subs received before yesterday.

      Lets say it has a minimum of $15,000,000.

      A while back there was a huge hoohah because the Heartland Institute received about $7,000,000 pa. Enough, we were told, to subvert the entire efforts of all the ‘hard working honest climate scientists’ since time immemorial and bring the threat of global Thermageddon ever closer while smoking fags and letting David Wojick loose on an unprepared world.

      So, are these UCS guys spectacularly incompetent or what? STM they could spend just as much as the Heartland guys to neutralise their work and still have a nice little ar chest of $8,000,000 to press home their message.

      If it is true that money is all it takes to win the hearts and minds then the UCS has over twice as much as the HI. They should be winning the argument hands down. But they’re not. Interesting

    • Latimer Alder said on September 26, 2012 at 4:39 am
      @Max_OK

      I followed your link.

      I got this

      ‘We’re sorry – the page or function you tried to access could not be found on our web site.’
      https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/SPageNavigator/join_donate_lbox.html?s_src=tasknavJ
      _______________

      Latimer, that’s because you don’t pay attention to the times on posts. If you did, you would know I corrected the error within minutes, and my correction got moved down thread. Again, here’s the link to the Union of Concerned Scientist membership application form.

      https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/SPageNavigator/join_donate_lbox.html?s_src=tasknavJ

      You will note the form requires the applicant to provide (a) “Billing Information,” including the name, residence address, and e-mail address of the person paying the bill, and (b) “Payment Information ” on the person paying the bill, specifically his credit card number.

      In filling out the application form, Anthony Watts listed his dog, Kenji , as the person paying the bill and holding the credit card. A dog isn’t a person. A dog can’t hold a credit card. So clearly Watts was practicing deception.

      Your inability to understand Anthony Watts’ actions were deceitful raises questions about your concept of “ right and wrong.” I would not trust Watts, and now I’m not sure I would trust you. If you were a dinner guest at my house, I would check to see if any silverware was missing after you left.

    • Max_OK | September 26, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply

      In filling out the application form, Anthony Watts listed his dog, Kenji , as the person paying the bill and holding the credit card. A dog isn’t a person. A dog can’t hold a credit card. So clearly Watts was practicing deception.

      Your inability to understand Anthony Watts’ actions were deceitful raises questions about your concept of “ right and wrong.” I would not trust Watts, and now I’m not sure I would trust you. If you were a dinner guest at my house, I would check to see if any silverware was missing after you left.

      If you were a dinner guest at my house I’d check to see if anything in the medicine cabinet was missing.

    • lurker, passing through laughing

      Max_OK is talking about disgrace.
      As he pretends he misses the point Watts demonstrated in a classic fashion of how little the UCS has to do with scientists.
      The free comedy provided by the AGW wak jobs here is worth the occasional visit.
      Thanks for the yucks, Max.

    • David Springer

      You should drop this, Max. You’ve lost the point. The Union of Concerned Scientists are scientists in name-only. That was Watt’s point and he made it derisively by enrolling his dog in the UCS. Get over it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists

      “The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is a nonprofit science advocacy group based in the United States. The UCS membership includes many private citizens and at least one dog in addition to professional scientists.”

      Someone should go edit the Wiki to bring it up to date.

      ROFLMAO – I kill me sometimes.

    • Max_OK

      Here is the UCS website

      http://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/

      As far as I can see they are an environmental advocacy group that looks very similar to the ‘Friends of the Earth group. Nothing wrong with that, I am sure I would agree with some of their concerns.

      Not having been aware of this group much before I would have taken them as a body comprised of scientists with all that implies.

      I think Anthony Watts was trying to demonstrate this was not so by enrolling his dog. Cheap trick or not, surely the greater deceit is in the title of the group? They will accept anyone who has a valid credit card. They are an environmental advocacy grouo, nothing more nothing less, and as such are perfectly legitimate but have a somewhat overblown name that gives them a certain quasi legitimacy.

      tonyb

    • In short, they’re dishonest.

    • I wouldn’t even call it a cheap trick. They don’t ask for a birth date or an educational level. They don’t really seem to care about anything other than the membership fee. They would probably be quite pleased if everyone signed up their dog.

    • If Anthony Watts wanted to point out that membership in the Union of Concerned Scientist is open to anyone, couldn’t he have simply quoted the following paragraph from this organization’s web site, instead of resorting to a deceitful stunt?

      “What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists. UCS members are people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.”

      Perhaps the UCS and other organizations whose titles could be misinterpreted should have broader titles. For examples,

      The Union of Concerned Scientists and Citizens

      The American Bar Association for Attorneys and Non-Attorneys

      The International Association of Machinists for Machinists and Non-Machinists

    • My last post was a reply to tonyb.

      Could a person apply for American Bar Association associate membership for his dog or even an inanimate object. Judging from the application form, I would say that’s possible:

      apps.americanbar.org/ome/front/form/ome_main.cfm?JoinType=a&sc=RMM12IAEF#

      But what would such act prove, other than the person making application is deceitful?

    • @max_ok

      That there are lots of organisations flying under false flags does not make it right.

      ‘But Mommy they did it too!’ does not play well when you are an adult.

    • Lati,

      Right you are!

      It is so onerous! You have to look at the page and click on the linky thingy.

      Oh noes!!!!!!!

      This kind of criminal behaviour needs to be stopped.

      We need full descriptive names for all organisations.

      UCS – I was misled too!! I thought it was a bunch o scientists sitting around with furrowed brows

      Turns out they actually do stuff!! How misleading it that??!!

      Awful.

      UCS should be – The Union of Concernd Scientists (and others) Who Actually Do Stuff About the Stuff They are Concerned About.

      What? Too vague, you say?

      OK.

      The Union of Concernd Scientists (and others) Who Actually Do Stuff About the Stuff They are Concerned About, that Stuff Being Things Like Writing Reports, Conducting Studies, Education, Public Outreach and Lobbying, as well as Fund Raising.

      UCSWADSATSTACATSBTLWRCSEPOLAWAFR – That’s more like it!!

    • I wish Anthony Watts would expose the fraudulently titled Oklahoma Farmers and Ranchers Association by enrolling his dog as a member.
      A dog doesn’t have to live in Oklahoma or be a farmer or rancher to be a member. HA HA !

      The applicant does have to indicate an area of interest, and among the choices are sheep, goats, and beekeeping. My guess is Anthony’s dog would choose sheep.

      Here’s a link to the application;

      http://www.okfarmersandranchers.org/join-today-oklahoma-farmers-and-ranchers

    • “…………. Anthony Watts was trying to demonstrate this was not so by enrolling his dog.”

      So what? . We don’t have a dog but I’m sure I could, if I wished, ‘sign’ our cat up to membership of all kinds of things: major Australian political parties. He wouldn’t be excluded from the Lavoisier group ( A right wing anti-science Australian ‘think-tank’) , if I paid his subscription. I could probably even get an Australian passport or membership of Mensa for him if I wanted to.

      I could probably get him to ‘sign’ one of those on-line petitions and become the N +1 th ‘scientist’ to have doubts about the validity of the consensus position on AGW or on Darwin’s theory of Evolution. He doesn’t accept the notion, that he and the dog next door ever had a common ancestor :-)

      I’ve put the word sign in quote marks because there is usually no need to actually sign anything when joining any organisation now. They do rely on an individual’s honesty, and all that Anthony Watts has demonstrated is that they perhaps shouldn’t assume this.

    • @tempterrain

      I know you have some funny names in Australia, but surely even the most slow-witted passport clerk would raise an eyebrow at an application for Mr Tiddles Bruce Martin with a nice pikkie of said TBM playing appealingly with a ball of wool?

      And Mensa require some form of independent testing or certification to allow membership.

      The UCS requires nothing more than money. It therefore misrepresents itself as having a membership of scientists.

      Watts’s service was to illustrate this point in a memorable way.

      The UCS should change either its name or its membership criteria,

    • Lati,

      As long as you are stupid enough to completely ignore UCS’s explicit description of its membership criteria, what you say makes sense….

    • @michael

      Strangely enough as a general member of the public I may not have time to scrutinise in detail the membership criteria for every passing organisation that wishes to draw my attention to something or other. I kinda rely on its name to help me.

      So if it present itself as the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, the lay person might think that it is exactly that. A union of scientists who are concerned.. And whe they find that being a scientist has nothing at all to do with its membership, and little to do with its leadership, they might rightly feel aggrieved.

      In UK we have something called the Trades Descriptions Act, and this organisation would fall foul of that.

      Example: If you buy something described as ‘Raspberry Jam’ and instead discover it is made with beetroot, the seller has committed an offence. The buyer has been intentionally misled. It matters not that stuck on the bottom of the jar is a bit of small print saying ‘beetroot’. It is the headline that matters.

      I’ll be charitable and assume that the deception is accidental. Others might feel that it borders on the fraudulent.

    • Lati,

      I’ll think you’ll find (I know, I know, shoot frist ask questions later is more your style) that your TDA wouldn’t cover membership of a voluntary organisation.

