Blog Bits

June 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm by David Farrar

Gordon Campbell looks at National policies and has many legitimate questions about them. He may or should regret this line though:

In Ryall’s opinion, money isn’t the main issue anymore in health care – its more about the cultivation of fruitful and personally fulfilling caring, on current rations. “Money talks, but it is not the only, or even the prime, motivator.” Lean thinking, Ryall concludes, is bringing nurses at Middlemore hospital back to the bedside, and lean thinking is allowing them to do what they had trained to do. “They’re happier, enjoying work and doing more.” Truly, as the sign used to say over the gateway to Dachau concentration camp, work will make you free.

That goes beyond tacky.

Frog blogs (?in support) of a James Hansen who is trying to prosecute CEOs of large oil companies for “crimes against humanity and nature”. And their crimes:

Undermining public understanding about global warming

Is that not the most scary thing you have read? This mad bastard wants to lock up or execute people (normal punishment for crimes against humanity) because they disagree with him on global warming. There are fanatics and there are eco-fascists.

Frog doesn’t offer a view as to whether the Greens support jailing and execution of climate change sceptics.

Whale Oil is detecting some photoshopping amongst .

No Minister notes the irony in the following sentence:

A spokesman for Foreign Minister Winston Peters, said it was of “grave concern” that Shameem and the military were using what appeared to be hacked private emails.

Truly no shame.

Paul Walker looks at some research on campaign finance reform, and how mostly it benefits incumbents.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

77 Responses to “Blog Bits”

  1. Rex Widerstrom (5,328 comments) says:

    Whale needs to realise that there are often times when not Photoshopping shows a callous and brutal disregard for the sensibilities of the viewer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Fairfacts Media (371 comments) says:

    How was Guido, David?
    Did you meet Iain Dale as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. big bruv (13,552 comments) says:

    Ha ha…did you two not once work together Rex?

    Or is that a subject best left alone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rex Widerstrom (5,328 comments) says:

    Yes, big bruv… well alone. While I was doing my best to keep the party adhering to it’s fundamental principles, Laws was in another office working out how best to trade them away for baubles. And steadfastly denying he was on Winnie’s payroll after having to resign from Parliament having fibbed to all and sundry. The risk of encountering Michael, lycra shorts bulging in unspeakable places, scurrying up the back passage somewhere was enough to confine me entirely to my office for an unpleasant six months.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ed Snack (1,794 comments) says:

    If anyone was to be prosecutred for misleading the public Hansen would be right up the front in the culpable clue. there is enough evidence accumulating to charge him with wilfully distorting the surface temperature record to inflate the degree of warming. He is an utterly untrustworthy religiously motivated charlatan. That Frog can support him says volumes about Frogs own ethical standards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. radar (319 comments) says:

    According to wikipedia, Dr Hansen:

    “…was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo.”

    and currently:

    “…heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies[1] in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Earth Sciences Division.[2] He is currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University…”

    Pray tell, Ed Snack, what exactly are your qualifications for telling us that Dr Hansen has it all wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Ed, if you actually read the Frog post you might notice that, as DPF points out, Frog’s post isn’t advocating Hansen’s position on this.

    “there is enough evidence accumulating to charge him with wilfully distorting the surface temperature record to inflate the degree of warming.”
    Crap.

    “He is an utterly untrustworthy religiously motivated charlatan.” You gotta be kidding! Do you actually know what a charlatan is? It’s someone who claims expert knowledge that they don’t have, someone like you. Hansen may be wrong but no one, least of all you, can claim he isn’t an expert in climate science.

    There are a few climate scientists who support your denialism, but only an ignorant FW would call them or Hansen “charlatans”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ed Snack (1,794 comments) says:

    Tell you what radar, try to track down just how Hansen manipulates the surface record. Qualifications are fine (especially for an Astrophysicist to lecture us on climatology), it’s how you use them that matters. Radar, tell me, what are your qualifications for telling I must believe this messiah simply because he says so ? Religions of the messy millenial disaster type never really appealed to me. Unlike you perhaps, my interest is in understanding more about the theory and the data behind the hype.

    And just remember, this is the Hansen who complained in front of representatives of most of the western world’s media that he was been preventing from communicating his views by the Bush administration. With prevention like that, who needs assistance to major in hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Who gives a fuck about Hansen’s creds? Why morons seem to imagine that lessens or adds to the weight of the argument always escapes me.

    Point is, what does he say.

    Andrew, I see you’re on the losing side of this debate as well.

    P.S. Just to piss you off, Hansen is a charleton.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    “Who gives a fuck about Hansen’s creds? Why morons seem to imagine that lessens or adds to the weight of the argument always escapes me.”

