AFP – A debilitating row with Russia at UN climate talks this week exposed a fundamental flaw in how decisions are taken — the entire system balanced precariously on an ill-defined notion of consensus, observers say.
From France 24 International News, an article entitled UN climate talks: no consensus on, um . . . consensus. Excerpts:
While furious with Russia for allowing the issue to stop important work at a meeting in Bonn, negotiators agree the decision-making procedure must be clarified before any long-term damage is caused.
By tradition, decisions in the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) are made on the basis of “consensus” — a term that implies common resolve by its 195 parties.
The principle is conceptually fuzzy and remains undefined in the organisation’s rulebook, yet it was the tool that created the Kyoto Protocol and binds the community of nations to signing an ambitious new pact on carbon emissions in 2015.
“Consensus is considered important since this makes the likelihood of implementation or compliance with what has been agreed larger, and demonstrates respect for the principle of state sovereignty,” Louise van Schaik of the Clingendael Institute of International Relations in the Netherlands told AFP.
But a bust-up at a low-key meeting in Germany this past week raised stark questions as to whether the practice — at least in its current form — can endure as the bill for climate change mounts and countries fight harder over how to apportion it.
“Since the beginning we’ve been sailing along in a bit of a legal grey zone where things are done by consensus without anybody really knowing what consensus means,” one insider told AFP.
What currently passes for consensus is traditionally achieved through frantic, late-night haggling.
In the 12-day talks that finished in Bonn on Friday, Russia, backed by Ukraine and Belarus, blocked work in one of three negotiating groups — demanding a debate on how consensus is reached.
“If we fail to hold such a discussion on the procedural aspects of preparing and taking decisions, we may see in 2015 a situation where all efforts that have been made would be a failure.”
He did not spell out how the system should be changed, but stressed it must take account of the “sovereign equality of all countries… to express their view.”
“Our system is sick,” agreed one European negotiator.
“Maybe something good can come of this — a review of how the system works, and how it doesn’t.”
Veterans of the climate process say the problem has deep roots.
At their very first executive meeting in 1995, parties failed to adopt the UNFCCC’s rules of procedure because they disagreed over Rule 42, which would allow for a vote when consensus fails.
By mutual agreement, the parties have been applying the rules ever since, but not Rule 42.
But most agreed that, ultimately, procedural clarity would help the process as a whole.
UN climate chief Christiana Figueres described the issue as a “challenge” but also “a fantastic opportunity to be creative and to increase the efficiency of the system”.
JC comments: Well we can only hope that the UNFCCC can come up with saner decision making procedures take account of the “sovereign equality of all countries… to express their view.” While they are at it, maybe they will also tell to the IPCC to drop the manufacturing consensus approach to climate science, which arguably does even more harm to the science than it does to the policy making process. (see my previous post No consensus on consensus).
So it’s not a big Russian plot after all?
===============
I don’t know what it is. Three noses, seven tails and a leg and a half. I think the Brits call it a “dog’s breakfast”.
Of course it is
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/69-71.htm
and when you add this it a classic ‘double-cross’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm
Oh Lord, won’t you give me a new mechanism?
My friends all drive models, I must understand.
Oh Lord, won’t you give me an ocean oscillation?
Else my friends and I will all be truly damned.
=====================
I’ve just added a brief description for
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/YAMAL-GMF-AMO.htm
Everything happens for a reason.
The key word in this contretemps is not consensus, it is sovereignty. The same problem the EU has fought to over come, by taking more and more of it from the somnolent European voters.
How dare the leaders of Russia care more about the people of Russia than their fellow progressives in the “consensus.” The goal of progressive elitists everywhere is to define terms, including consensus, in ways the keep the stupid voters out of the picture as much as possible.
Watch for an attempt to redefine “consensus” in a way that allows the power hungry technocracy to impose its will on counties that are not willing to sign on to their diktats.
When a bureaucrat starts waxing eloquent about “a fantastic opportunity to be creative and to increase the efficiency of the system,” dust off your musket and keep your powder dry, the redcoats are coming.
And this gives away the game:
“He did not spell out how the system should be changed, but stressed it must take account of the ‘sovereign equality of all countries… to express their view.’”
Sovereignty, folks, is not the right to express one’s view to the all powerful technocrats who make the decisions. Sovereignty is the right to make the decisions regarding your future – YOURSELF. Those of you who live in Europe may have forgotten this, but trust me, it’s in all the best dictionaries.
however correct your explanation of the motivations of progressives everywhere, “How dare the leaders of Russia care more about the people of Russia than their fellow progressives in the ‘consensus’” is funny stuff.
Ironic, perhaps. Not funny. Putin and his buddies are fascists for sure. But their power still depends on not sending Russia back into the relative economic stone age of soviet level poverty. Which is where decarbonization would send them in no time.
They are greedy, power mad,. and evil. Not stupid.
Oh, and the same goes for communist Chinese rejection of decarbonization, and to a lesser extent, Indian. It is in the interests of their people, while not being in the least altruistic on the part of the leaders.
Pissant Progressive | June 17, 2013 at 12:00 pm said: “How dare the leaders of Russia care more about the people of Russia than their fellow progressives in the ‘consensus’”
More people are waking up; BUT the fat west is still hibernating…
Ask Ben Netanyahu about whether sovereignty means the ability to control your own destiny or the right to have a seat at the table. He’s completely surrounded by sovereigns who think the former applies to their countries, but the latter applies to his.
Yeah, if Israel didn’t have sovereignty, the UN would have handed it over to the Palestinians decades ago. Which is exactly the point. You want to ask somebody, ask all the dead Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists if Israel has sovereignty.
Gary
No, we in Britain haven’t forgotten about Sovereignty . We’ve been trying to get it back for thirty years after we realised that Ted Heath had lied to us about the nature of the EU.
Ever since no UK government has dared to hold a referendum on EU membership and the red lines in the sand they say they have drawn recede ever further away.
This fiasco sounds awfully familiar to those of us who have followed the interminable European conferences and treaties. They eventually get resolved by numerous helpings of fudge heaped on top of a generous portion of obfuscation.
TonyB
TonyB,
My bad. But then, I don’t really think of Britain as part of Europe. You all were at least sane enough to stay out of the Euro. And those clever Icelanders recently opted out of joining the EU all together I believe. So there are little glimmers of hope elsewhere.
” dust off your musket and keep your powder dry, the redcoats are coming”
The colonists didn’t call British troops ‘Redcoats’, term used by the colonists to describe British/German troops was ‘Goddamns’, as they reputedly started and ended every sentence with the word ‘Goddamn’.
However, when the American language was Bowdlerized in the 19th century, ‘Redcoat’ was substituted.
See, now you made me google it. Worse, you make me cite wikipedia.
“Accounts of the time usually refer to British soldiers as “Regulars” or “the King’s men”, however, there is evidence of the term “red coats” being used informally, as a colloquial expression. During the Siege of Boston, on 4 January 1776, Gen. George Washington uses the term “red coats” in a letter to Joseph Reed.[17] In an earlier letter dated 13 October 1775, Washington used a variation of the expression, stating, “whenever the red Coat gentry pleases to step out of their Intrenchments.”[18] Major General John Stark of the Continental Army was purported to have said during the Battle of Bennington (16 August 1777), “There are your enemies, the Red Coats and the Tories. They are ours, or this night Molly Stark sleeps a widow!”[19]”
So, I will stand by my usage, ’cause I like the way it sounds anyway. :-)
red coated gentry comes from fox hunters wearing hunting pink; hunting pick is obviously bright red.
In 2015 the activists will be shocked, shocked I tell you, that those countries that are economically harmed by this agreement, and more importantly those that perceive that they might be harmed, will walk out on it.
RPJ’s Iron Law will be proven once again, and there shall be great gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in response to this failure that nobody saw coming.
These things have become a group unicorn chase where the first order of business at every meeting is to determine how they are going to cover up the failure and somehow declare success at the end of the meeting?
GaryM,
+1000
Thank you for the excellent comment at the top of this sub thread and several more in reply to others’ comments.
I’ve only just read the post at the top of this thread, and now I am even more scared about the future. Your comments mentioning that the UN climate control thingy could go the same way as EU technocrats’ control of European’s laws, regulations and ideology is really scary.
I look at the delegates our countries send to the UN climate conferences and get very concerned that those types of people can decide what targets, laws, regulations and taxes countries must implement in the future to control the climate, and energy, and sustainability, and social behaviour and beliefs, and what people in the future will be allowed to say, do, eat, and think.
See these example of how the delegates we send to UN Climate Conferences think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_hcz0NwtU7Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LM1kh2AcKfE
Note the comment by the Aussie delegate in the second video.
Do we really want these unelected, ignorant, extremists deciding our energy and economic policies, and locking us into them?
Judith:
The word “hope”seems to be missing between “only” and “that” in the first line of your comment
thx, fixed
I absolutely love it. The people who have worked hardest to claim that there is a “consensus” about the science can’t decide what a consensus is … too precious. Thanks for the belly laugh, Judith.
w.
PS—a couple minor typos in your last paragraph, should be
According to what I have read, this is all about money. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russians decommissioned a whole bunch of inefficient, highly polluting, coal burning electricity generating stations. Under Kyoto, these decommissioned plants “earned” the Russians theoretical money, if they can sell the carbon credits to some other country under the provisions of Kyoto. At the last meeting of COP at Dakar, the meeting closed over the objections of the Russians, when there was a “consensus” that Kyoto should not proceed. This would mean the Russians would lose all the lovely theoretical money.
So in Bonn, the Russians dug their heels in, and refused to agree to anything until there was a reversal of the consensus at Dakar, and a chance that they can get their money under Kyoto. That is what this is all about. It has nothing to do with what is, or is not, a consensus.
but it was an exploitable loophole nonetheless.
I’ve long thought that the Chinese have figured out that any global warming that man can cause will be good for the Middle Kingdom. They’ve enjoyed playing the game that CAGW presents, deluding the West into disastrous policy. It was magnificent the way they covered their chagrin at the failure of the shakedown at Kobenhaven by crying foul at the neo-colonialist finaglings of that sad President Obama.
====================
So here’s the trick. You watch the smokestacks and wonder at the question: Are the scrubbers coming out of concern for the people’s health? For concern of cooling? For concern of the blame and guilt which might accrue from cooling?
Inscrutable. Ah, I denounce myself.
========
The funny thing about Russia….. Early on, they fought Kyoto tooth and nail. Just would not sign on to it. They were providing some of the science the fledgling skeptics movement was using to battle the alarmists touting the IPCC’s worst case scenario arguments.
Then, when the provision of carbon credits trade was finally added, the Russians did an abrupt about face and signed on, knowing they would have tons of carbon credits to sell to Europe and Russia stood to make a bundle of $$$$.
Now that the value of that market looks to be permanently reduced to nothing, the Russians are drifting back to their previous stance.
Clearly the process to ‘tackle global warming’ will still be going on when the new ice age glaciers reach Bonn.
I am just thankful that there are people like Judith Curry about. A true objective and honest scientist who speaks much sense. Thank you Judith, may the people be saved from European technocracy before too many die of cold in the ‘de-carbonized’ and mostly unlit fairyland that these fools are creating.