      But hey, you’re a ‘climate skeptic’; conclusions precede data collection – and Anthony Watts is the patron saint of that approach.

    • Indeed!

      If you want information on an organization’s membership and its policies on accepting new members, the obvious thing to do is visit the organization’s web site and look for this information.

      Anthony Watts apparently visited The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) web site and found it has members from all walks of like, and accepts applications for everyone. Instead of applying for membership himself, however, he submitted a fraudulent application using his dog’s name, as if the canine were a human. Since the dog doesn’t use a computer and can’t use a credit card, Anthony used a real person’s e-mail address and credit card number (presumably his own) as if these belonged to the dog.

      Anthony Watt’s stunt was intended to embarrass UCS so he could boast about it at WUW, and his followers could laugh about how the Union of Concerned Scientists accepted a dog as a member, but he paid a high price. He showed himself to be both dishonest and foolish.

    • @michael

      ‘I’ll think you’ll find (I know, I know, shoot frist ask questions later is more your style) that your TDA wouldn’t cover membership of a voluntary organisation’

      H’mm. sounds like you agree that my basic argument is sound, but you;d like to get your client off on a technicality.

      And if it were a true voluntary organisation like for instance the National Flower Arrangers of America who had decided instead to spend most of their time quilting blankets, then it wouldn’t really matter.

      But the UCS is a political lobby group, not the ‘volunteer group’ that you;d like to have us believe. Its sole purpose in life is to deliver its view on controversial subjects. It employs five press officers and issues press releases on all sorts of controversial topics. And though funded by subscribers they appear to have very little say in the governance or work of the Union.

      Similar groups – Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Heartland etc all manage to have near meaningless – but warm and fuzzy sounding names. When the public hear about them they have a vague idea of who they are and what they represent. The names are pretty meaningless but there are no misrepresentations.

      The Union of Concerned Scientists explicitly represents itself as something which it is not.

    • “H’mm. sounds like you agree that my basic argument is sound, ” – Lati

      You gathered that from my previous comment?;
      “As long as you are stupid enough to completely ignore UCS’s explicit description of its membership criteria, what you say makes sense…”

      ….or you have the memory of a goldfish.

    • @michael

      Here is your post:

      I’ll think you’ll find (I know, I know, shoot frist ask questions later is more your style) that your TDA wouldn’t cover membership of a voluntary organisation’

      Your argument was purely that the TDA would not apply. not that the circumstances I described were untrue or that I had misunderstood something.

      The simple fact is that this lobbying organisation presents itself to the public as the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’, and we have shown that there is no need whatsoever to have anything to do with science to join.

      No matter how much small print you care to quote, it is undeniable that this name is misleading. Maybe that is acceptable behaviour in the US. Not in the UK.

      If ever have the misfortune to come across anything else from this organisation I shall ignore it, and urge everyone else to do so too. If they cannot achieve a level of basic honesty in their own name, it seem very unlikely that anything else they provide will have any integrity.

      Just sayin…..

    • Lati,

      I have to admit that I’m impressed by the level of delusional devotion you display to Watts. His little stunt was merely juvenile and dishonest.

      You display all the attributes of a true acolyte- twisitng this way and that to avoid the obvious problem that UCS is explicit in it’s membership policies, even pretending to confuse ‘voluntary’ with ‘volunteer’ in your mystifying, and bizarre, attempt to defend your patron saint.

      But please continue, it’s highly amusing.

    • David Springer

      Michael,

      So you would think it fine if a group of skeptics who are not scientists formed a non-profit organization called “Union of Unconcerned Scientists” and solicited money to lobby on behalf of climate skeptics?

      Unless you are a hypocrit applying a double standard, which wouldn’t surprise me in the least, then you must feel there would be no duplicity or deception in the above and be okay with it.

      So, punk, are you okay with it?

    • @michael

      Watts is no ‘patron saint’ of mine. I look at his blog occasionally and very occasionally (once a month??) post there. But it’s not one of my particular hangouts.

      And then you accuse me of ‘twisting and turning’. Not so mon brave. Form the very beginning of this little epsi ode I have been entirely clear on the main point.

      ‘The Union of Concerned Scientists’ is not composed of Scientists. And so its name is ‘misleading’.

      It is you who are guilty of twisting and turning to try to divert attention from this very simple fact. It would stand as a fact whether Anthony Watts ever enrolled his dog or not, or whatever the small print of its rules and regs say. And would still be true if Tempterrain did actually manage to get Tiddles an Aussie passport.

      But Watts’ excellent intervention brought home this pre-existing subterfuge – that all you need to be a member is a credit card billing capability – in a very amusing and memorable way.

      Finally you accuse me of confusing ‘volunteer’ with ‘voluntary’ in one of my earlier remarks. Maybe there is a cultural difference here, but to my way of thinking a voluntary organisation is composed of volunteers. If there is some other bigger difference that I am unaware of, please tell me. If not, I’m happy to bow to the charge you make. I will stand on the naughty step for 10 whole minutes and resolve to check the difference (if there is one) more carefully next time.

    • David,

      Your outrage would be less bemusing if UCS hadn’t been doing this, openly, explicitly and transparently, for decades.

      Seeing it has, taking your cues from Anthony Watts will, inevitably, leave you looking a little foolish.

    • @michael

      Don’t ever think of changing careers to lawyerdom. You’d not be good at it.

      The defence of

      ‘guilty m’lud, but my client has been doing it for years so that’s all right then isn’t it?’

      is hardly likely to endear you to the judge (insolence)..nor to the defendant (extended jail time)

      My advice is to stick with climatology where a complete mental divorce from reality is a positive professional advantage. And your willingness to argue that up is down, black is white and inside is out will come in handy too.

    • Oh poor Lati!

      He finds it too onerous to read the ‘small print’ – the ‘small print’ at UCS being that little section you find at most sites “About Us” where they tell you all about themselves – so he has to produce endless screed telling us how he feels misled by the UCS.

      Militant ignorance in action!

    • Lati,

      This is great! Your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre.

      Now it’s lawyers….or something ; UCS is wrong to be open and explicit about X, because it’s been doing X it for years?? Huh.

      I don’t know if you can, but give it a go, make the next one even more incoherent.

      Go Team Skeptic!!

    • @michael

      You say

      ‘He finds it too onerous to read the ‘small print’ – the ‘small print’ at UCS being that little section you find at most sites “About Us” where they tell you all about themselves – so he has to produce endless screed telling us how he feels misled by the UCS’

      This is the defence used by every conman and dodgy salesman since the invention of printing

      ‘it said so in the small print’.

      Pathetic.

  55. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    What is striking (to me) about this policy discussion is that the cognition of Climate Etc’s climate-change neodenialists — Peter Lang, Gbaikie, Lurker, David L. Hagen, Kim, Wagathon, David Springer, and Beth Cooper (for example) — so eerily parallels the cognition of America’s regime-change neoconservatives.

    Utter lack of a “Plan B”  in the event that Iraq reconstruction fails … or James Hansen’s worldview is correct.

    Unquestioning faith in markets  just send plainloads of cash to Baghdad … or plainloads of American dollars to petroleum exporting states.

    Conspiracy-theoretic cognition  all who oppose the war-plan are liberals … or else greens (same thing).

    Abuse, quibbling, and cherry-picking  to distract attention from willful ignorance and short-sighted planning, eh?

    It’s become strikingly evident that the willfully ignorant climate-change neodenialism of the 21st century is comparably dumb to the willfully ignorant regime-change neoconservatism of the 20th century.

    Indeed, many of the faces, names, corporations, and institutions are the same, eh?

    What neoconservatives and neodenialists have in common is that they don’t see and don’t learn … for the simple reason that their ideology blinds them to plain facts and common sense.

    That’s all too evident, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    • @A Fan

      Have you ever written anything that is clear and plainly understandable in your entire life?

      Perhaps it all makes sense to you but it passes me by.

      For an advocate (which I think you are trying to be) you fail at the first hurdle. People just don’t/can’t read your stuff. Let alone understand whatever it is you are trying to convey.

      My post-caffeinal neomatitutinal cognition ideations are in a state of terminal bafflement.

      I shall just conclude that your writings are all complete drivel.

      Isn’t that so, A Fan of More Discourse? :-) :-) :-)

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Latimer Alder confesses  “Perhaps it all makes sense to you but it passes me by.”

      Please do not be discouraged, Latimer Alder!

      Your recent Climate Etc confessions of neodenialist ignorance have shown us an excellent beginning of a journey to better understanding!   :!:   :!:   :!:

      “Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure.”
         — Lemony Snickett

      Please continue the journey toward better understanding, Latimer Alder!   :)   :)   :)

    • Gibberish again.

    • “Latimer Alder | September 26, 2012 at 7:10 am | Reply

      Gibberish again.”

      Not really. Nice quote referencing the pseudonymous writer Snickett.

      My larger question is why do you call that gibberish, yet don’t go after something like this elsewhere in this thread?

      http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/24/u-s-climate-change-policy-news/#comment-245247

      “SamNC | September 26, 2012 at 6:04 am |
      Its hard because you need heat to vaporise liquid propane. North American and European cars in water will need a large heat exchanger to be installed on the cars.”