Love the increased frequency of posts lately. Deeply appreciated.
The whole notion of some sort of world government, however limited, is as my late father used to say, “a pipe dream.” Short of some alien invasion along the lines of “War of the Worlds,” it’s never going to work.( If you want to compare “climate change” to an alien invasion threatening all life as we know it, go right ahead. Just don’t forget the tin foil hat.)
Pokerguy
Not so sure myself.
There is a fine line between throwing the denizens regular supplies of fresh meat to stop them turning on themselves, and keeping them hungry enough to pace around the meat for a few days picking at it in a thoughtful manner.
Conversations generally dry up after three days and the sniping begins, but don’t get going in only one. So a new post every two or three days perhaps?.
At WUWT there can be up to 8 stories in a 24 hour period which I personally find far too many although its obviously a highly successful format. How Anthony does it I don’t know.
tonyb
A well-worn delaying tactic by those with minority views is to try to blur the meaning of consensus. They know how to use bureacratic red-tape to tie things up.
IPCC Scientist: “There is consensus that the planet is doomed if we don’t cut CO2 emissions, therefore, we must act before it’s too late!
Reporter: “What is meant by ‘consensus’?”
IPCC Scientist: “That doesn’t matter! It’s there, and it says we need to act before it’s too late”!
Reporter: “OK, when is it too late”?
IPCC Scientist: “In 10 years, according to the consensus”.
Reporter: “But didn’t you guys give that same deadline of 10 years 17 years ago in the 1996 IPCC SAR????”
IPCC Scientist: …………………….. “DENIER”!!!!!!!
A well-worn delaying tactic by those with minority views is to try to blur the meaning of consensus.
Funny, but I’ve been a skeptic since 1992, and I’m not sure if I’ve ever actually seen anyone seriously ask this question, what is the definition of “consensus” as we are using it in this context. I’ve seen then ask if their really is consensus, but not what the actual working definition is.
Now I’m sure someone else has, somewhere, but, it certainly has not been common. In order to be “well-worn”, according to THAT definition:
1. Showing signs of much wear or use.
2. Repeated too often; trite or hackneyed.
So I’m not sure that your accusation holds any water at all, really.
My understanding is that the only consensus is that-
“if all other things in the system remain unchanged, then additional atmospheric CO2 will result in some warming”
In the real world all other things do NOT remain the same, and science does not even understand all the forcings and their relationships to one another
As a student of identifying talking points and memes, it is interesting witnessing this “all other things do not remain the same” argument develop.
I always wondered, do all you deniers belong to the same TP mailing list?
Webby
Let me refresh your memory, which appears to be faltering.
The “all other things do not remain the same” argument took a new twist when all those thermometers out there (even the ones next to asphalt parking lots, heated buildings in winter or AC exhausts in summer) all showed that it had stopped warming, despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.
It was actually the UK Met Office that first used the “AOTDNRTS” argument, when it told us how “natural factors” were overwhelming the greenhouse warming signal.
What the MO avoided discussing is why these same “natural factors” were not a significant cause of the past warming (which it had attributed to AGW, of course) despite the fact that everyone had acknowledged that the record hot year of 1998 was caused principally by ENSO.
So the “AOTDNRTS” argument is as much a creation of the CAGW consensus crowd as of those who are rationally skeptical of the CAGW premise, as outlined by IPCC.
Max
Well, I’ll go way out on a limb and claim that ‘all other things do not remain the same’ is a creation of Nature. So put that in your pipeline and warm it.
=========
“all other things do not remain the same” is the unwanted love child of “all other things being equal” and “one of these things is not like the other”
Consensus is another term for NON-SCIENCE.
SCIENCE MUST ALWAYS BE SKEPTIC!!!!!
““if all other things in the system remain unchanged, then additional atmospheric CO2 will result in some warming””
That’s wrong. Even if other things in the system do change then additional atmospheric CO2 will result in some warming.
As far as I can tell, the earth is still here and the sun is still there. Taking a bird’s eye view, the baseline system is the same.
Remove the CO2 and an imbalance develops toward colder conditions. Increase the CO2 and the imbalance shifts toward hotter conditions.
This despite HAP’s amusing Hulk-like pronouncements to the contrary. SKEPTIC MUST BE SKEPTIC. HULK MUST DESTROY.
Never fails to amuse.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | June 17, 2013 at 4:05 pm said: ”I always wondered, do all you deniers belong to the same TP mailing list?”
stop wondering in the darkness’ I’m on a separate list
remember my formula: Absorption of heat is = release of heat {A=R}. Bottom line: the more heat is absorbed -> the more heat is released, by the two chief gases oxygen & nitrogen!!!
lolwot
You wrote:
Er…what about the current “pause”?
Or to put it more exactly, the past decade of slight cooling, despite “additional atmospheric CO2”?
Max
lolwot splits the “warming” hair.
Lolwot uses it to mean warming “effect”, whereas temperature measurements themselves show no warming “affect” – which is the metric formerly used to convince: temperature change
Jim
Those darn skeptics. Some of them even want to know what positive result will occur as a result of the actions they are being asked, or told; to implement. People can be so darn demanding. If everyone would just do what you thought was best huh?
Possible positive results:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=monsoon-rains-cover-india-early-boo&posted=1#comments
Danangel- Even the propaganda printing unScientific American didn’t claim that the rain due to AGW. They do frequently like to claim that people will be harmed by the increasing rain however. This is in spite of the fact that the Indian population is harmed by severe weather every year because their government is so corrupt that they never seem to build and maintain robust infrastructure.
The rain was due to an unusually late tropical cyclone.
which maybe have been a result of climate change
Perhaps more an early cyclone – although not notably.
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/749880main_20130515-MAHASEN-TRMM2-FULL.jpg
We have assessed the impact of El Niño and pIOD events, both individually and in combination, on the Indian summer monsoon season (JJAS) for the period 1877–2006. The majority of pure El Niño events are associated with significant reductions in monsoon rainfall and widespread drought conditions due to anomalous subsidence over the Indian subcontinent, associated with changes in the zonal Walker circulation and weakening of the onshore monsoon circulation over India. This is consistent with previous work detailing the mechanisms for Indian monsoon failure during El Niño events [3, 9, 2, for example]. In contrast, during pure pIOD events increased rainfall generally occurs due to an intensified monsoon circulation, resulting in anomalously enhanced positive PDSI values. During co-occurring pIOD and El Niño events, the El Niño-modulation of Indian monsoon rainfall is absent and normal rainfall levels are maintained. During combined events there is anomalous subsidence associated with the Indo-Pacific SST anomaly pattern centered over the Maritime Continent, as also shown by [9] in AGCM simulations.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/034006/fulltext/
There is a negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and a rapidly and early evolution of La Nina in the Pacific. It has strengthened considerably in the past month.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.6.17.2013.gif
There are mixed signals for the Indian monsoon.
‘May 21, 2013 (notes updated May 31, 2013)
ENSO forecast: Colder-than-normal sea surface temperature in the eastern equatorial Pacific (namely, weak La Nina condition) will continue through boreal fall, and start to decay from boreal winter. The tropical Pacific will return to a neutral state by the end of this year.
Indian Ocean forecast: A negative Indian Ocean Dipole mode will develop from boreal summer, and reach its peak in early boreal fall. Because of this, the Indian summer monsoon rainfall is expected to be below normal; the weak La Nina condition might reduce the negative impact to some extent.
Regional forecast: In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia and most part of Brazil will be in a colder-than-normal condition in austral winter.
Southern Africa will be in a warmer-than-normal condition in austral winter.
In the Northern Hemisphere, central Canada, southern Russia, and the Far East are expected to experience a cooler-than-normal condition in boreal summer. On the other hand, SINTEX-F predicts warmer-than-normal summer in northern Russia, most part of Europe, India, central and eastern US.
Most part of US and southern Brazil will be in a drier-than-normal condition while northern Brazil and Mexico will be in a wetter-than-normal condition in boreal summer. During the season, the Maritime Continent and parts of Australia will get above normal rain due to negative IOD and weak La Nina events. The SINTEX-F predicts less rain during the rainy (Baiu) season in the Far East partly due to the active convection locked to the Maritime Continent region. Stronger-than-normal Okhotsk High may be the direct reason.’ http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/e/seasonal/outlook.html
Iolwot
As climate constantly changes you are probably right. The British kept good records of the monsoon season as part of the duties of the administration . No doubt the dates changed as the climate did throughout the age of the British raj.
Tonyb
Dr Curry,
Shouldn’t ruin a good (ok maybe not good) hypothesis with introduction of a fact.
Then again, if lolwot’s comment is evidence, the ability of some to construe a fact in whatever manner they like appears to be unlimited.
JimD
you were generalising about sceptics yesterday, and should have learnt from that how different we all are, which is both our strength and weakness.
I have got no idea how to blur consensus OR to use red tape in the manner suggested. How about looking on as individuals?
tonyb.
I almost went for ‘Bereacrat’, but thought better of it.
============
I just note that the notion of a consensus is regularly attacked, when it would not have been, had the shoe been on the other foot. How a consensus is used is a separate argument. It should inform decisions, and not be ignored or downplayed.
Fair enough.
Just say ‘mob’ and be done with it.
===========
I agree with Howard on this one.
Consensus is a political term, not one of science. That a lot of people can’t understand this may be an indication of which field they really play in.
My mistake.
I meant Herman A Pope, below.
Jim D and Mike Alexander
The word “consensus” (as it relates to the ongoing scientific and political debate surrounding climate change) has taken on a negative connotation.
Our hostess has devoted at least one post to this.
The term has actually been hijacked by IPCC, with its forced “consensus” process, whereby dissenting scientific views and findings are systematically kept out, and the scientific method is thereby corrupted. Naomi Oreskes gave it an even worse name with her biased report. Rajendra Pachauri didn’t help out with his “2500 scientists can’t be wrong” canard.
So “the meaning of consensus” has been blurred, as you write, Jim, but not by “those with minority views”.
It has been corrupted by those who try to cloak themselves in the mantle of “consensus”, where there is none.
Max
The word consensus has always had a negative connotation related to science.
Russian Science Institutions have never bought into the AGW belief system or narrative (much less cAGW).
Sun Spot
The average day/night winter/summer temperature in Moscow is a few degrees below the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature”.
It’s even colder in other parts of Russia, including Siberia.
Is it any wonder that the Russians are not hysterical about possible slight global warming?
Max
I don’t know, what with the killer russian heat wave a few years ago and houses sinking into melting permafrost. Sounds wonderful.
The most recent winter in Russia was FIERCE.
They know that the warming is over and that the Alarmism is a Crock.
Much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere had a fierce winter.
That always happens when oceans get warm and wet.
lolwot
Check out the statistics on how many Russians die annually because of cold-related factors versus those related to heat, if you want an idea why the Russians are less hysterical about global warming than you might be.
Just last winter (one of the coldest since the Stalin purges) hundreds froze to death in Russia (as well as in neighboring Ukraine, Poland Belarus).
Cold is a killer there. Warmth isn’t.
Max
Max_CH says:
“Cold is a killer there. Warmth isn’t.”
_____
Well, that’s what Satan would like everyone to believe.
Poor Max_CH is possessed by Satan.
Max_OK
So were those hundreds of Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and Belorussians who froze to death last winter.
Global warming, indeed. What a joke!
Max_CH
Max_OK
As you can see from this post, Russians are not getting too worried about global warming (why should they?)
A good example is Professor Yuri Izrael, who acted as vice-chairman of the IPCC until September 2008. He was most recently Director of the Research Institute of Global Climate and Ecology at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.
According to Wiki
Unlike the new IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, who is a railroad engineer, Izrael is a meteorologist (and was a former first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop World Weather Watch).
Thought this info might help.
Max_CH
Exorcism is your only hope, Max_CH, but I don’t want to be around when you start spewing pea soup.
I’m sure your “hot is better than cold” message resonates among weak souls tempted by sin. I’m tempted myself sometimes, but thankfully I have the strength temptation.
Tell Satan his fabrications about wind power, the ones he put you up to telling, are ludicrous.
Gimme that Ol’ Time Strength Temptation.
=============
If you can spin your head – now’s the time.
kim, I left out some words. I intended to say I have the strength to resist temptation. I can wrestle temptation, pin it to ground, and make it holler uncle. If I feel like doing it.
Yes we understood that you just got a little overexcited and prematurely posted your load. Don’t worry – it will get better when you grow up.
Anyone here ever tried wrestling with a 5.56mm NATO round travelling at 2500fps?
Just wondering.
Dave,
Wouldn’t know a thing about wrestling one.
I’ve only ever tried sending them where I wanted them.
tmg56
I was just this afternoon swapping stories with a buddy of mine who’s a retired full-bird Army colonel and the topic came up. Three out of my four years in the Marine Corps I wore an Expert rifleman badge. The last, and the year reported on my DD-214 under medals, I qualified as only a Marskman. They throw your ass in the brig if you can’t qualify as a Marksman. The reason was on qualification day in 1978 it was cloudy and raining at the rifle range. At one point I was firing into rain so heavy I couldn’t really see the target and the paper was falling off the frames. Amazingly we had to take the scores we got under those conditions. No do-overs. That sucked.
Dave,
Not that you don’t know this, but sometimes it rains when the ocassion arises you need to shoot something. Life is hard and then you die.
Now I have to wonder, How many elephants can you get in an IPCC conference room?
captdallas
More like:
“How many dinosaurs can you get into an IPCC conference room?”
Max
Who knew
Pere Ubu
In Siberia
Grew?
=====
What is the UN consensus on individuals’ God-given rights to life, liberty and property?
Heh, that your happiness is theirs to pursue.
========
The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual…Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, and treats him accordingly.
~Henry David Thoreau
Democracy is tyranny by the majority.
Common Law overrides any constitution.., but a working one was devised based on it:
“III DOES BRITAIN’S CONSTITUTION EXIST? A PLAUSIBLE ANSWER
“Is there any evidence anywhere that Britain had and has a written Constitution? You won’t be surprised that we think so, but some of the evidence lies outside Britain, in continents thousands of miles away.
“In the Americas, Asia, and Australasia, people created constitutions based on what they thought Britain’s Constitution was. In the eighteenth century the people of the United States based their government and civil liberties on Britain’s. John Adams, who became the second U.S. President, described Britain’s Constitution as ‘the most stupendous fabric of human invention’ in history. In the nineteenth century, Britain’s Parliament wrote the Constitution of Canada, establishing a constitutional monarchy and an elected parliament grounded in Common Law. It seems plausible that Britain’s Parliament took these ideas from Britain’s constitutional monarchy, Common Law and elected parliament.
“In the early twentieth century, the people of Australia created a constitution, which was based on Britain’s constitutional monarchy, Common Law, and parliamentary system and on America’s federalism. Imitating Britain, the people of New Zealand created a constitutional monarchy with an executive, judiciary, and democratically elected parliament. In India, in the mid-twentieth century, the people created a constitution with civil liberties, which came directly from Britain. It’s hard to imagine that all these peoples were suffering from a delusion in imagining Britain had a constitution, but perhaps they were.”
..
V UNWRITTEN, COMMUNITY-WIDE PRINCIPLES, WHICH SUPPORT BRITAIN’S CONSTITUTION
1) Your rights and liberties are your birthright.
They are not the gift of government, and government has no right to take them away. Government exists not to give us freedom but to protect our freedom.
2) Your rights and liberties extend beyond those defined in a constitutional document or statute law.
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm
Contrast, such as Napoleonic, which put statutes above Common Law.
“The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.”
US Justice Joseph Story
The Russian representative stood up to the lectern, took off his shoe and pounded out: ‘We will parry you!’
=======================
Or should it be “We will Parry you!”? Given that “global warming” aka “anthropogenic climate change” is an epic myth.
Sure it wasn’t we will Perry you?
No, it’s we will “marry you.”
Lot’s of Russian women want to marry American men. Google “Russian brides” to find out more. But be careful. I’m not saying getting a wife by mail-order is a good idea.
A shoe pounder would be quite a catch if she makes a good cobbler.
============
Good one, kim
Max,
Your ability to introduce the inane is often quite remarkable.
It seems that this argument about consensus is irrelevant. Hasn’t the Summary for Policymakers gone out already? Anything else they do now doesn’t matter.
I think the “consensus” they are talking about here is the one that really matters, the policy consensus. What goes into the next treaty, if there is one. Which actually matters because, if adopted, the treaty becomes law for those countries agreeing to it. Unlike the faux IPCC consensus, which matters only as a debating point.
I suspect you are muddling up the IPCC and the UNFCCC.. This refers to the latter.
Indeed. When you’re at the very bottom, there’s no way but up.
Sounds like: “we are surrounded by insurmountable opportunities”
Max
No consensus on consensus.
You’ve heard the expression “when you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas”. Springer’s Corollary states that when you lay down with imbeciles you get up with oxymorons. No consensus on consensus is a fine example of the law in action.
So close and yet you missed it.
When you lie down with morons (near fire) you get up with oxymorons.
Bessemer me imbeciles, bessemer me mucho.
==============
Ever heard of a thesaurus?
Horton heard a thesaurus and thought it dinosaur trumpeting.
===============
Dave Springer,
I see in retrospect, that not only did I not “get” your joke, but my rewrite was a pale shadow of the original.
~jeez (as he slinks away in shame).
Schit happens, Jeez. Sometimes I don’t get my jokes either.
“He did not spell out how the system should be changed, but stressed it must take account of the “sovereign equality of all countries… to express their view.”
“Our system is sick,” agreed one European negotiator.”
Of all issues betweem nations, climate is one of the most difficult. Sovereign equality between nations tends to force sovereign equality on their scientists. But good science tends to be highly elitist, so there is a serious clash of values here. The UN was not set up as a scientific organisation and it often shows in their decisions. We can have little faith in their ability to solve the climate problem.
‘To the second objection, we might say that it is not up to us to tell the universe what to do. The universe just is. It is up to us to make sense of it. For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe.’ http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_M&M.htm
Superimposed on the alternation of La Niña and El Niño are longer term variations in the frequency and intensity of El Niño and La Niña. A period of more frequent and intense La Niña between the mid forties and 1975 followed by more frequent and intense El Niño between 1976 and 1998. The pattern appears in centuries of proxy data – that is in tree and coral rings, sedimentation and rainfall and flood records.
Global surface temperatures have a similar trajectory. Falling from 1946 to 1975, rising between 1976 and 1998 and declining since.
ENSO determines rainfall in Australia, Asia and America, and influences rainfall in Africa and the Indian monsoon. The beginning of the hydrological cycle here appears to be the vast heat sink over the Pacific during an El Niño and warm, moist air rising in the western Pacific in a La Niña.
The longer term variation of ENSO in frequency and intensity has not been explained either as a result of internal feedback or external forcing. Even so, it is difficult to explain how ENSO variations have been neglected by so many for so long. ENSO involves 97% of greenhouse gases. The surface temperature impacts are significant. Note the 0.25 0C difference between 1998 and 2000.
ENSO variation goes in both directions. The indications are that ENSO variation added to global surface temperatures between 1976 and 1998. It has been almost 10 years since temperatures peaked in1998. The planet may continue to be cooler over the next few decades as a multi-decadal cool La Niña phase of ENSO emerges.’ http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
2007 and counting – it was only that late because I anticipated that natural variations would get a bigger role in AR4 than it did. We were talking about this in 2003.
thank you
Chief Hydrologist | June 17, 2013 at 7:42 pm said: ”For scientists, this means finding theories and laws whose predictions are in agreement with what we observe in the universe”
G’day Chief you still remember the most important / honest formula? {A=R}
Over periods of interest – glacials, interglacials and such like
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
Thus you can account for heating and warming of the planet, melting and freezing ice, changing wind velocities, more or less turbulence in the atmosphere etc. You can add a bit for heat from combustion of fossil fuels and radioactive decay.
Chief Hydrologist | June 18, 2013 at 12:20 am said: ”Thus you can account for heating and warming of the planet”
EXACTLY!!! Every atom of O&N has engraved a thermometer inside – to expand when warmed extra / to shrink when cooled extra.- that was always and always will be!!!
when was glacial in the N/H – S/H was warmer than normal – to contribute to the volume of the troposphere – otherwise – if it was cooler the WHOLE planet – O&N would have shrunk INSTANTLY and saved extra heat and would have equalized in a jiffy. you still cannot comprehend that: oxygen & nitrogen expand when warmed / shrink when cooled, for a reason – they kept away from you that, in your brainwashing education… poor thing…
PV=nRT – this is pretty much the basis for a lot of technology. I don’t know why you think that these things are unknown to even a 10 year old.
Your education is sadly lacking.
Chief Hydrologist | June 18, 2013 at 1:31 am said: ”PV=nRT – this is pretty much the basis for a lot of techn”
Now you have to learn as a next step that: when warmed up extra; where the troposphere expands into space is minus -90C.
When Queensland’s air expands, doesn’t go into NSW – there is already air their – instead it expands as a ”DOME” into the stratosphere – intercepts extra coldness and cool in a jiffy.
Unless, somewhere is colder than normal – there the air has shrunk -> made space to accommodate for the extra volume of Qld air / ”DOME”. in that case; one part is in glacial – another part is hotter than normal for prolong period.
Chief, start learning it the correct way; you don’t have to admit that your brains has being in university laundromat for too long…
Stefan – you have nothing but a story you tell yourself to keep yourself amused.
Chief Hydrologist said on June 17, 2013 at 7:42 pm
“Global surface temperatures have a similar trajectory. Falling from 1946 to 1975, rising between 1976 and 1998 and declining since.”
_______
WRONG ! Three of the four major global temperature metrics (UAH, HADCRUT 4, and GISTEMP) show global temperature increased in the 1998-2013 period. Only one, RSS, shows a decline. Moreover, all four metrics show temperature increased in the 1999-2013 period. Stating that temperature has declined “since” 1998 as Chief Hydrologist did, means after 1998, so you start with 1999 (see linked graphs).
Chief may not know the meaning of “since,” so the following definitions may be helpful to him.