      And the answer to my question? He doesn’t, because SamNC is a teammate of Latie’s. They work for the same TeamSkeptic, occupying the bowels of the same execrable smelling Skeptic Tank.

    • @webby

      I didn’t read beyond ‘confessions of neodenialist ignorance’ in FOCBS’s remark before deciding that he was still drinking the Gibberish-Aid.

      I have a lawn to watch grow and paint to watch dry. Far more important than playing FOCBs’s silly games.

      Sam’s remark clearly contains a misprint of ‘water’ for ‘winter’. I occasionally make mispront erors mysself. So unless I can make a really good joke I let them go by.

      What is your next question Paul Pukeit? :-) :-) :-)

    • “So unless I can make a really good joke I let them go by.”

      So Latimer Alder admits that he will only correct errors in knowledge if it will allow him to make some snarky remarks, further stroking his ego. Way to go, you putz.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      A really good joke is empathic. The characterisation webster provides is much more of himself than civilised human beings.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      As Voltaire said, “uncertainty is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is an absurd one.”

      Doesn’t that sound like someone we know – FOMBS? :cool:

    • Voltaire also said:

      “Cherish those who seek the truth, but beware those who find it.”

      Doesn’t that sound like someone you know, Chief?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Yes Joshua – it reminds me of you.

    • Yes Joshua – it reminds me of you.

      Well, that’s funny, Chief, because I had someone else in mind.

      Would you mind pointing to an example where I claimed insight into the “truth” about climate change? You seem, I’m pretty careful about quantifying uncertainty, using qualitative language, etc.

      I might suggest that if you can’t find any examples in my posts, you review some of your comments where you talk about certainty as to predictions what will or won’t happen with the climate, or about the political ramifications from the input of different players in the climate debate.

      A little more self-awareness for you might not be such a bad thing.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Joshua,

      There are things that are an article of faith with you – because you lack the knowledge to evaluate science properly. It is not easy to first of all build a ttheory from diverse sources and then find the right way to communicate. Both of these things are central to my work as an environmental scientist.
      Open mindedness and following the data is sin qua non.

      When I describe myself as a climate catastrophist (in the sense of Rene Thom) – it implies a fundamental unpredictability in climate and therefore large uncertainties. After decades of study I am left with less certainty than I commenced with. C’est la vie.

      What I understood is that these are the starting conditions in the Pacific – and that there are responses in climate that emerge from the starting conditions. This is where we are and it seems likely to result in a cooling influence over a decade or three more.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703

      Of course we may shift again at any time – but if we presume that the natural conditions will be to a waming trend again this is a presumption that doesn’t stand any scrutiny. The presumption that most recent warming is anthropogenic in origin is not merely uproved but is contradicted by the satellite record.

      ‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative.’ AR4 3.4.4.1

      Low frequency climate variation is of course very real – and if the data was different I would say so.

      But the question ccomes back to policy rather than science.

      ‘Conservation Agriculture is a farming system that does away with regular ploughing and tillage and promotes permanent soil cover and diversified crops rotation to ensure optimal soil health and productivity. Introduced some 25 years ago, it is now practiced on 100 million ha of land across the world….

      Conservation agriculture could not only help bring yields back up but also deliver several important environmental benefits, Pandey continued. Aside from restoring soil health, it also saved on energy use in agriculture, reducing the footprint of a sector which currently accounts for some 30 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

      It could further mitigate climate change by helping sequester carbon in the soil and also potentially save 1,200 km³ of water a year by 2030 since healthy soil retains more moisture and needs less irrigation.

      Only with sustainable intensification of crop production can serious progress be made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals on hunger and poverty reduction and on ensuring environmental sustainability, Pandey warned. “We are currently headed in the wrong direction for both of them,” he added.’ http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/9962/icode/

      We need to practice conservation agriculture on 5 billion hectares. Joshua – do you have something against feeding the world, saving soil, conserving water, protecting downstream ecosystems and sequestering carbon permanently in soil?

      :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

      Thank you people of America.

    • Nice duck, Chief. But worry about you. I wonder if you keep violently ducking like you do, if you might injure your back or something. Maybe next time you could just stand up straight and be accountable for what you post?

      Anyway, please take care.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      You are of course always right Joshua – and we should concentrate on my personal failings rather than anything at all relevant.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Latimer Alder and Chief Hydrologist, it appears (to me) that you both would benefit from a considerable dose of Lemony Snickett’s philosophy.

      Latimer Alder, you in particular may enjoy Lemony’s economic meditations!   :)   ;)   :grin:   :lol:   :!:

    • Chief Hydrologist

      Let’s refer Lemony to the Karl Marx treatment centre – he is advised to wear warm socks. http://thepeoplescube.com/karl-marx-treatment-center/

      :cry:

    • lurker passing through, laughing

      Fan of BS,
      You are becoming a parody of a fanatic believer.
      Thanks for the early morning chuckle.

    • Funny that you say that coz I have thought for some time that Fan is indeed parodying the viewpoint of mainstream climate science and is doing it very well.

      My humour detector always goes off when Fan posts and I quite enjoy his posts and liberal use of emoticons and old-fashioned school ma’am language.

    • Fan of more annoying symbols – most of your arguments can be turned back around at you and your tribe.

      No Plan B if your policies destroy the economy or make food or energy too expensive and continue to lower living standards around the world. (corn to ethanol is an example, 1st food shortages and price increases, now lack of pig feed and soon pigs. Yet, your tribe are the great humanitarians?)

      Unquestioning faith in government and politicians
      (and we know how smart, honest, and altruistic they are). No understandng (apparently) of crony-capito-socialism (hardly seems fair to blame only capitalism when its actually govt’ favoring business)

      Conspiracy theories – luke-warmers are really deniers, big oil and big business are paying the skeptics (despite Gleick’s criminal actions showing the opposite), and believing that skeptics are always up to organized mischief when the evidence points to plenty on both sides.

      Cherry picking – happens on both sides, but obviously you will see more on blogs than in peer reviewed literature and on blogs that allow free speech, you always have a few nut-jobs. Please don’t allow yourself to be fooled about this.

      By the way, neo-cons really do suck, but what I don’t understand is why Obama is still following all of their policies. Logically, wouldn’t that make him suck just as bad in those policy areas?

      I almost hope you are getting paid by the word for your drivel as at least then it would make sense.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Bill, many fans of discourse find that quoting rather than composing saves vast amounts of effort and time:

      “A library is like an island in the middle of a vast sea of ignorance, particularly if the library is very tall and the surrounding area has been flooded.”
      ― Lemony Snicket, Horseradish: Bitter Truths You Can’t Avoid
      ———
      “There are many, many types of books in the world, which makes good sense, because there are many, many types of people, and everybody wants to read something different.”
      ― Lemony Snicket, The Bad Beginning

      In particular, there may perhaps be more than two “tribal” perspectives upon climate-change policy, eh Bill?   ;)   ;)   ;)

    • David Springer

      A fan of *MORE* discourse | September 26, 2012 at 8:01 am | Reply

      “Bill, many fans of discourse find that quoting rather than composing saves vast amounts of effort and time:”

      If by quoting you mean parroting then I agree. If by saving vast amounts of effort and time you mean it rescues them from the incapacity to think for themselves then I agree.

      Isn’t it nice that we are in agreement, John Sidles? :-) :-) :-)

    • David Springer

      Sometimes failure shouldn’t be an option. A pre-conceived plan for failure invites failure when succeeding becomes difficult. What was JFK’s plan-B for failure to put a man on the moon? What was the founding father’s plan-B if they couldn’t win the War of Independence? What was Abraham Lincoln’s plan-B if he couldn’t win the Civil War? What was Rosa Park’s plan-B if she couldn’t sit anywhere but the back of the bus?

      Sometimes failure is not an option. Write that down.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      “Failure is not an option.”

      Hmmm … sounds like Ralph Nader’s campaign platform … or Ron Paul’s, eh?

      Say … how’d no-compromise politics work out for those guys?   :roll:   :roll:   :roll:

      Dave Springer, perhaps you ought to reflect, that in every struggle that your post mentioned, there was a competing side who lost, in large measure because they dared not even *imagine* they could lose, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

      Don’t forget also, that when it comes to climate-change, Mother Nature has the deciding vote. In fact, she has the *sole* vote, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    • Utter lack of a “Plan B”

      How I wish your mother had had access to Plan B.

    • with a side effect like him you’d think they would make sex illegal

    • Scott Basinger

      Judging from sheer emoticon abuse, if online dating is the only option, there’s still hope to snip this genetic line right here.

  56. Chief Hydrologist

    Didn’t make FOMBS list? I shall have to work harder. The thing with the carbon cycle – I worked out today – is that it is very like the hydrological cycle in being an endlessly renewable resource. Carbon is released to the atmosphere by volcanoes – it is recycled through many trophic networks and abiotic systems – it is sequestered temporarily or permanently.