Webster’s Dictionary online 1. at a time in the past after or later than
Oxford Dictionary online 1. in the intervening period between (the time mentioned) and the time under consideration, typically the present
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend
Maxok
Webster? Do you mean this Webster?
“The temperature of the winter season, in northern latitudes, has suffered a material change, and become warmer in modern, than it was in ancient times. … Indeed I know not whether any person, in this age, has ever questioned the fact.” —Noah Webster, 1758-1843 (founder- Webster’s dictionary.
tonyb
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.
The latest climate shift happened in 1998/2001 – although I have little expectation what this implies. For one thing the periods of shifts are extremes – the 1998 El Nino and the 1999/2000 La Nina – poetically dubbed ‘dragon-kings’ by Didier Sornette. – http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290 –
Because they are extremes – it is best to exclude periods of climate shift in determining linear trends. As in – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
It sets the parameters for future expectations – as in this from NASA.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/17/un-climate-talks-no-consensus-on-consensus/#comment-333524
Now go away and learn something and stop that thinking that wood for dimwits enables understanding of anything at all.
…although I have little expectation (you will understand) what this implies…
tonyb, maybe he was like Girma, Wagathon, and some others here who believe global temperature change is a function of time.
My theory is age is a function of time. Now, if I could only come up with a theory of what time is a function of.
Webster too? With Napoleon locked up, they had to fuss about something. So it was warmy this and melty that. Hafta get North before the Froggies or the Czar. I still say Joseph Banks and the RS should get retrospective Nobels and Oscars for their work on global warming.
Time is a function of the relative velocity of inertial frames of reference.
Here’s some worked examples. Although I cant help thinking that it would be easier to train a monkey to type Shakespeare.
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-Worked-Examples/index.htm#.UcAEUyFAq00
Maxok
The official record shows Webster was quite right of course.
http://climatereason.com/Graphs/Graph05.png
tonyb
I guess I shouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t know the meaning of one little word, “since,” to understand the entire sentence “Now, if I could only come up with a theory of what time is a function of.”
I’m saying I want to come up with MY OWN THEORY.
If I read what everyone else has done it may get in the way of me coming up with something. Knowledge can be counter productive. As someone said about Gaston Glock, he was able to design and manufacture a superior handgun because he hadn’t done it before. Think about what that means.
tonyb, my previous was in reply to Chief, not you.
Maxok
I didn’t mean that OUR Webster was quite right of course. Obviously.
tonyub
‘Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes) is a Western metaphor with a contemporary interpretation meaning “one who discovers by building on previous discoveries”.
Its most familiar expression is found in the letters of Isaac Newton:
‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.’ Wikipedia
You revel in ignorance – I can’t believe what an idiot you are. Is this a failure of US education or are you just especially thick.
BTW – it is still true that global temperature peaked in February 1999 and has not been exceeded since. Short term trends at wood for dimwits are especially misleading.
“Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Chief, I think in your case, it’s cooties standing on the heads of dwarfs.
It’s my bedtime. I’ll sleep good if I can stop laughing.
I would expect that challenges to what is “consensus,” and how the consensus is formed, would be a continuing process. After all we are talking about 195 parties. As for how the consensus is developed – as if this is some kind of big “secret question” never to be asked -The IPCC has enough material to choke a horse on their website to answer that question.
I would assume that even those who are not “skeptics” have asked the question, as it is the obvious question. Even if some of the skeptics here confess they have never asked it. But let me warn you that its really boring stuff, and I could not find anything patently evil as hard as I looked. As far as consensus being anti-science, this may be true in a philosophical sense, but it would be a challenge for policy makers to be left alone to read a mountain of conflicting data and have to be forced to – I dunno flip a coin? Or perhaps the most powerful lobby would just win by buying politicians.
I think it is quite healthy to challenge how the consensus is developed and I hope that all of the deniers one day become the overwhelming consensus. Keep on submitting. You can do it!
One day it all comes down to a bunch of guys sitting before some government body. Some poor slob will have to make a decision and be accused of denying democratic principles as soon as he or she does so.
Pipeline denied. Everybody now cry!
Pipeline approved. Everybody now cry!
But please – don’t accuse your fellow scientists on either side of being motivated by evil or of being stupid. It’s getting old.
I read up above somewhere something in a reply about the “leaders of Russia and their fellow progressives” and I have to admit I am stumped at this. I just never really viewed Putin as a Progressive. Let me go back to my books I am just an undergrad.
As for another Post about china by Kim re:
“I’ve long thought that the Chinese have figured out that any global warming that man can cause will be good for the Middle Kingdom. They’ve enjoyed playing the game that CAGW presents, deluding the West into disastrous policy”
Is this a secret Chinese policy to keep the cost of fossil fuels as high as possible to slow Western growth, and thereby reduce Chinese export potential? Forgive me but I do not understand.
Jim Cripwell,
Thanks for your comments about Russia and carbon credits. That was very interesting and I am going to look into that to find out more.
I did a quick search. Maybe these might help. I think my original was in The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/russian-block-at-climate-talks/story-e6frgcjx-1226662678800
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/thank-goodness-for-the-russians/
http://ktwop.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/thank-goodness-for-the-russians/
Thank you Jim
Ron, you are forgiven for understanding even more than I do. I think the Chinese are trying to understand it themselves, as seems too the Russians and the Indians.
==================
Consensus is politics not science. When scientists argue by consensus they’re defending a just-so story each and every time. Science can be defended by the scientific method which has at its end verifiable replicated results. Michael Crichton expressed it well:
David, the whole purpose of the IPCC is to provide information to policy makers,
“to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts”
At some point the science has to come face to face with those who are going to write the policy that results from the findings. They can’t just sit down to a mountain of data. Thus the IPCC was formed.
Again, if the data is pointing to AGW being an incorrect theory then eventually a consensus supporting that view should form. Or not.
What do you suggest instead?
What I suggest is what Crichton suggests. Stop the IPCC cold in its tracks. Consider it a manifesto by a foreign government. The US doesn’t need an international consortium to advise it. So far I’ve had my way, more or less, hence the conspicuous absence of the United States from the Kyoto treaty on climate change. That was a laugh. The US did a better job of reducing CO2 emission than most of the signatories and its economy is bleeding because of it. All the feel-good measures of reducing CO2 emission admittedly aren’t enough to make a godamned bit of difference. It’s politically impossible. Predictably CO2 emission shifted away from western nations while China, India, and others happilly took up the slack and more. The only workable plan with better than a snowball’s chance in hell of working to stop the voracious consumption of fossil fuels is to find a cheaper alternative. That’s possible but it isn’t likely to come from tides, geothermal, wind, nuclear, or conservation. It’s going to come from sunshine used to power endothermic chemical reactions which is to say manufacturing in real time the same fuels we now harvest in fossil form. Fossil fuels, after all, were created in the same manner i.e. sunlight driving the splitting of H2O and CO2 into carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, recombining the C and H atoms into liquid hydrocarbons with high bond energy, giving off oxygen as a waste product, with the hydrocarbons in a handy form ready to be oxidized in internal combustion engines.
This may be accomplished in the same way nature does it with self-replicating hydrocarbon factories using photosynthesis as the base process or it may be in some catalytic process affectionately called “artificial leaves”. I don’t pin much hope in the latter as the catalysts and manufacturing promise to be as relentlessly excessive as photovoltaics. If we could design an artifical leaf that makes copies of itself like real leaves then maybe. The big advantage of what nature already has on the technological shelf for us to exploit is factories that build copies of themselves. We haven’t yet built robots that can replicate themselves without help but nature has and we just need to reverse engineer what nature did and re-arrange the components for our own purposes. The reverse engineering is well underway. Pilot plants are running using crudely modified organisms that require enviromental protection from natural competitors and high concentration of CO2 in the environment. Giant plastics manufacturers are tweaking the environmental containment cost/performance and genetic engineering enterprises are improving the synthetic organisms. Already production cost is competitive with oil at $70/bbl and it’s just going to keep improving with no ultimate base cost in sight. No coercion is needed to fill gas tanks with less costly fuel. Few care where it comes from all they care about is the cost.
Well, thanks to Mr. Cook, we know what consensus actually is: 97% or fight!
If you don’t have 97% you don’t have consensus. Think North Korean elections.
The Western Leftists of global warming alarmism have already lost the rest of the world. Since it is nature that will have the last say in whatever the Earth’s future climate will be (and the weather, which is a subset of climate), time is not on the side of the AGW believers.
There is nothing they really can do going forward but hamstring the global Western economy. If European countries were states in the US all of them would fall in among the bottom five states (based on GDP). So, it is in Europe where a declining economy will play out big-time
The EU literally has a lot less to lose before it really doesn’t matter anymore and they’re too poor to even help themselves… and interest rates will very high reflecting the real risks of investment there given better opportunities elsewhere in the world.
Wagathon, please forgive me for doubting you re:
“” If European countries were states in the US all of them would fall in among the bottom five states (based on GDP).””
but could you provide a source for that assertion?
Thank you
Ron O
Ron O’Daniels | June 18, 2013 at 7:40 am | Reply
Oh save the theatrics. You know Wagathon’s statement is wrong unless GDP is taken to mean Gross Defensive Power. I’m pretty sure Vermont could win a war against France. All they gotta do is say “Boo” and the frogs will drop their weapons and run.
Sorry, I thought I was questioning theatrics and over the top hyperbole not being theatrical. For example, if I could spin out some words of my own as an example:
the liberal leftists are running as the consensus unravels leaving western Europe hanging by a thread as the efforts to run the world’s economies into the ground are exposed naked …blah blah blah
When all that has happened is that there are the usual disagreements about money which prevents any coordinated action on climate from taking place.
…but the lull is fascinating to me and is definitely not getting an adequate response from environmental groups or supporters of AGW my view as someone who is looking for the consensus view to appear or disappear or reappear.
Wagathon
I would be interested to see a reference also,.
Tonyb..
So you really didn’t know that Wagathon’s statement was very wrong and that 60 seconds with google can produce the corrective references to GDP by county in the EU and GDP by state in the US?
That makes you stupid instead of coy. I was being charitable assuming the latter.
I was preferring to allow him to find out for himself rather than me pointing it out to him. I felt that the context of his comment (the whole disintegration of Europe scenario presumably over Russia wanting emission credits) deserved such. I thought it better if he went to Google not me. As for your calling me stupid, presumably in his defense, whatever trips your trigger, I have been insulted before, by lessor men.
Et tu, Tony?
ferphucksake:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union#Economic_variation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP#2010_list
Wagothon was talking out of his ass. Being coy is for young girls. Grow a pair. Both of you. Now.
David Springer, in all seriousness. lay off the Red bull.
Heh, perhaps it was a projection, not a prediction.
==========
Ron, you have an authentic feel to you. Be careful distinguishing consensus about AGW with c. about CAGW. Few skeptics doubt AGW, most doubt(from ignorance) the effect it will have, and most think that mitigative policy would be more costly than adaptive policy.
Since we don’t know the anthro effect(sensitivity, simply) we cannot project or predict future climate course. In addition, it seems apparent that natural changes have been deliberately ignored, by some, for decades now.
If we’ve peaked at a climate optima, cooling ahead is far more likely than warming. For any strong warming scenario, sensitivity would have to be so high that we would already be in another Little Ice Age, were it not for the anthro effect.
Got it? I’d like the chance to say it a different way, if you don’t.
===================
Kim, thank you – as your comments contains much – especially the last two paragraphs,
“Since we don’t know the anthro effect(sensitivity, simply) we cannot project or predict future climate course. In addition, it seems apparent that natural changes have been deliberately ignored, by some, for decades now.
If we’ve peaked at a climate optima, cooling ahead is far more likely than warming. For any strong warming scenario, sensitivity would have to be so high that we would already be in another Little Ice Age, were it not for the anthro effect.”
Now I can’t say if I agree or disagree, because as someone who has only had a year of University Biology for my science, I have to research what you are saying here against what I read elsewhere – but you have certainly gave me food for thought – and I am appreciative. I may get back to you when I have developed specific questions. thanks
You are very welcome, Man of Science.
============
Kim, I would not be condescending to Ron. He may still be in school but he likely has as many social media skills as any one here. It’s only a matter of time before he picks up the fact that most of the skepticism is a form of pranking. When most people figure that out, they quickly tire of it and go elsewhere for something more substantial.
Then there are the gullible sorts …..
I am on this blog primarily to read about science that goes against the consensus view. I may be gullible I may be less learned then most here, I may be ignorant. I could be all of those things. As a non-scientist all I can do is look for the consensus view that everyone wants to rail against. I don’t have time to check if one particular scientist has the math wrong. I leave it up to others to do that. I try to pay attention.
However, regarding politics, policy, the development of memes, the social dynamics of belief, and how people construct their worldview, or come to accept what is true or false in light of these internal formations, I am able to reasonably come up with my own hypotheses that are worthy – at least to me.
Much more of that kind of stuff shows up on this blog then I would have thought.
Is everyone laughing at me? Tell me I need to know!
phun phacts
EU GDP is modestly (15%) larger than the US.
EU consists of 27 member states. US has 50 member states.
Comparing US countries to European states thus yields an approximate 2:1 average ratio of EU member GDP to US state GDP.
There is a great deal more disparity in EU member GDP than US state GDP. The ratio of German GDP to Maltan GDP is 440:1. The ratio of California’s GDP to Vermont’s is 76:1. Throwing out the 4 highest and lowest GDPs for EU we get Spain:Lithuania == 30:1 and throwing out 7 highest and lowest for US we get Ohio:Maine == 10:1. The pie is sliced more evenly in the US.
Isn’t this fun? Let’s look at GDP per capita which tells a vastly different story.
EU GDP/capita == USD $32,500
US GDP/capita == USD $47,500
It seems Americans are quite a bit more productive than Europeans. Of course we all knew that already, didn’t we? The ant and grasshopper comes to mind. Fair warning: the ants are growing weary of defending the weak lazy grasshoppers against fascist takeovers.
GDP per capita in member nations/states is interesting too. In the US the high/low productivity by member varies by about 2:1 i.e. no member it less than half as productive, per person, as any other member. For the EU the ratio is about the same.
Ron O’Daniels | June 18, 2013 at 10:31 am |
“David Springer, in all seriousness. lay off the Red bull.”
Never touch the stuff.
Ron O’Daniels, in all seriousness, try putting four in the corps like I did. Be a hero. You can do it.
http://www.marines.com/home
David Springer,
Have you resorted to proving your manhood in your posts? Shall I go there too? I think not.
I had to fight the urge to make a list of the many manly things about myself just then… But my better self won the battle.
Regarding your four years in the Marine Corps, well done. Congratulations!
Stay the course, Ron, you have a steady hand on your perspective.
===============
Ron O’Daniels | June 18, 2013 at 10:31 am |
“I was preferring to allow him to find out for himself rather than me pointing it out to him. I felt that the context of his comment (the whole disintegration of Europe scenario presumably over Russia wanting emission credits) deserved such. I thought it better if he went to Google not me. As for your calling me stupid, presumably in his defense, whatever trips your trigger, I have been insulted before, by lessor men.”
I didn’t call you stupid I called you coy. Spare me the teach a man to fish parable. I’ll give you a break in that you don’t know Wagathon. He probably didn’t read your response and if he did he’ll simply ignore it. If hasn’t learned to fish by now he’s unteachable. TonyB knows Wagboy better so he has no excuse for being coy. It’s just a mild form of passive aggressive behavior to ask someone for something you know does not exist. Write that down.
No
Hey, coy is cool. It’s also kawaii, so nyah nyah a boo boo.
=================
Ron O’Daniels | June 18, 2013 at 11:27 am |
“Have you resorted to proving your manhood in your posts?”
No, I’m resorting to pointing out the girly-manhood in your posts. I know it’s a long shot but if I can help you save yourself from a life of metrosexual mediocrity I’m compelled to try by my own charitable nature.
–>Switzerland was better than the rest, just after the US:
EU VERSUS USA
Fredrik Bergström & Robert Gidehag
Timbro, June 2004
ISBN 91-7566-564-6
TIMBRO BOX 5234 SE-102 45 Stockholm
FAX +46-(0)8-587 898 55
TEL +46-(0)8-587 898 00
info@timbro
Thanks I am reading this.
Wagathon | June 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
kim | June 18, 2013 at 11:49 am |
“Hey, coy is cool.”
Hey, no it isn’t. It’s weak. It’s lame. It’s a waste of time.
Coy is many things but cool it isn’t.
David Springer
Wagathon knows what he is posting. If he was a warmist I would ask him for a proper reference to back up his assertions, as I did a couple of days ago with BartR and Iolwot. BartR was distinctly unhappy about it, but fairs fair.
If I don’t ask, I can rightly be accused of holding different people to different standards. Appreciate you taking the time to produce the goods, but opinions are opinions and need proof before they become facts.
Its nothing to do with being coy but everything to do with asking for evidence when outrageous things are stated as ‘facts’. Isn’t that what a lot of this Co2 debate is about?
Tonyb
David, the manner of his challenging is immaterial, the fact of his challenging added to his credibility. It is coy to ignore this.
==========
David
Come on David, your ‘phun facts’ are worked out with the same sort of convoluted manner as co2 impact on temperature. Not practising to be a warmist are you?
tonyb.
Ron, This place is more like a conspiracy site than anything else. The advantage is that you get the freedom to challenge the skeptics and deniers and pranksters and contrarians.
Fun watching them get angry on getting challenged.
Ron,
If your list starts with “Can lick my eyebrows.” Then it wouldn’t matter if Dave spent a career in the Corps.
Sorry just not witty enough to keep up…
TonyB
My apologies. I’m sorry you felt the need to ask for a reference to something you should know doesn’t exist. If someone said the sun rises in the west you wouldn’t ask for a reference, right? Don’t feel bad about it. I overestimate people all the time.
Which phun phact to you think you can dispute, TonyB?
Eurostat is the source for the EU data. The US BEA is the source for the US data. Unless you want to impugn one or the other sources everything I wrote was factual and based on their data with no more complicated arithmetic than converting dollars to euros. If you didn’t know that the US was a superpower because Americans work their asses off at it then it’s high time you learned that’s the secret to our success.
timg56 | June 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm |
“If your list starts with “Can lick my eyebrows.” Then it wouldn’t matter if Dave spent a career in the Corps.”
It wouldn’t matter if he was male or female either if that’s the first thing on the list. If I get your drift, and I think I do.
David springer
You compared apples and oranges. The eu has a number of sovereign countries who are relatively undeveloped . It also has some of the wealthiest and most productive countries in the world. Arguably group one is dragging down group two and making us all poorer.
It doesn’t get away from the fact that wagathons assertion was wrong on many accounts.
I am pleased you are proud of your country and rightly so but is Luxembourg a super power?. It should be as it has a GDP per capita over double that of the US.
Eleven eu countries have a GDP per capita greater than or within around 10percent that of America. It partly depends on the exchange rate at any time but in no way does the picture remotely match waggys assertion
Here are the world bank stats
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
This is a silly thing to argue over. Many european countries are as productive as America and do not remotely match the poorest of the American states.
If you don’t think that sceptics should be held to the same burden of proof as we demand from warmists and that we need to compare like for like I am afraid we must agree to differ.
I really don’t want to argue with you over this trifling side issue
Tonyb
tonyb | June 18, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
“.. as I did a couple of days ago with BartR and Iolwot. BartR was distinctly unhappy about it, but fairs fair..”
Unhappy as distinct from my usual demeanor? When have I ever seemed particularly happy, sleepy, bashful, sneezy, dopey, or doc?
If you’re going to mischaracterize an exchange so, then as someone here snarked the other day, “when making a statement like this its usual to provide a link.”
Here, I’ve done the courtesy of providing it, that readers may judge for themselves:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/15/tilting-at-windmills-in-germany/#comment-332721
Hey Waggy thanks for the reference to “EU vs. USA” by Timbro.
You got your quote all wrong. You wrote:
Waggy: “If European countries were states in the US all of them would fall in among the bottom five states (based on GDP).”
What Timbro reported was:
Timbro: “If the European Union were a state in the USA it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. In fact, GDP per capita is lower in the vast majority of the EU-countries (EU 15) than in most of the individual American states. This puts Europeans at a level of prosperity on par with states such as Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia.”
When I examined the metrics, independent of Timbro who I don’t know from Adam, in my response I pointed out (in unflattering terms, natch) the disparity in GDP per capita thusly:
springer:
Thanks for starting the discussion. You have a knack for riling up responses. In the future point out it’s “GDP per capita” where the EU sucks hind tit.
This is progress of a sort; during the past year, in most of the UN word-salads I’ve read, “creative and innovative” have typically been used only in relation to “funding mechanisms”. The words describing the fuzzier stuff are more likely to have been various combinations of “inclusive”, “transparent” and “transformative (or transformational)”. But I digress …
Here’s how the IISD (the dutiful quasi-official rapporteurs at all these meetings) described Figueres’ response in their Summary:
YMMV, but this does not strike me as being a particularly democratic “context”!
But speaking of “consensus” … it appears that amongst the (heretofore not consulted) ordinary people of the world, a consensus may well be emerging regarding the “priorities” for a post-2015 world that will not make Figueres – or Pachauri, or any of the UN honchos and affiliated NGOs for that matter – very happy. Pls. see:
NEWSFLASH! Action on climate change voted bottom of world’s priority heap
‘parties guided by the timely pursuit of the Convention’s ultimate objective’. She’s cracking the whip, but the tigers are snarling.
==============
And it’s about time, too, don’t you think?!
“parties guided by the timely pursuit of the Convention’s ultimate objective”
– when they got it wrong the first time and made them very very angry the people in Ireland were so guided and the next time dutifully and overwhelmingly voted for the Lisbon Treaty consensus.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/no-to-the-eu-why-europe-should-listen-to-ireland-a-559639.html
“With 29 of 43 constituencies reporting the results of the Thursday vote, 53.5 percent of those casting ballots have rejected the treaty with 46.5 percent voting in favor. Because all 27 EU member states have to approve the Lisbon Treaty for it to be adopted, the Ireland vote single-handedly derails the agreement.
“Brussels is disappointed — and furious.”
http://www.gopetition.com/petition/31224.html
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/irishreferendumrigged05oct09.shtml
From gopetition: “I.
“Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be delivered by members of the Gardai to the polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the election takes place.
“This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in Ireland, whether elections or referendums.
“On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes were delivered to the private residences of the polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the Referendum.
“A number of honest Returning Officers formally objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and to the concomitant prospective breach of security, let alone of the electoral legislation.
“We understand that such objections were officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes possessed no commercial value, so it would be in nobody’s commercial interest to steal them.
“The central issue – that since the Irish ballot boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could be ‘stuffed’ with YES votes by returning officers, as routinely happens in places like the former Soviet Republic of Georgia – was of course not addressed.
“The Irish voters were given pencils to make their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with black pen.
“Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or information at the polling stations.
“The ballot boxes were left unattended and moved about by many people without question.
“At least one box in Cork was removed from the count centre by an unknown individual as shown in the attached video.
“Many foreign nationals and others who were not legally entitled to vote voted in this Referendum. Irish Times article “Gardai to investigate suspected vote fraud”, shows seven voters registered to an empty house.
“It follows that, given that the local electoral law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
II. etc.”
http://www.france24.com/en/20091003-ireland-poll-verdict-lisbon-treaty-referendum-yes-no-eu-reform
“The count was well underway across Ireland, with the very earliest indications from the ballot boxes beginning to emerge as more were unsealed.
“A very early tally in the southern Carlow-Kilkenny constituency — which voted 50-50 last time — was indicating a strong Yes vote, according to RTE, after 15 percent of the ballot boxes had been opened.
“Ireland’s Europe Minister Dick Roche told AFP on Saturday he expects an “overwhelming” Yes vote based on early reports from count centres in Ireland’s referendum rerun on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty.
“I am confident it will be carried by close to two-to-one nationally. It is overwhelming. It goes back a long way to when we had anything like that,” he said.
“Roche said one ballot box from the coastal town of Greystones in his eastern Wicklow constituency recorded an “incredible” nine to one vote in favour of the reforming treaty.”
How will they arrange to get such an extraordinary change of mind as shown by the Irish who must have realised how foolish they had been to vote NO the first time?
“She expressed hope that the next time parties come together to consider the SBI’s work, deliberations could begin in a different spirit,”
Maybe they’ll just get them all drunk.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
We have been explaining this to cult of AGW groupthink space cadets for a decade. Yet they still insist that there is a scientific consensus about something or other, that the pause is statistically not significant or isn’t happening at all, that warming is going to resume any day now or that indeed warming didn’t stop but just went into the oceans. Even if true – the latter is not all that relevant to surface temperature and moreover – in the best data we have – is the result of cloud cover changes overwhelmingly.
I don’t think they can keep this suppressed for much longer. People will start wondering.
Chief, in reference to your post – which I appreciate – can you explain why the chart which shows the rise in temps (you know the one) shows what appears to be a series of stages (lulls in temperature rise) and that it appears we are in one now which looks like the previous stages. So my non scientist mind raises the question, why do you think that this is not another stage like the ones previous, and that another rise will resume? Why is this lull different?
Ron O’Daniels | June 18, 2013 at 7:21 am | Reply
“Chief, in reference to your post – which I appreciate – can you explain why the chart which shows the rise in temps (you know the one) shows what appears to be a series of stages (lulls in temperature rise) and that it appears we are in one now which looks like the previous stages. So my non scientist mind raises the question, why do you think that this is not another stage like the ones previous, and that another rise will resume? Why is this lull different?”
This lull is different because anthropogenic CO2 has been pouring into the atmosphere non-stop at an accelerating and unprecedented rate the whole time.
Thanks for asking.
David, now here is an article in NY TIMES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Yes, I know the article makes no mention of the fact that we are in a lull on temperature rise. Thus is misleading, but do you believe that there is no other feedback loop that is in place (I don’t know what) that will kick out soon and warming will resume?
If it as simple as you say (if I understand you correctly) that CO2 is pretty much a minimal factor or non factor in temperature rise – then why is the “AGW not happening view” – still a minority view – I mean if it is so obvious?
I don’t like to think that all scientists who do not agree with your view are just stupid or something.
Ron, it’s because of the paradigm paralysis, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm#Paradigm_paralysis
So that sums it up? All those panels at the IPCC, all those people hunched over instruments and taking readings, the scientists who make the models, the climatologists who etc etc etc..;all the scientists who support the AGW theory, all summed up in that they are blind to facts? Due to “the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking”
The majority view, are suffering from not being able to see the data of the minority view correctly? OK thank you
Boy it would suck to be a policy maker and be brought such testimony.
I guess that a policy maker would have to respond the same way…
“OK thank you – NEXT”
Yes, they (consensus scientists) are blind to facts and it has always been so.
Forgive me for sounding ignorant but can you explain how that is?
I think of a consensus something that develops to aid in decision making. In other words, what can be agreed upon with certainty prior to pursuing a given policy.
You know – so that the wrong policy is not chosen – whatever that may be.
At some point non-scientists are going to have to make a decision based upon what they believe science is telling them as spoken to them by scientists
Do you know another method that policy makers could choose in their decision making? Other than trying to identify the consensus view? Are they not simply trying to answer the question : What is most likely?
Scientific consensus is tyrannical to science.
Egads! Not more tyranny!
As an example, a few years ago amid all the denial from Industry that made CFC’s a consensus developed that resulted in the banning of CFC’s to prevent the further degradation of the Earths Ozone layer. At least that is what I have been told by a consensus of the scientific community. There are still some who deny that CFC are a problem to the ozone.
Do I have this all wrong? Correct me and send me on my way.
Ron, if it can be made 100% transparent, then it can be scientific. Behind the closed doors, no thanks.
Ron, it might be useful for you to go explore the distinction between projections and predictions, and the cover it provides for policymakers to be fooled.
===========
Ron, good question @ 7:21.
We don’t know that warming won’t resume, in fact, I even hope so, most of the time. For a clue, look at the millenial scale changes, the climate optima and minima. Where are we on those cycles? I dunno.
====================
Ron,
I would not rely on Time or any other MSM outlet for information on the debate. Try comparing the course work needed to get a journalism degree to that needed to get a hard science or engineering degree. Journalism majors are either out to change the world, or interested in partying through school.
RE your question: Readers Digest version – there is no certainty as to whether temps will rise or not after this current lull. Despite claims of consensus, we don’t really know what the sensitivity value is. We still don’t understand much about clouds. There are natural factors we don’t fully understand, some of which operate on time spans longer than we have records.
My advice, don’t get caught up in the dualing graphs or arguments whether it is warming or cooling. Look to the claims (predictions? projections?) people make regarding what they think is going to happen. That is easier to back check with facts. Example: Global warming will lead to 50 million climate refugees (by 2010). As it is now 2013, you can fact check this.
Example: AGW will lead to increased number of tropical storms & hurricanes, of greater intensity. This information is collected and available.
Example: Sea levels will rise (10 ft , 10 meters, take your pick). Current rate of increase is 3 mm / year. Multiplication and unit conversion will give you the amount to expect by the year 2100. (At least they got the 10 part right. Does it really matter if it is inches, feet or meters?
Ron,
RE CFC’s and ozone hole.
Yes, you very well may have it wrong.
Keep in mind that the ozone hole turned up in a location different from what scientists (and their models) predicted.
The role of CFC’s in creating the hole was a theory based on known chemical reactions – i.e. the chemistry part was correct. What was not known was how these reactions worked in something as complex as our planetary atmosphere.
20+ years after the Montreal Protocols the ozone hole is still with us. CFC’s have long persistence times, so the change was unlikely to be rapid. However at least some improvement was expected. As I understand it, those who still study it are rethinking some of their theorys.
To date, not one single harmful effect has been attributed to the ozone hole. Take a look of all of the negative impacts that were attributed to it back when the topic was still in the news. The alarming consequences meme bears great similarity to what we hear regarding global warming.
CFC’s is indeed a fascinating example for understanding the dynamics of the climate debate – specifically, the many claims of a “hoax,” and the many examples of alarmism and doomsaying predicting economic disaster that would result from phasing out CFCs.
plus ça change, eh tim?
Joshua
I personally never use the word hoax and it’s counter productive when sceptics do. However that does not mean that some science is uncertain.
Have you looked at the size of the ozone hole recently?
I once asked the max Planck institute and Cambridge university how we could be certain that the ozone hole hadn’t always existed it was just that prior to the 1950’s we didn’t have the equipment to measure it. They agreed we couldn’t be certain
Tonyb
tony –
I assume that you meant to say “However that does not mean that some science is [not]uncertain.”
Of course there is uncertainty, and no doubt, uncertainty can be and often is underestimated.
Also obviously true is that reactions to the concerns about CFCs, among many “skeptics,” fell into a very similar pattern to that we see from many climate change “skeptics.” The basic difficulty inherent in the climate change debate is only exacerbated when people on either side fail to acknowledge the problems created from underestimating or exploiting uncertainty, respectively.
For example, “skeptics” were absolutely certain that phasing out CFCs would bring economically disastrous results. Don’t you think that is fascinating, given the parallels in the climate change debate?
Unknown rates of chemical reactions, unknown effect of UV and its variability.
Hyperbole about ‘skeptics’ and ozone hole economics is unbecoming. There is nowhere near the scale of policy impact as with CAGW. Try again.
=================
Apparently you didn’t read those WSJ editorials predicting economic disaster from phasing out CFCs. Do your homework and get back to me.
And at any rate, your logic is faulty in its circularity. Your certainty about the scale of [negative] policy impact from climate change policies is partisan-based, not some sort of objective truth. As such, it is precisely of the sort of the certainty that “skeptics” had about the impact of phasing out CFCs.
It reveals precisely the same sort of exploitation of uncertainty to achieve a “motivated end.” In fact, it is also precisely like how you connect imagined “dots” to draw pictures of Obama’s “Muslim sympathies.”
You need to learn how to distinguish between opinion and fact, kim, if you aspire to be a true skeptic.
Joshua,
For the guy always going on about tribalism, you are putting on a rather good display of it.
If you are going to discuss the ozone hole, learn a little about it. There were claims about the disasterous impact from banning CFC’s. There were also claims about all of the negative impacts from the ozone hole. In accessing which were more overblown, the title goes to ozone.
The fact it rarely gets talked about today should be a clue. Still there, still just as big. No bad things anyone can point too. (Unless you consider scientists recently finding out that the penguin population is almost half again what they thought it to be. “Hole in ozone leading cause of horny penguins in constant rut.” Who knew?)
“The fact it rarely gets talked about today should be a clue.”
It’s not talked about today because the ozone hole is rehealing since action was taken to reduce CFC emissions.
Ron O’Daniels said on June 17, 2013 at 7:57 pm
As for another Post about china by Kim re:
“I’ve long thought that the Chinese have figured out that any global warming that man can cause will be good for the Middle Kingdom. They’ve enjoyed playing the game that CAGW presents, deluding the West into disastrous policy”
_______
Is this a secret Chinese policy to keep the cost of fossil fuels as high as possible to slow Western growth, and thereby reduce Chinese export potential? Forgive me but I do not understand.
_______
Please forgive kim for writing whatever comes into his head. Kim’s a mental litter bug.