    Nothing is denied – except perhaps by those who are unable to ask the nasty questions as someone put it.

    http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=LT2010.png

    I am still waiting for plan A to work – and am willing to substitute our own.

    http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

    Something else I figured out is that a 1% increase in organic content in agricultural soils will sequester 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is very easy to do and productivity and increases soil and water retention. Bringing together the hydrological cycle and the carbon cycle. If we did this on all agricultural lands then it would sequester 500 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. Almost double all the carbon dioxide we have ever released.

    This doesn’t seem hard when people work together – eh FOMBS? Isn’t it good that there will be enough food for everyone? :cool:

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Chief Hydrologist, you are not a climate-change neodenialist (AFAICT) … rather, you are a plain climate-change skeptic … of the species “distrusts thermodynamic reasoning, focuses instead on the written historical record and/or statistical reasoning” … rather like Judith Curry herself!   :)   :)   :)

    • Chief Hydrologist

      There you are wrong FOMBS – what a surprise. I am a climate change catastrophist (in the sense of Rene Thom). It comes from focussing on that part of the literature dealing with hydrology, oceanography and dynamical complexity. You are wrong about Beth – you just are. You are – more sadly – wrong about yourself. You are a person who cannot ask yourself the ‘nasty questions’. It is a little bit boring. :cool: :cool: :cool:

      http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=LT2010.png

    • ” The thing with the carbon cycle – I worked out today……an endlessly renewable resource”

      You figured that out today?

      Was it the word “cycle” that gave it away??

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The thing is that there are many opportunities to manage this cycle. Have I not shown it to the case? What other information do you need Michael?

      I am still waiting as we all are for Plan A to work. Perhaps we can try something else instead? I suggest you try this one – http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/ – in any of a number of languages. :cool: :cool: :cool:

    • Yea Michael,.
      When Chief suspends his copy&paste job to actually study the science, he tends to point out what we already know. A carbon cycle does in fact exist. Who would have thought it?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      But webster – your undrstanding of the carbon cycle is so simplistic. I remember many years ago reading a paper describing a 14 compartment carbon model for Chesapeake Bay. After weeks of this I got to the end of the paper and they said they needed at least three times the number of compartments. It puts your one dimensional ocean compartment model to shame does it not? :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: But then we always knew that didn’t we webster?

      Science proceeds from analysis to synthesis – from data to insight. You should try it some time.

      Newton’s 4th rule for natural philosophy states that:

      ‘In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions. This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses.’

      Starting from the simple observation that carbon and oxygen enters the atmosphere originally from volcanoes and has then many pathways we look to build a big picture. There are many avenues for management of the carbon cycle. Do you have something against ecosystem conservation and restoration webster? :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

    • “But webster – your undrstanding of the carbon cycle is so simplistic. I remember many years ago reading a paper describing a 14 compartment carbon model for Chesapeake Bay. After weeks of this I got to the end of the paper and they said they needed at least three times the number of compartments.”

      You don’t understand how the math works. A calculation of any finite difference math, such as that goes into solving PDE’s and ODE’s is a mesh and slabbed formulation. By definition, you can generate as fine a grid as you want. When you solve this with an integral analytical approach, and when can do this with a closed-form solution, you are a leg up on everyone else.

      I wouldn’t stop at 14 components, I would place it as an infinite number of components, with each of these components scaled according to its likelihood or probability of occurring. That is how statistical mechanics works — you come up with some ensemble model of the system under study and see if there is a good way to partition a potentially fine-grained system to make the solution tractable.

      That is one way to solve the seemingly intractable problem of understanding a multi-component CO2 sequestering model, which I have done. I can also apply that same approach to the sinking of heat to deep stores.

      ” It puts your one dimensional ocean compartment model to shame does it not?”

      The one-dimensional thing is a nice approximation, and am glad I thought of it. (In fact James Hansen predates me).

      You may not like it, but that doesn’t matter. You have to deconstruct my math (or James Hansen’s thermal math) line-by-line, yet I doubt that you will do that.

    • Chief Hydrologist

      But webster – I think I have said that before to you. Quite recently. And although theoretically the mesh can be fine as necessary – in practical terms the computation is limited by computing power. But this has nothing in common with what you do.

      The components are processes – photosynthesis and respiration, solubility and trophic networks, weathering and precipitation, etc – not amenable to statistical mechanics – but the individual processes need to be understood in its own terms. This is what we mean by compartments. If we could average everything by guesswork – things would be simple.

  57. Freeman Dyson argues thats ‘AGW’ as a problem of land management rather than a problem of meteorology.

    • You bet Beth. I am a Dyson fan from my early climate change days. His notable rejection of the CAGW hypothesis sparked my interest in the subject.

    • David Springer

      I’ve been a Dyson fan for 40 years. It began with reading about “The Dyson Sphere” as a teenager and Dyson’s general interest in and support of human expansion beyond the planet. I also find myself in agreement with him on what he wrote in his 1999 book “The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet” which Dyson describes thusly:

      My book describes a vision of green technology enriching villages all over the world and halting the migration from villages to megacities. The three components of the vision are all essential: the sun to provide energy where it is needed, the genome to provide plants that can convert sunlight into chemical fuels cheaply and efficiently, the Internet to end the intellectual and economic isolation of rural populations. With all three components in place, every village in Africa could enjoy its fair share of the blessings of civilization.

  58. Chief Hydrologist

    Beth me darlin’

    It is good that we have both the science and the policy right.

    But is there any solution for pissant progressives?

    Robert

  59. Lol, fan, yer jest love labels don’cha?
    *Denialist* ( that’s yer favourite,) or .. *neo this n’ that.* Say, fan,. ..might this tendency ter label jest possibly classify you as a *reductionist,* or a *neo simplificationist* or perhaps, ahem, … an *ideologue of the left? *
    :-) :-) :-)

    • We’ve got a lot of Neo-Baloney Specialists (especially in academia and politics) — like Al Gore — i.e., the Left and liberal herd of feckless hypocrites… 47%’rs, spouting a lifesytle that is good for others but not them — they’d rather be on a beach in Cancun drinking margaritas and demanding to be paid for saving the world from pink slime and SUVs.

  60. Chief me darlin’
    Any solution?…Mebbe a compulsory reading of the Greeks, some of the great thinkers of the enlightenment and yer sainted Hayek )
    Trouble is, we of the more open society don’t do ‘compulsory’ so well, bein’ of a less authoritarian persuasion than some WHOM I WON’T MENTION BY NAME.

  61. The Fire-Ready-Aim C02 policy of EPA science authoritarians is a dramatic realization of self-defeating liberal fascist bureaucracy at work. Secular socialist Big Gov-EPA anti-energy bureaucrats and their comrades have turned the corner to communism and it’s all downhill from here.

  62. I’m gonna out on a limb here and guess it hasn’t been easy for you to find others who agree with your version of astrophysics. Am I right?

    • Chief Hydrologist

      I am going to take the bait and wonder what the hell astrophysics has to do with anything. Don’t get me wrong I am as big a fan of dark matter as the next guy – even if most of it is between Springers ears.

      With Davo – it doesn’t really matter. As Woody Allen said – the brain is his second favourite organ.

  63. Are We Headed for Blackouts? (cover story)
    intown magazine, Sept/Oct 2012. p.6-11.
    Picture: 10 wind turbines on a wheat field.
    (Note: the printed version of the article is different than what is on line. )

    Article is an interview with John Hofmeister, CEO Citizens for Affordable Energy, former(retired) President Shell Oil Company, Houston.

    Hofmeister laments the fractured nature of energy regulation and review in this country. “…13 cabinet level agencies, 26 congressional committees, potentially 800 federal judges….”

    We have the Fed that oversees money in this country, why not an independent agency regulating energy, asks Hofmeister. [from print ed.]

    I agree about the mess, but an Energy FED? Well, this is a thread on Energy Policy, so this belongs here.
    (Longer post on this at WUWT Tips, 9/24 11:01am)

  64. ►► Greeks and Spaniards took took to the streets today. There is are violent confrontations in Greece and Spain needs a bail-out now.

    How will the Democrat-sanctioned climate change policy prevent violence in Los Angeles and is bankruptcy inevitable and desirable as far as the Left is concerned? Isn’t bankruptcy just another — in additoin to inflating the currency — for the Left to avoid all of the promises it made to staty in power. And, to the Left, isn’t LA just another city with too many cars burning too much fuel and contributing to runaway global warming?

    • See Democrats Against Agenda 21 to understand why California cities are being forced into bankruptcy.

      To Gov. Brown’s credit, Redevelopment Agencies have been banned by law but the cities and counties are stuck with the 30 year bonds the Agencies floated without the knowledge of taxpayers.

      http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

    • Brown is a doddering old man who signed the legislation that gave wings to unionization of government employees 30 years ago (“Moonbeam” served as Governor between 1975 and 1983). Now the state is swamped with a bloated state government that is controlled top to bottom with liberal-far Left Democrats who are totally beholden to government employee unions.