You meant alliterative bug. Ron’s forgiven above, and you’d be unforgivable if you weren’t so inoffensive.
====================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliteration
I get it. Not really.
Takes time, soon you’ll toot.
=========
Right, I didn’t mean you are a litter bug who’s mental.
Fer that comment, sonny, regardin’
kim -non-pareil-fer-subtle-innuendo,
if’n yer lived down under, I’d call yer
out, comin’ as I do from a l-o-ng line
of viiking-shield maidens.
B t v
Beth, my DNA shows my ancestors were Vikings, which I thought was cool until I read your post. I hope you aren’t some distant relative who will try to mooch off me.
It’s my bedtime. I’ll pray I won’t have nightmares about viking-shielded maidens.
You’re an unwelcome pest and a fool. You posts are contentless drivel, lies and adolescent fantasies. The utter triviality of your posts distracts from any serious topic. I just wonder what you think you are up to and why. Do you understand how foolish you seem?
But I have certainly had enough of your empty headed twaddle and am content to go back to ignoring you.
Max_OK’s a pearl, an absolute gem. There is a special cage in my museum of ironies, guards already being trained, where his memory can be protected from the predations of pirates and politics.
=============================
Beth,
Want to take bets on Max’s ancestors being the ones who stayed home to milk cows and repair fishing nets?
All honorable pastimes. Just not very Vikingish.
Heh.
Reminds me of when kim posted about how s/he could “connect dots” to see Obama’s “Muslim sympathies.”
Dude/dudette has amazing vision. Chinese plots. Obama’s Muslim sympathies. Connecting dots.
A true “visionary,” so to speak.
Willingness to pay the piper is the real goal of consensus; withholding consent turns into withholding money and cooperation. The unworkability of the system is fortunate in this case (as in most).
While I wish no ill ter man or woman either, I have no problem
with a bust-up at the UN, (busy manu-fact-chur-in conn-sensus.)
Reposting this from 2012…
United nations! makes me think of
Umberto Eco’s ‘Name of the Rose’.
The rustling of cardinals’ silk
And whisperings in the corridors
Of power, reach of far-flung authority,
Indulgences penned by industrious scribes
Inside the stone-walled hive, while
On the slopes outside,
Peasants scrabble
For scraps from the priests’ table.
In the corridors of the United Nations’
General Assembly, a favoured few,
Silk shirts and Amanni suits,
Ponder discretely subtle extensions
Of their global governance
By treaties and indulgences,
Twenty thousand millenium goals transcribed
By twenty thousand employees
Within the glass-walled hive.
Cui bono?
BC
Another amusing post.
Judith conflates poltical consensus with scientific consensus and the ditto-heads baa in unison.
Scientists seem to think they need a scientific consensus to generate a political consensus (the speaking consensus to power strategy), otherwise there would have been no reason to manufacture this particular consensus. Your homework assignment is to read my paper no consensus on consensus
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
What drivel – you’ve tried to make a point about scientific consensus by pointing to a bunch of bickering politicians. There’s no relevance. None.
As for your paper, read it; C-. Full of poorly supported arguments and a number of dodgy references.
Appropriately published in the highly prestigous on-line Jounal of Early Piglet Weaning.
Swineherds the world over are fascinated…..if somewhat bemused.
”
While they are at it, maybe they will also tell to the IPCC to drop the manufacturing consensus approach to climate science, which arguably does even more harm to the science than it does to the policy making process.
”
Dr Judith Curry – Chair of the School of Narratives and Identitiy-Politics at the Georgia Institute of Concern-Blogging.
So, the science is settled, eh?
====================
curryja | June 18, 2013 at 9:34 am |
Consensus can be manufactured, or occur naturally, on a false positive; this is the very historical root of the reason for Science to have come about as a discrete discipline in human endeavor: to seek to better the state of knowledge by means other than popular agreement.
We know this from the writings of ancients, most especially from the flagrant errors they made and which then were accepted by consensus until Science overturned them. Plato supposed — and the world for a millennium believed — in his Natural Philosophy that ants had four legs, not six; we now know that barely two words in three of Plato’s Natural Philosophy are true.
Scientists have ferociously struggled to define what better principles to follow than the various fallacies such as ad populam, ad hominem authority, or erroneous reasoning provide.
Sir Isaac Newton crystalized the principles that guided him, and four three centuries since all of Science, in a bitter public decades-spanning debate with other giants of the discipline of his day: what is the most parsimonious, simple, universal explanation for all observations we consider accurate or very nearly true, until such time as new observation requires we amend the explanation.
Newton’s Principia was not merely a statement of Science, but also of Policy; Newton was an important government official in his day, and his scientific work was fundamental to the rise of his nation’s maritime sovereignty. Reliance on the principles of Newton, too, time and again in history have shown policy guided that way triumphs.
While it is true Science struggles to this day with refinements and nuance of these principles, they have become so engrained in the fabric of the discipline many forget their historical roots, or never learned them while scrubbing test tubes and sorting beakers and flasks in their earliest training. It’s hardly surprising to find some scientists practicing, as it were, without the license of principle.
Let us look at the case of Dr. Fred Singer.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/2/
“..there would be very little public interest in funding climate science, were it not for an assertion by alarmists in the political and environmental communities that a human-caused (“anthropogenic”) global warming crisis exists..”
This is Dr. Singer’s first argument in his debate about unnatural normalized trendology. The allegation comes with no observations, no tests, no experiments, no method, but is merely an opinion with an easily traced public history, which goes back consensus manufacturingly originally all the way to.. Dr. Fred Singer.
And it is false, on principle.
Newton’s nonconsensus principles of Science, that is.
Climate affects virtually every living entity, most of transportation, much of shelter, in short a vast majority of economic activity.
The public interest in climate kinetics is thus inevitable, regardless of the state of its science.
From Farmers Almanac to Bible, ships logs to newspapers, weather reports and prognostication are documented absent science from the dawn of writing. Observation upholds a strong, long, inevitable public interest in climate and its kinetics.
While climate science funding falls far short of a level that could be described as comprehensive — and often appears directed by Congress to some with religious fervor more to bury expensive satellite and hurricane observations than to reveal them — it appears there will always be sound economic reason as well as emotional urge to know climate better, and good cause in policy for more and better climate science than the sad underachiever we now have.
Further, Dr. Singer’s word, ‘assertion’ is invalid as a characterization; assertion is a type of fallacy, and Science is built on resisting fallacy. What Science delivers is the best explanation based on observation; climate science’s parsimony, simplification and universality is not an exception to this rule: it is no mere assertion that we are seeing unnatural climate kinetics in the record of unnatural normalized trendology, as predicted by the GHE and Chaos Theory, which also logically lead to an inference of crises that will only become worse.
But then, ambiguous verbiage is ever a technique of manufacturing consensus, and it is not Dr. Singer’s only weapon in his assault on Science.
Dr. Singer tribalistically calls climate scientists — upwards of 97% of them, at any rate — “alarmists”, as if reporting of alarming conclusions of reasoning from observations were alarmism, as opposed to the practice of false allegation and assertion to whip up a frenzy of fear. Of the two candidates, Dr. Fred Singer or any honest reporter of climate fact, which is more the alarmist? And to what end? Tribalism is a technique of propaganda to manufacture consensus wrongly, not a way to make clear any truth by reporting of fact and showing of reason.
Are there political and environmental communities involved with special interests, as Dr. Singer says?
Almost certainly there are. They are multitudinous, disparate, conflicted amongst themselves and factionalized. Their level of disorganization is staggering. Except organized large political parties — the largest of which are apathetic toward science and have their own expertise in manufacturing antiscientific consensus — they show little unity.
They are by and large not only not scientific communities but either avoided actively by most scientists most of the time in most ways either to reduce perception of bias in science, or when scientists do join their ranks — such as when invited by the UN to report to the IPCC — find their cases moderated and leavened toward more conservative views.. because scientists tend to be conservative in outlook, and generally it takes a crisis of some sort to drive a scientist to the unusual step of public engagement.
Which is sad. Science ought be open and communicate. There is much in the communication and publishing of Science that could stand improvement. Dr. Singer expertly exploits these weaknesses, this avoidance of consensus-building structure inherent in the scientific community, to manufacture his own antiscience consensus. But he’s hardly the only one to undertake such practices.
It’s not like there’s a lack of private interests for the funding of climate antiscience consensus manufacture.
Bart, the estimate of sensitivity seems to be approaching a limit, from the heights, and warming is good.
============
Michael and heinrich,
I’m curious about either of you gentleman’s qualification to be critical of or judgmental over Dr Curry’s publications or opinions. (Note: I use the term gentlemen only loosely, as neither of you appear capable of behaving as one.)
Kim,
My bold
The men of science took a poll…
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13716/
& no one cared, too much.
You need to be the judge.
yes i just read that, a devastating takedown of Lewandowsky, i will sneak mention of this into a forthcoming post
The Sacred Grove
Is armored up;
Been marched through,
Fears little pups.
==========
Judith
Here is the take home message from that article regarding the belief of some warmists that sceptics must all believe in wild conspiracy theories if they refute cagw.
‘As we can see, and as we might expect, sceptics and warmists only really disagree on matters relating to climate science.’
Tonyb
tony –
You’ve been observing the debate closely for quite a while now:
Do you believe that from a general framework, that statement is even remotely close to being true?
tim –
Whaaaaa? An appeal to authority?
From a “skeptic?”
Say it ain’t so, tim, say it ain’t so!
Heh, j, it is becoming true.
=======
Evidence, kim. Of a scientific sort.
Evidence such that supports conspiracies doesn’t count.
Step up to the plate. Put up or shut up. Show your evidence.
Josh,
I see you are determined to stay on the leader board for dead horse beating.
Also, I’m pretty sure you can differentiate between assessing one’s qualifications and capabilities verses an appeal to authority. Why you choose not to is the question.
Dr Curry’s qualifications are a known. Those of the two jackasses, Michael and heinrich, are not.
Joshua
Because of the context I would assume it meant;
‘on matters scientific etc…’
If we both read the ‘2013 bumper book of science facts’ I suspect we would only disagree to any extent on the chapter about climate science.
Sorry, its midnight- so its time to be off to bed so won’t be able to reply.
tonyb
Lol!
Thanks for that quote, tim. I’ll save it and re-post in in the future, as Judith and her denizens repeat over and over their selectively applied mantra about “appeal to authority.”
Ya’ just gotta love the climate debate.
tony –
Well, that would be closer, but I’d say it is still pretty far from accurate (wishful thinking – keep in mind, Pile’s a pretty hardcore, politically-oriented “skeptic”).
For example, compare this graph:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q233.jpg?w=500&h=325
with this graph:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/q50.jpg?w=500&h=325
It would be an interesting question to research, however.
Josh,
I guess I do have to admit that if anyone would be knowledgeable about swine, it might be the donkey in the adjoining stall. So perhaps Michael knows what he’s talking about.
Now you come along, jump into the mud, believing with great certainty your favorite dead equine is in there.
Me? I’m following the example of Jeju farmers, making sure I have stick in hand.
“curryja | June 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
yes i just read that, a devastating takedown of Lewandowsky, i will sneak mention of this into a forthcoming post”
‘Devastating’??