      The payback to maintain power has left the state with staggeering pension obligations. Economically, businesses have for years been fleeing oppressive state regulation. The u6 unemployment is 22%.

      California is the posterchild for the failure of Leftist Stonkernomics. It’s what you can look forward to everywhere when the 47%’rs become the majority. Gas prices are higher in California than anywhere else in the nation. California has played no part in presidential politics for years–the election is decided before California’s polls close. The state is so completely dysfunctional, don’t be surprised to see the government use the municipal water supply as a way to extort ‘revenue’ from the free enerprise sector to pay government workers’ bloated salaries and benefits.

    • I live in Orange County. California is a beautiful State with the largest GDP of any State in our nation but I have to agree with most of what you’ve said.

      The state is very dysfunctional and voters know it. If you run a search on Cal Watchdog using keywords like AB32, Cap and Trade, etc. you’ll find numerous articles condemning agencies like CARB.

      AB 32 Cap and trade hearings high on speculation, low on details
      http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/05/03/the-speculative-game-with-cap-and-trade/

      The poll, authored by the AB 32 Implementation Group, submitted the polling information to the CARB, but it appears that CARB has turned a deaf ear on Californians.

      The poll found:
      - Support for AB 32 has declined since 2008, with a slim majority of voters still in favor.
      - California voters are unwilling to pay more for energy and other essentials in order to fund GHG reduction policies.
      - Nearly two-thirds of voters oppose CARB’s proposed cap and trade auction and less than a majority of informed voters support cap and trade in general as currently planned.
      - Two-thirds of voters think California is seriously on the wrong track.
      - Only about a third of voters have a favorable view of the Legislature.

    • … and then there is Gov. Brown’s putative bullet train to nowhere, cash-for-clunkers Leftist Stonkernomics.

    • Wagathon,
      I completely agree, the bullet train is absurd. We already have numerous rail lines so instead of modernizing them he wants to reinvent the wheel.

      There are far more important issues they are all ignoring. Refining the regulatory environment to support business creation is one of them.

      example I posted in an earlier comment:
      Carlsbad, CA has been attempting to implement one of the largest desal. plants in the Western Hemisphere for over ten years. Guess what caused the hold-ups and cost overruns. Yep, Green groups gaming the system and regulations/permitting process.

      The Zetas And The Surfriders
      Extremism In Defense Of Environmentalism Can Be A Catastrophic Vice.

      “If the country has so hamstrung itself with regulatory process and tolerance for greens gaming the system that public agencies responsible for the water supply think that contending with the Zetas in Mexico is a more attractive option than contending with the Surfrider Foundation in California, are we facing an environmental crisis of existential proportions — or a governance crisis of existential proportions?”

      http://hbfreshwater.com/uncategorized/the-zetas-and-the-surfriders

    • Wagathon,
      I think we’re on the same page but possibly for different reasons.

      There’s a phrase use to describe the learning experience for infants; working over an object. The infant uses sensory experience to qualify the object. Touches the object, tastes the object, smells the object, slams the object into his head (soft good hard bad), etc. to assemble a sense of the object.

      Political attempts to create policy related to environment and climate are little more than an infants experience at this point.

    • True, true, and it is that ignorance that enables the Left and liberal fascism to rule through superstition and intimidation.

    • David Springer

      John in CA

      I lived in Orange County, CA for almost 20 years. Mostly in Irvine. I began living there at the tender age of 18, in 1975, when assigned to MCAS El Toro in the Marine Corps. I moved to Austin, TX in 1993 when the fallout from the peace-dividend (end of the cold war in 1991) collapsed the military industrial complex and put thousands of engineers out of work there. After being laid off myself I had two attractive employment offers, one from Intel in Pasadena and one from Dell Computer in Texas. Pasadena pretty much sucks and my wife (an Orange County native) happened to have a lot of family in Austin so off to Texas we went. Best move we ever made. Irvine had transformed by then from orange groves we raced through on off-road motorcycles to a planned community. It just got worse from there. Maybe with the financial implosion in the state enough people will move out so it can change back into what it was like back in the 1970′s.

    • David Springer

      John in CA

      It seems like CA became a state of racists in the past decade making the Latino population into scapegoats for all the problems which were actually created by liberal Anglos. It’s disgusting. I’m like SO glad to no longer be a Californian and must admit to being highly entertained when the good old boys at Enron, based in Texas, gamed the California energy trading scheme and made the state government look like helpless dimwits. The good old boys at Enron subsequently got a little drunk on their gaming success after that point and gamed themselves into the hoosegow while simultaneously causing the financial ruin of innocents below them on the corporate ladder.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

    • David Springer,
      My wife and I moved to Newport Beach from the NYC area about 3 years ago. I feel more like a tourist than a resident at this point but I took the time to review local politics and many of the State issues.

      One of the State issues, on the ballet in the last election, was AB32 implementation. The proposition pointed out the impact AB32 would have on employment, on small business, and the related increases in household costs. It sought to simply delay implementation until the unemployment rate returned to a reasonable level.

      The proposition was very cleaver as it would have forced government to address business needs to stimulate business expansion and employment.

      The opposition to the proposition consisted of a series of ads and editorials claiming “Big Oil” interests and Koch Brothers involvement. The typical spin “Greens” use to distract from the true issues.

      The proposition was defeated for all the wrong reasons yet public support for AB32 has fallen from 2008 to the present. CARB’s implementation of Cap and Trade will kill off most of the remaining support leaving only those with a vested interest in support of the foolishness.

      Constituants aren’t properly represented by most of the liberal Democrats in Sacramento. Yet, many of the key issues are forced on the State by the Fed. EPA regulatory oversight, Federal incentives that are counter to the interests of the State, Federal land grabs (1 in 2 acres are Federally owned in Western States) are a few examples. Interest groups gaming the system adds greatly to the waste and inadequate policies.

      There’s no question that California Politics are dysfunctional but I guess its going to have to get a lot worse before voters finally choose proper leadership.

    • municipalities like LA going bankrupt and pehaps the state of California is what will take monetary policy and toying with the interest rate out of the Fed’s quiver.

      Even with the free money policy that has taken over Western civilization (essentially giving the finger to debt-holders) already is playing out with interest rates in Spain springing to 6%.

      It’s a fact of life if you don’t actually pay the interest, borrowed money seems like free money… It doesn’t take long before the Lenders begin to wonder — not about the earners that are to pay off the loan – but about the borrowers on whom the loan will be blown. It’s no wonder the U.S. has been given its first-ever credit rating downgrades–two in the last 3.5 years.

      nd even states like

    • Sorry Wagathon, I should have been more specific. By Fed. I meant the Federal Government not the Federal Reserve.

      Building on what you were saying, the real threat to the US is losing the Reserve Currency status due to all the Washington nonsense.

    • True, true but it looks like a dual edged-sword. The Euro is a dead as dead and dying Old Europe so that leaves the dollar. But that means there’s no alternative to holding dollars when threatened by runaway inflation and to the extent people seek alternatives we see buggles in real estate and commodities and ultimately crashes with loss of capital. Interest rates should be higher to cover the inflation premium — that is the reward for delay present enjoyment for future enjoyment –i.e., saving, which is the basis for all investment. Those who planned for they future by working hard in the past are being robbed today. What we’re seeing is Robin Hood shooting the people in the back because they’re not running to the king for a handout..

  65. Will the US Export Coal?
    Analysis: Coal fight looms, Keystone-like, over U.S. Northwest

    Call it the Keystone of coal: a regulatory and public relations battle between environmentalists and U.S. coal miners akin to the one that has defined the Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline.

    Instead of blocking an import, however, this fight is over whether to allow a growing surplus of coal to be exported to Asia, a decision that would throw miners a lifeline by effectively offshoring carbon emissions and potentially give China access to cheaper coal.

    Having long ago lost their bid to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels, environmental groups aim to close transport routes that bring those carbon fuels to market, pulling local and state politicians into the fight alongside regulators.

    Mining interests won a battle last week when the Army Corps of Engineers called for a quick study of plans to open the first coal port on the west coast at Oregon’s Port of Morrow on the Columbia River, a review that will weigh impacts of hauling coal, not burning it.

    Coal port skeptics say the ruling is ripe for challenge in the courts and they foresee a drawn-out fight over the review.

    While the US has the largest coal resources, Australia has captured the coal export market. See:
    Exports: Black coal is Australia’s second-highest export commodity and Australia is the world’s leading coal exporter.

    Over the past 10 years black coal exports have increased by more than 50%. . . .
    Projections for 2012 see an increase of 10% in 2012 to 162 million tonnes, then growing at an average annual rate of 11 % between 2013 and 2017, to total 271 million tonnes by the end of the period.

    Australia’s exports of metallurgical coal are forecast to increase at an average annual rate of eight %, reaching 218 million tonnes in 2017, with total earnings forecast at $40 billion in current Australian dollars.

    US coal exports could grow much faster, but they are throttled by lack of export terminals. Will Obama really support “all of the above” OR impose “all above ground” as he has been doing to date?

    • David Springer

      This is a tough call. I’m confident that cheap plentiful non-fossil hydrocarbon fuels made through exploitation of synthetic biology are close enough at hand so that the vast bulk of US national coal reserves will never be needed. On the other it’s comforting to know they’re there. However if I’m right about the potential and timeline of synthetic biology our coal reserves will become worthless in a couple of decades so the smart thing to do is sell as much as we can while they still have some value.

  66. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Breaking News  Scientific American’s weblog Arctic Sea Ice: What, Why and What Next is highlighting yet another massive climate-change hockey stick: Sea Ice Area in August: the Last 1400+ Years.

    Yikes.   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

    Ever-more, ever-bigger hocky-stick “blades” have gotta inform rational policy-making, eh?   :?:   :?:   :?:

    “Failure is not an option”, eh?   :shock:   :shock:   :shock:

    • Chief Hydrologist

      The error bars are missing – without which it is impossible to evaluate. Even with error bars one wonders about the utility of comparing paleoclimatics data to satellite data. It is not the same thing at all. If remotely true it suggests that climate has reached a tipping point and further and abrupt flucuations may be here – a noisy bifurcation. It is a mistake to think that warming is the only possibility.

      The rational response may be to make our own nuclear reactor at home.

      :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

  67. “…the predication of government, and United Nations’, policy for energy growth on the unsustainable myth of global warming is a serious threat to us all, but especially to the 1.6 billion people in the less-developed world who have no access to any modern form of energy. The twin curses of water poverty and energy poverty remain the real scandals.” (Philip Stott)

    There are choices and socialism is the most gutless. No one can work in a free enterprise economy without being caring of others, being optimistic about life and giving totally of oneself: the capitalist must actually provide something of value to someone else or the capitalist does not eat (e.g. see the video, Jiro Dreams of Sushi).

  68. The latest news is that 100 million to die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate, that’s 5.6 million dead, every year.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1262420–100-million-to-die-by-2030-if-world-fails-to-act-on-climate-report

    “One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 per cent productivity loss in farming”

    Climate science, don’t you love it. So accurate.

  69. Ah the wonders of progressive voters upset with the progressive politicians they elect.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/day-of-rage-in-greece-as-more-stringent-cuts-loom-8180808.html

    Coming soon to an American city near you, if the Dems win in November,

  70. Lol, Peter, er… what does’PP’ mean, my ignorance is truly encyclopaedic?
    : ( Didn’t even know about the climate Southern Annular Mode until quite recently.

  71. say, David Springer is NOT referring ter me, it’s one of those quirks of nesting )

  72. Judith,

    You ask “Are the climate wars fizzling as reality sets in?”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Has there been some major scientific publication that has produced a major ‘paradigm shift’ (skeptic/deniers like that term I’ve noticed), but which I’ve somehow missed. I’m sure there can’t have been. If so, the blogosphere would have been buzzing and they haven’t, so it’s the same old paradigm as before I would say.

    If the Republicans win the election they sound to be the mood to make mention of AGW a criminal offence. They’ll probably find a clause in the American Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, or whatever, to show that there is no such thing as harmful AGW.

    I suppose, if it works, it will be a lot cheaper that climate mitigation. While they are at it they could pass a law banning Hurricanes, droughts, and forest fires. What about a law rationalising PI ? It would be so much more convenient if it were 3.142 exactly. Didn’t that nearly make it through once before? Maybe it will soon be time to give it another try.

  73. “PP,’ c’ est ‘pissant progressive’ comme on dites en francais? … Hmm, Chief mon brave, that leaves me out, er, ‘dehors.’ ( Cannot use acutes and graves, etc on me computer, due ter cracked brain syndrome.) Say, Chief Hydrologist, thinking of emailing, with some trepidition, me prose poem ‘The Canoe.’ Do – not – be – too – severe (

  74. Chief Hydrologist

    Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom.

    ‘For some analysts, citizens and local governments have no role in the governing of a commons.
    Since the publication of ―The Tragedy of the Commons‖ by Garrett Hardin2, users of commonpool
    resources such as fisheries, forests, or water aqueducts are perceived to be helpless
    perpetrators of resource destruction. Hardin presumed that individuals would always maximize
    their own immediate short-term, material benefits. This meant that they were helpless to do
    anything else but overharvest resource systems that were not privately owned or the property of
    a governmental unit. The prediction that individuals would destroy the very resources on which
    they depended was consistent with many economic models of one-shot or finitely repeated
    dilemma settings where everyone pursuing their own short-term benefits ended up achieving far
    less than was feasible if they had found a way of cooperating with one another.

    Hardin‘s vivid portrayal of the helpless citizen opened up an important body of theoretical and
    empirical work that challenged the universality of his work. Many studies provided empirical
    data and theoretical arguments to challenge the presumption that individuals were forever
    trapped in a remorseless tragedy.3 They document many local governance arrangements around
    the world where resource users have overcome the tragedy. Research illustrated the importance
    of common-property institutions in history and in the contemporary world. Instead of finding
    only private or government ownership arrangements that helped users to sustain a common-pool
    resource, scholars from multiple disciplines found a diversity of mechanisms to govern
    common-pool resources.

    On the other hand, research has not found any ―sure cures for the complex problems related to
    the governance of a commons. Failure occurs in regard to private property, government
    property, and common property. Overharvesting of a valuable resource is, of course, assured
    when the resource is effectively an open-access resource with no established property rights.
    Hardin, and the myriad of scholars and policymakers from multiple disciplines who accepted
    his theory as a general theory, were thus correct in identifying a challenging problem especially
    under open-access conditions. Their analysis was incomplete, however, because they prescribed
    only two solutions. Both had to be imposed on resource users by external authorities.’
    http://www.boell.org/downloads/Ostrom_Governing_a_Commons.pdf

    So there are better ways of governing the commons though informed, transparent and polycentric governance. But the atmosphere is not a ‘rivalrous resource’ – it is manageable through many pathways and the optimal pathways are those that maximise global production and minimise costs. Conservation farming I and the FAO – amongst many others – keep rabbiting on about is obviously one of the key pathways. There are many others.

  75. Climate policy and economic policy are inextricably linked, given that CAGW proponents posit policy responses which have immense economic impacts. Early last year Nigel Lawson gave a good talk on economics, with some reference to climate policy. Reading it might help to enlighten some CE discussions. An excerpt:

    “It is true that markets are less inefficient than any other form of economic organisation, and that expectations are on the whole rational most of the time. But to derive the mathematical equations and construct the computer models it is necessary to assume total efficiency and total rationality, which is absurd. Economics, after all, is about human behaviour. The notion that you can adequately capture human nature in a series of mathematical equations is inherently ludicrous. Yet that is the premise of modern finance theory, on which bankers chose to rely, to their — and even more, our — cost.

    “Mathematical economists contend that in any discussion of a system as complicated as the economy being exact in one’s arguments is essential, and that mathematics is a language that can capture this precision. Indeed — and that’s just the problem. Endemic uncertainty (whether Knightian or any other variety) makes the precision that exists in the physical sciences unattainable, and makes the illusion that it is attainable unwise and dangerous. Underlying the mathematical economists’ position seems to be the assumption that there is no rational space between the certain and the random (or irrational). Not so. Not only is there such a space, but it is where public policy, whether foreign policy or economic policy, properly lies, and where history has to be our principal guide.

    “There is also the predictability test. That is how we decide between theories in the physical sciences. But human behaviour — whether in the economic or the non-economic sphere — although not wholly unpredictable, is not sufficiently predictable to make mathematical equations (although interesting) of any practical use. There is an understandable illusion that because economic outcomes, unlike (say) foreign policy outcomes, can be quantified, mathematical equations can be applied to the former area even though they are clearly inapplicable to the latter. But it remains an illusion, since the fact that economic outcomes can be quantified in no way mitigates the uncertainty that attaches to all areas of human behaviour, whatever they may be. Modern finance theory, and the mathematisation of economics of which it is a part, are both absurd and — as we have seen — highly dangerous. It may be helpful, from time to time, for economists to use mathematical models to assist in clarity of thought. The danger arises when they confuse their models with the real world. It is notable that the essence of Smith’s approach to political economy in the Wealth of Nations is not scientific, let alone mathematical, but historical — informed, of course, by a profound and clear-sighted understanding of human nature.”

    What a surprise, Lawson supports my stance against attempts to assess economic costs and benefits over very long time scales.

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/3644/full

  76. WebHubTelescope | September 26, 2012 at 9:00 am |

    “So Latimer Alder admits that he will only correct errors in knowledge if it will allow him to make some snarky remarks, further stroking his ego. Way to go, you putz.”

    Your anger is because you were too stupid to recognize from context that SamNC meant to write “winter” not “water”. I’d be angry with myself too but I wouldn’t compound the problem by making an ass of myself trying to argue that it was an “error in knowledge”. ROFLMAO@U

  77. David Springer | September 26, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Reply

    I’m gonna out on a limb here and guess it hasn’t been easy for you to find others who agree with your version of astrophysics. Am I right?