Maybe it was his amazing analysis using the concept of ‘averages’.
Hmmm, or maybe ‘devastating takedown’ is more rhetoric than analysis?
Thank you!
Meaning – Thank you Michael!
Ron,
Giving weight to Michael’s opinions is not so far removed from listening to stock advice from a donkey.
Timg56, What drives you to feel the need to comment negatively to me about another poster because I said “Thank you” in regard to their post? Are you really that petty? Are you monitoring my “Thank you’s” ? OK you can sling an insult, who cares – seriously. Regarding the science on this blog I am not taking a side. It is laughable though how some feel the need to lash out with arrogance when data they disagree with or do not understand, is put forward. Kindly don’t follow me around commenting to me about my courtesy’s to others. You have better things to do.The scientific community awaits your findings.
Michael,
Consensus is only a political term.
But go ahead and believe as you please.
In reply to: Ron O’Daniels Jun 18, 7:40 am
Wagathon, please forgive me for doubting you re:
“” If European countries were states in the US all of them would fall in among the bottom five states (based on GDP).””
but could you provide a source for that assertion?
No problem Ron.
America’s future … in the Leftist socialist liberal Utopia that is desired by the global warming alarmists and a part of the Democrat party platform, can be seen in the Timbro Report:
“THIS REPORT IS ABOUT THE FACT that per capita GDP is lower in most of the countries of Europe than in most of the states of the USA… France, Italy and Germany have less per capita GDP than all but five of the states of the USA…” 1.
There are only a few cities in a few countries where the citizens have a better life than the average American, like Zurich where everyone is a millionaire — sort of like what we see happening in the US in the area around Washington DC where the usurped profits of the productive are being wasted by the billions. Believe it!
And wealth is more evenly distributed and everyone lives much better in the US. This study was commissioned and conducted by Europeans. They concluded as follows: “It is better being poor in a rich country than in a poor one.” (Id at 21)
Here’s the rub. You know those stories of poor service you get from government workers. Examples are legion — everyone has examples — well, it is that much worse in a socialist state where everyone is a government worker. And the lies! Soon, Consumer Reports will be telling us GM makes 7 of the top 10 autos in the world.
When all is said and done, the Left has killed and eaten the Golden Goose and it is becoming increasingly likely that a free enterprise America will never return. It isn’t just the economy that has been bankrupted. Like global warming, it isn’t fear of it that is bad it is what has happened to a culture that harbors such fears.
“High tax wedges give the wrong incentives.” The Eurocommies are notorious for their underground economies. Employment is miserable in Europe people began share jobs in France years ago. We all know Greece is broke but so is California. Government workers riot in the streets for free lunches. Believe it! Not even the Eurocommies can argue with that. A government grown too big to fail is destroying America.
_____________
1. EU VERSUS USA
Fredrik Bergström & Robert Gidehag
Timbro, June 2004
ISBN 91-7566-564-6
TIMBRO BOX 5234 SE-102 45 Stockholm
FAX +46-(0)8-587 898 55
TEL +46-(0)8-587 898 00
info@timbro.se
http://www.timbro.com
Wagathon,
As I said – reading the report.
As for all of your assertions – with the final analysis of yours that the Government of the USA has grown so big that it is the cause of everything bad – I suggest you write your congressman and advise him that you favor cutting DOD by 50%,ending all subsidies to big AG and OIL, and doing away with the Department of Homeland Security.
While you are at it tell your own state to refuse all federal funding. See if you can get one or two around you to agree, and maybe together you can all storm your State Capital together. Hurry before the Lefties take your guns.
Good luck on that.
Oh and you forgot to blame the 12 pct private Union labor in the USA – how could you let that slip?
Heh, you know our Revolution was because we didn’t want to pay the National Security bills.
==============
“I suggest you write your congressman and advise him that you favor cutting DOD by 50%,ending all subsidies to big AG and OIL”
Well, you got one right, by accident probably.
Agriculture subsidies are idiocy on crack.
Oil subsidies, or what you think are subsidies, are the same tax deductions every business gets, so not points on that one.
And national defense spending? That’s brilliant. That’s like telling your alcoholic son that his spending on booze is so out of hand, he should stop paying his rent.
You don’t think American oil companies pay taxes to the US government? Given the insane logic and inane stonkernomics of the Left it is amazing Western civilization was able to hang on this long.
Wagathon,
RE “You don’t think American oil companies pay taxes to the US government?”
What I said was that oil companies receive generous subsidies (tax breaks). I could research what percentage they actually pay, but in any event, Don’t put words in my mouth please. That was a monumental stretch. Thank you.
You should research that and compare the taxes oil companies pay based on any metric you care to choose. Or, if you think they are getting some kind of deal, buy shares… unless you believe they will be nationalized like GM that was driven into bankruptcy by government edicts and the unions.
Wagathon, No need. I still do not think they pay enough taxes. By what measure? My own. Sorry if that bothers you. I could care less what you think on that topic. Wrong again about Union Labor – again who cares. Next time you can vote for a party that you think will cut Government Spending, help the working man, and cut the size of the federal Government! Good Luck with that! I’ll be rooting for you!
How many other industries do you despise and hope to drive off-shore?
I don’t despise oil companies at all. I just said they should pay more taxes. Why is that so emotional for you? As far as driving them offshore, that will never happen as long as they do such a significant amount of business inside the United States and draw such a significant amount of there product from the United States. However if they would like to leave that behind I am sure that there are other United States companies that would love to buy up what they leave behind. But if you are worried about Exxon Mobil re-locating to Vietnam I would not lose sleep over it. Now try not to let the idea of an oil company paying more in tax upset you. Don’t bring words like “despise” into the discussion – you want them to pay less I want them to pay more. Don’t get all worked up over it. Anyway policy is such a boring subject. Get back to growing the “climate is not warming” consensus that is what I am here for. Ready to soak it up like a sponge – maybe you can go before congress and testify one day as part of the new —- consensus.
Uh oh, ”techno-economic-illiterates with a cargo cult understanding of production … [and] careers based on climate alarmism” – an abusive, “torrent of nasty, arrogant and downright stupid … people who aggressively sign themselves ‘PhD’ as though it were a mark of divine right that is beyond challenge or question’ …” Thank you Walter Starck for a breath of fresh air. You could have been talking about the EU and their commie dog anti-capitalist jihad on America.
Are you talking to me? I don’t want to deprive you of any good feelings or anything but I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. But as you addressed me –
Best to excuse me from your rants about the EU and their communist dogs or whatever it is you are talking about. I’m not too worried.
As far as all that stuff about PhD’s signing their name or whatever – I am just an undergrad – trying to learn some things about the alternative view of what is or is not happening to the climate. But I keep having all this crappy political economy thrown at me.
I am not flying any banners or blowing any horns. I find all the science interesting, especially the scientific arguments that go against consensus thought (not yet convinced) even though most of the argument is a bit over my head.
I suppose you are trying to prove something about how best to Govern the United States of America? Go get ’em tiger!
From wiki—
An aphorism sometimes attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, “That government is best which governs least…”, was actually found in Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience. Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: “The best government is that which governs least.” Thoreau expanded it significantly:
I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. —Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
Fyi– Which Megacorps Pay Mega Taxes:
1. ExxonMobil
Income taxes paid: $27.3 billion
Total revenue: $486 billion
Net income: $41 billion
Effective tax rate: 42%
(Data: Thomson Reuters Fundamentals via FactSet Research Systems)
Ron,
If you have already swallowed the one about big subsidies to “big oil”, then it is pretty much hopeless. What subsidies they receive are minor in comparison to the amount in taxes they pay. Now if you want to discuss efforts by corporations in tax advoidance, that’s different. But the subsidies argument is one put forth either by folks with a particular agenda or idiots.
Are you aware that something like 60% of the subsidy amount given to oil companies was for ethanol production?
You would have saved a lot of kefluffle if you had not left the “per capita” out of your initial comment. It is wrong but at least close with it, dead wrong without it.
An easily accessible measure of relative wealth is the Big Mac index–e.g., try comparing the their cost on the Champs-Élysées versus Boston.
garym
All of which shows the benefits of sceptics holding fellow sceptics to the same standards of evidence as we expect from warmists. Something like the real story may emerge in the end
tonyb
After the last election we certainly know what country is at the top of the list when it comes to the amount of idiocy per capita.
Judith Curry:
”Well we can only hope that the UNFCCC can come up with saner decision making procedures take account of the “sovereign equality of all countries… to express their view.” While they are at it, maybe they will also tell to the IPCC to drop the manufacturing consensus approach to climate science, which arguably does even more harm to the science than it does to the policy making process. (see my previous post No consensus on consensus).”
In my opinion there JC states the most important key question to be proved; http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#comment-261476 :
”Well, if humans haven’t caused any of the recent past warming, then there will be little motivation to do much about AGW.”
As I have stated in many comments of mine, there is no evidence based on observations in reality, according to which humans could have caused any of the recent global warming; look e.g. at comments http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 ; and http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036 .
Don’t you hope for a little effect anyway? Are we to be satisfied only with a greening world. Honestly, I’d take the warmth instead, but try separating them.
============
Critics of the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina and many economists believe that the government has for years falsified consumer price data to understate the country’s true inflation rate.[12] The Economist stated in January 2011 that Big Mac index “does support claims that Argentina’s government is cooking the books. The gap between its average annual rate of burger inflation (19%) and its official rate (10%) is far bigger than in any other country.”[11] ~wiki
Apparently not much beouf ovah theyah. Rats run through the stats.
================
Or wheat. What a treat.
=======
Oui! — Let’s all drink to the Parti de Gauche until the champagne runs out and then we will all demand, “More, more, we want more!”
Wagathon, my suggestion is that you go stand on your balcony and read that wiki – maybe the neighbors cat will listen.
I see believers everywhere. Science requires more that belief.
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | June 18, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
“Ron, This place is more like a conspiracy site than anything else. The advantage is that you get the freedom to challenge the skeptics and deniers and pranksters and contrarians. Fun watching them get angry on getting challenged.”
Not half as fun as watching you slowly forced to admit that anthropogenic global warming is 30% truth and 70% bullschit and that CAGW is 100% FUD.
I mean it’s a like watching a kid on the short bus holding a pile of dog schit, telling you they are tootsie rolls, and then asking him to eat one. Which he does while he pretends it doesn’t taste bad.
It’s like that. Not a noble way to entertain oneself but people are cruel and it’s not like I’m having you eat real dog poo. You certainly are a glutton for punishment. Takes a whipping and keeps on lipping.
Stay classy, Springer, stay classy. (What is it with “conservatives” and the obsessive scatalogical references, anyway?
“Lol!
Thanks for that quote, tim. I’ll save it and re-post in in the future, as Judith and her denizens repeat over and over their selectively applied mantra about “appeal to authority.”
Ya’ just gotta love the climate debate.”
What you really “gotta love” is Joshua’s faux amusement. It’s evident that you really don’t know what “appeal to authority” means in the context of committing a fallacy. Obviously, credentials are important, And appeals to authority are often quite legitimate.
You proved one thing. Feynman was right. You’re no Einstein.