    Chief Hydrologist | September 27, 2012 at 2:38 am | Reply

    I am going to take the bait and wonder what the hell astrophysics has to do with anything. Don’t get me wrong I am as big a fan of dark matter as the next guy – even if most of it is between Springers ears.

    With Davo – it doesn’t really matter. As Woody Allen said – the brain is his second favourite organ.
    ——————————————————————————

    The threading is screwed up. That was a reply to Oliver Manuel about his description of the formation of our solar system beginning around the iron core left over from a supernova.

    Decent of you to lower yourself to my level of gratuitous insult but you’ve overreached. This is not surprising though because being a good of distance, or a good judge of anything of else for that matter, is simply not your forte.

  78. The threading is screwed up. Responses are posted above the comments being replied to.

  79. All stars that generate and discard H probably have pulsar cores, David.

    http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V19NO2pdf/V19N2MAN.pdf

    • David Springer

      Oliver K. Manuel | September 27, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply

      “All stars that generate and discard H probably have pulsar cores, David.”

      That doesn’t answer my question. Sol is a class G star on the main sequence. Approximately 8% of all stars in the galaxy are in that population. Supernovae on the other hand are so rare only about 2 per century happen in our galaxy. There doesn’t seem to be a large enough source of neutron cores for but a tiny, tiny fraction of class G stars to have collapsed neutron cores. So I ask again what fraction of class G stars do you believe are formed around neutron cores?

    • David Springer

      David Springer | September 29, 2012 at 6:48 am | Reply

      Oliver K. Manuel | September 27, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply

      “All stars that generate and discard H probably have pulsar cores, David.”

      Moreover, don’t you run into an angular mometum problem? Neutron stars spin very very fast due to conservation of angular momentum when they collapse. If Sol had an extremely rapidly spinning neutron core it would seem like that would produce a host of observable artifacts to confirm it i.e. the pulsar’s pulse rate would exhibit as frequency or amplitude modulation in electro-magnetic emissions as well as put periodic signature on magnetic field strength and things of that nature.

    • David Springer | September 29, 2012 at 6:48 am | Reply

      Oliver K. Manuel | September 27, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply

      “All stars that generate and discard H probably have pulsar cores, David.”

      Yet another problem I have with this is the Chandrasekhar limit. A compact star of less than 1.38 solar masses doesn’t have sufficient gravity to overcome electron-proton repulsion and is a white dwarf not a neutron star. Sol’s mass is well known and is below the Chandrasekhar limit.

  80. Idle thoughts of an idle fella. It seems to me that sooner or later there is going to be a politician who matters, and who WANTS to believe that CAGW is a hoax. A potential candidate is George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK. He seems to have looked at the books of the UK finances, and sees clearly that if the Climate Change Act is implemented, then the UK is going to commit economic suicide. He is opposed by the Lib. Dems. who are an essential part of the government coalition. What to do?

    Maybe, just maybe, George Osborne will tell his staff to find a credible group of scientists who claim that can prove that CAGW is a hoax. We can always hope.

  81. The climate change debate and all of the supposed fixes for the non-problem of global warming one thing will never change: in good times and bad bothe here and around the world there will always be 47% who will never be proud to be an American, no matter what. “Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.” (Philip Stott)

  82. OT: We are just about 400 comments from the 250,000 mark, which we should hit tomorrow. Congratulations in advance to Dr. Curry and my fellow denizens. What a great debate!

  83. MattStat/MatthewRMarler

    John Kerry: If you’re going to use X amount of fuel and you’re using it in a clean way, it’s better to have it produced from the United States than to be dependent on other countries. So, do you want to expand it overall? No. Overall you want to find alternatives in renewables and other things. But you have to do what you have to do to meet our energy demand.

    Does this point of view have much prevalence within the Democratic Party, or is it just a slogan for the 2012 campaign? We have not seen anything that strongly comports with that from the Obama administration. Increased production of fossil fuels in the U.S. has occurred despite their attempts to stifle it.

  84. Thoughts on the Australian Carbon Tax Package

    1. The package is based on a double breach of faith, first Gillard’s pre-election promise that “no government I lead will introduce a C tax”, then the promise of a Citizen’s Assembly to build a consensus before taking action. What trust can we have that the admittedly laudable aims of this package will be respected?

    2. On the subject of trust, with this governments record of botched programs (price watch, pink batts, BER, health reform, green cars, mining tax, livestock export ban) is it reasonable to trust them with one of the biggest reforms in Australian history? Nor will trust be restored by the government spending $12 million of our money on advertising to sell their package.

    3. There can be no doubt that this package is primarily a political response to a political problem. To stay in power, Gillard had to promise the Greens these “reforms”. We must then ask, can a package born of such dubious circumstances be good for Australia?

    4. Notwithstanding the circumstances of conception, this package is seriously flawed on many fronts. First and foremost, it must be remembered that our standard of living, along with that of most developed countries, is utterly dependent on the cheap energy available from fossil fuels over the past century. There is currently no cheap replacement. Measures to reduce C emissions – such as wind, solar, nuclear, biomass or CCS – are very expensive. Even shifting from coal to gas requires a price of $60 a tonne or more to be economic. Large emission reductions mean substantially increased cost of living and decreased business competitiveness.

    5. Australia is blessed with vast mineral resources, and there is no doubt much of our recent wealth comes from this industry. A carbon tax fundamentally changes the economics of mining and disadvantages Australia vis a vis our competitors, none of whom (e.g., Canada, Russia, Brazil, South Africa) envisage a C tax. Thus industry will gradually move to these countries, taking their jobs, profits and emissions with them, but without any reduction in global emissions.

    6. The tendency to move mineral industries overseas will be exacerbated by sovereign risk. Unfortunately, this government has created serious doubts among international investors because existing investments are being devalued, first by the Super Profits mining tax and now by a C price and loss of diesel rebate. All these measures increase their costs of production relative to competitors.

    7. The global economy is dangerously fragile, with the Eurozone in danger of falling apart, several European countries in credit crisis, the US drowning in debt and the shift of economic power to developing countries placing huge stresses on global finance. While this global crisis continues, it seems like madness to deliberately introduce a major shock to the Australian economy.

    8. The C package pretends the costs are very low. But if this is true, there is no inducement for change. It may be that compensation payments keep the costs low initially for consumers and exposed business. But these costs, and thus inducements, rise with time. Consequently, this becomes a tax by stealth; sneak it in with low impact, then let it rise until enough time has passed that the political cost doesn’t have to be taken.

    9. The package was meant to be revenue neutral, but after its release on C Sunday we find that compensation and costs are even greater than the revenue from the tax. Thus the budget will be impacted, by a not-insignificant $4 billion. The government dances around this, but the fact remains that $4 billion spent on the C tax package is $4 billion less available for schools, hospitals and so forth.

    10. This is a fundamental change to the Australian economy and tax system, possibly more fundamental than the GST. Yet as noted earlier, it was not put to the electors at the last election, it has been rushed through a political process to appease fringe political interests (Greens and Independents), and once introduced will be impossible to wind back. More important, it is doubtful that it will be effective in achieving its objective of making a major reduction in C emissions.

    11. In fact, according to the Governments own modelling, the scheme will not be very effective. Even to obtain the modest 5% reductions by 2020, we will have to buy permits internationally for 94 of the 152 million tons C reduction required.

    12. The Treasury modelling anticipates a global C trading system will be in place by 2016. Given recent events (failure of Copenhagen and Cancun, Canada and US dumping ETS legislation, China and India refusing to introduce any C trading) this is a heroic assumption.

    13. Even if an international C market became reality by 2016, it beggars belief that there will be an excess of “emissions reductions” to be sold. Like Australia, most countries suffer from increasing population and consumption and will have great difficulty meeting their own reduction targets let alone having any spare permits to sell.

    14. Even if we stretch our credulity to allow for permits being available, is it a good idea to spend billions on buying permits? Is sending this money overseas a good idea? What is the effect on our balance of payments? What is the effect on exchange rates? Interest rates?

    15. The proposed C price and its reach into the economy is more than any other country, e.g., the NZ C price is half ours, the current EU price is much lower (about $16 per tonne), and the EU has given so many free permits and exempted so many industries that it raises only $1 per citizen.

    16. The package is clearly an exercise in wealth redistribution. The well-off pay through lack of compensation and adjusted tax tables while the less well-off are overcompensated. But, wealth redistribution is not a stated objective of the package, i.e., the package is fundamentally dishonest.

    17. It is also dishonest when Gillard and Swan claim that the tax free threshold triples, because they neglects to mention the phase out of the Low Income Tax Offset (LITO). Taking LITO into account, the effective tax-free threshold only increases from $16,000 to $18,200, a very modest change.

    18. The Government claims it is introducing a market-based mechanism because this is the least cost way of reducing emissions. In fact, this is a claim that has never been properly tested, is questionable because of the potential for rent-seeking and rorting, and is contradicted by the inventor of emissions trading systems who claims an ETS is not suitable for international C trading. It must be kept in mind that C emissions make for a very strange market. C emissions themselves are invisible, difficult to measure, and there is no buyer. What is to be traded are “emission-reductions”, which are illusory commitments relative to some imaginary baseline, a bonanza for shonky governments, traders and bankers.

    19. If the Govt. truly believes in a market-based mechanism, why not scrap the 200 disparate programs already on the books? Why not wind back the market distorting RECs and mandatory renewable targets? Why invest $10 billion in selected renewable schemes?

    20. Wind, solar and geothermal have been slated to receive $10 billion, yet other proven methods of reducing C emissions, e.g., biomass and CCS, receive no help from this package. This is either the government trying to pick winners or Gillard bowing to the preconceived notions of the Greens.

    21. In any case, the $10 billion scheme, intended to finance the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, is a loser. The Corporation will essentially be a government bank, the lender of last resort for dodgy renewable projects that even with the existing subsidies would be seen as non-viable by normal commercial lenders.

    22. If the Government was serious about C reduction, it must allow nuclear in the mix.

    23. The Prime Ministers constant repetition of “C pollution” insults our intelligence because it is a transparent attempt to subliminally demonize carbon. In reality, C and CO2 are essential to life on earth.

    24. Also insulting is the constant drone of “the 500 big polluters”. This demonizes big business in an attempt to shift responsibility from where it truly resides. In fact, the polluters are we, the consumers. Businesses, large or small, merely respond to our demand for goods and services.

    25. As proposed the scheme is very inefficient. Over 3 years, about $24 billion will be raised with most being churned back to industry and consumers as compensation. When money is raised and spent by government, it is generally recognised that there is a 30% overhead. In other words, billions will be spent on administration. It is reasonable to ask, would such vast sums better be spent on hospitals, aged-care, roads, etc?

    26. As a corollary, the big winners are the public servants and financial industry needed to regulate and administer this scheme. Do we really want a large expansion of govt. bureaucracy and the big end of town for such modest benefit?

    27. As has often been pointed out, even if the 5% reduction is achieved, it will have no effect on global climate. The only justification for a small emitter like Australia to do this is to be a good global citizen. This is fair enough, but it is not a justification for leading the rest of the world, especially a world that is now back-pedalling fast. This is even more true when to do so would threaten Australia’s big competitive advantage.

    28. The proposal is to introduce a C tax for 3 years, then replace it with an ETS. This is utterly wasteful. If an ETS is the right response, then we should plan to go directly there. Surely, the emissions reductions in the first three years due to a rapid-response C tax will be insignificant.

    29. Business is already terribly encumbered by government regulation. It doesn’t need more from C taxes and an ETS.

    30. The package has been conceived in haste, primarily by a political committee responding to the pressures of maintaining minority government as noted previously. As surely as the sun sets each day, there will be massive unintended consequences. A major reform such as this needs ultra-careful consideration and ample opportunity for review.

    31. In conclusion, I fully support reducing C emissions. But let us do it at least cost and without the smoke and mirrors of this package. At this stage, we need more research into, first, the least cost method of reducing emissions, and second, reducing the cost of alternative technologies. Let us make these investments in research, while moving in concert with the rest of the world to develop the necessary consensus and regulatory frameworks. Let us not saddle the country for decades with a ill-conceived, poorly designed, expensive and probably ineffective package.

    [The above is reposted from a comment I posted previously as comment #47 under "Labor sets new record in Unpopularity – worst result since World War II” on Jo Novas's web site.]

  85. John from CA | September 27, 2012 at 1:05 pm |

    David Springer,

    “My wife and I moved to Newport Beach from the NYC area about 3 years ago. I feel more like a tourist than a resident at this point but I took the time to review local politics and many of the State issues.”

    I have many fond memories of Newport Beach along the boardwalk. There was a night club near the pier I frequented, right on the boardwalk, but I can’t remember the name of it, which is strange, because I was sometimes sober when I was standing in line to get in…

    Orange County is (or was) a conservative stronghold in a liberal state. Interestingly where moved to from there (Travis County, TX) is a liberal stronghold in a conservative state. I miss a lot about Southern California. Mostly it’s the diversity of nature there within easy driving distance. I could go camping one weekend on San Clemente Beach and the next weekend at Mt. Palomar and the next in Joshua Tree and the next at Mammoth Lakes. We used to go down into Mexico at least a couple times a year too where once you got past Tijuana was quite nice and you couldn’t beat the prices there.

  86. Well here is a paper that I think Dr Curry is going to find very interest:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/climate-skeptics-gaining-ground-in-media/#more-71981

    It’s not so much whether or not skeptics are gaining ground, but for the first time I have seen such a survey at least characterise skepticism anything close to fairly.

    It also supports my line (albeit not strongly) against many commentators here that the debate is highly politicised in the US but not so strongly elsewhere. I myself would probably be a type 2 and maybe 3 skeptic, not strongly skeptical but never-the-less and most definitely liberal or left of centre in my politics. It annoys me that the debate has been allowed to be defined as Republican v Democrat one by US politics. I can understand it – but I don’t like it.

    • Agnostic,

      Of course there are some people on the political Left and Centre-Left who are objective and rational. But the vast majority are not. Their beliefs are influenced by their ideological beliefs and alignment.

      Skeptics of CAGW and those concerned that the proposed fixes will do far more harm than good to peoples’ well-being, are rationalists. It makes sense that these people tend to align more to the centre-right of poliitcs.

    • Peter Lang,

      Two questions:

      1) Name one person on the ” political Left and Centre-Left who are objective and rational ” who, in your considered judgement, might be said to be “objective and rational”.

      2) Suppose the consensus scientists are correct in their assessment of AGW. Where would that leave all those on the right wing of the political spectrum who oppose their findings on political grounds?

    • Peter,

      I have been following your posts and I think you have an excellent read on the issue generally – but on this point I vehemently disagree. In fact, I would say that the opposite is true. I would say that most of those on the right of politics in Europe are still to the left of most of those on the left in the US.

      In my view, outside of the US those who are liberal or socialist by inclination are very much more rational than those on the right, who I would tend to characterise as generally insular, inappropriately xenophobic or nationalistic, and not as imbued with a sense of social responsibility.

      Don’t mistake the volume of the loudest nutters on the far left to be evidence of quantity. Most of the rational objections I have read to the CAGW meme have in fact come from the left – labour party activists or politicians – here in the UK. My father, whose letter you quoted, is left-leaning, and has tended to vote labour in Australia.

      There is an inclination amongst left-wing minded people to accept AGW because they are inclined to accept responsibility and be concerned to do the right thing – do no harm. That was my motivation as well – and belief in AGW based on the superficial level of information about it is not only rational, but justified. It’s only when you start to understand the issue more deeply and examine the purely scientific doubts and objections that you realize supporting of mitigation even if not fully skeptical is unwise – and you more than any commentator here has made that point extremely succinctly.

      Then the liberal belief system kicks in again and you realize investing effort in dealing with a highly uncertain possibly non-problem is a distraction from far more worthy causes in respect of social justice, fairness, and empathy for fellow man. This was the motivation behind FOI’s climategate exposure and I support his/her actions on that basis.

    • Agnostic,

      Thanks you for your reply. I was intending to mean ‘economically rational’. On that basis centre-right is inherently more rational than centre-left. There are exceptions of course. Regarding Europe and USA, I suggest Europe is in deep sh*t because it has been far too Left for far too long. Excessive socialism, excessive regulation, high taxation, to many bureaucrats, short work weeks, environmentalism and climate policies – like renewable energy and ETS – are making EU poor and Asia rich.

    • Well your suggestion that europes problems are a result of being to left sided are as misguided as an AGWer suggesting that because it’s a consensus it must be true.

      The reason europe is in the difficulties it is in now is because it was not left-leaning enough. The reason for europes problems is down to not being able to sufficiently align fiscal policy as a result of right wing concerns about sovereignty, lack of regulation, and a lack of adherence to the regulation that existed.

      The problem for the Europe project is that it was slightly half baked. With such close economic integration, different rules and conditions in different countries, means fiscal policy has to be closely managed in order to smooth out the bumps, but right wing forces in the individual member states didn’t want to give up what they thought was the ability to self-determine economic decisions even though those days have long been over in any meaningful sense.

    • Agnostic,

      We differ on this issue. We’ll have to agree to differ.

      I’d just point out that all countries or groups of countries that have different levels of governance and a sort of federal-state arrangement for politics, finances, lows, courts, etc. have the sort of jurisdictional issues you are blaming the European problems on. I agree the issues you raise exist, but I don’t agree they are the main cause of the problems.

      IMO, (humble but 100% correct :) ) the main cause of the problems in Europe is socialism, excessive regulation, excessive bureaucracy, lack of work ethic (in many countries), green extremism and high taxes. All that kills businesses ability to create wealth for the EU, its nations states and the people.

      Your comments suggest an employee perspective rather than the perspective of a wealth creator.

      Anyway, I think its best we put this aside. We are too far apart on this to reconcile, and not helpful on Climate Etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s