    I’m not surprised it escapes you Reid, I’ll try to end your ignorance. If I want a legal opinion, I ask a lawyer; if I want a medical opinion, I ask a doctor.

    Though that’s probably too subtle for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    On another topic, Ryall’s referral to lean manufacturing principles the benefits of which were featured in a Herald article on a hospital improving it’s important stats out of sight, is very interesting.

    Lean manufacturing principles can be applied also to service environments and combining it with Six Sigma is even more powerful, if you do it right.

    Which some people, like that hospital, actually do.

    Gordon’s obviously a bit ignorant. Do some research Gordy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    So you believe everything a lawyer, doctor or climate scientist says without also analysing it yourself Andrew?

    How silly of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Strutta (67 comments) says:

    There are valid reasons to adjust temperature records. However, they are most often adjusted DOWNWARDS because of the effects of the location of the recording devices (e.g. too close to warming influences). Adjusting so many data up seems to go against standerd practice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    No Reid, but I wouldn’t assume the lawyers opinion on medical matters was of equal value to the doctors, still too subtle for you huh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Can you please elucidate Strutta?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Neither would I Andrew. Next question?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Expanding on the Lean/Six Sigma theme, it would be very interesting to see the Nats promote that amongst the civil service. If they did that right, it would be a very smart move.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    “Next question?”

    “Hansen is a charleton.”

    Is that a cryptic pun, or can’t you spell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Wondered if you’d comment on that Andrew. Spelling isn’t my strong point. Tried a few combos in the spell check, but frankly couldn’t be arsed. It wasn’t important. Next question.

    P.S. I’m having fun. Hope you are too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Yep, just like the good old days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bok (740 comments) says:

    Reid you have to understand that in Hansen’s case qualifications means everthing because of his point of view, however the the 31000
    scientists with more than 9000 phds and chairs(http://forums.accuweather.com/index.php?s=d18e5982a66e1457b2a7aa2c164ed1ab&showtopic=6829&pid=162920&st=20&#entry162920) who disagree, are in fact bought by the petrol companies and their qualifications means squat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    I thought I was missing something Bok, thanks for clearing up.

    What can possibli go wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bok (740 comments) says:

    If you want to know why the alarmist are pushing so hard try this
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=ar0X_FWXo1ag&refer=energy
    Like the man said, by comparison , the UN oil for food program is small fry
    http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/there-is-no-freakin-consensus-31000.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Just for you Bok (Reid’s already seen it): http://stj911.org/members/index.html

    PhD’s don’t count for much if they’re in a different field.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Bok (740 comments) says:

    See Reid I told you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. frog (84 comments) says:

    Thanks for the link! I thought I’d been relatively mocking of the suggestion that Big Oil CEOs should be put on trial. But happy to spell it out more clearly over on this blog. Hansen is an important climate scientist with significant cred in his field. Note NASA continued to hire him despite his political views, not because of them. His key message that we need to act now is correct. But suing oil companies will probably not achieve anything – except good daytime television entertainment. I suspect he said it to get attention for his more important fact – we need to return to 350 ppm CO2 equivalent in a very short time.

    Also DPF – am actually more interested in your response to this post: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/06/25/john-keys-chance/
    Does National have the ability to sell an alternative to the ETS to the rest of parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Carbon trading market @ $20 trillion p.a. Bok? Imagine what the derivatives boys would do with that. That’s unbelievable today but within the boundaries of possible.

    What amazes me are the conservatives who’ve fallen for this bollocks.

    Just goes to show, some people can be fooled, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    frog, I assume you will have already prepared detailed rebuttals to http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

    Care to post us the links?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    Apologies if this turns into a double post. Something got lost in the ish (info super hghway)

    Hey frog, care to post links to the detailed rebuttals you’ve made to http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Here you are Reid:

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. reid (16,108 comments) says:

    No Andrew, I’m assuming frog has made something up themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ZenTiger (425 comments) says:

    Not all conservatives Reid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    Off hand, it is hard to think of a serious pretender to government in any other modern democracy that could get away with concealing the nature and cost of their policies for so long, merely because it suits them tactically to do so.

    WTF? How divorced is this guy from reality. It has been happening since elections. Every election the govt challenges the opposition to release their policy and goes around saying that the other side have no policy, every election the opposition releases some policy and keeps it’s major announcements for the campaign. Go back to 1999 – National complained about Labour and lack of policy and Labour kept it’s powder dry for the campaign. It’s called politics, you don’t have to like it but trying to beat it up as some sort of attack on democracy? Give the hyperbole a break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Al-Girta (61 comments) says:

    Global warming umm climate change is to be for the Greens what WW1 was for the labour movement.

    We have got to act now! A world green government to solve the impending crisis. National interests must be put aside. Climate change recognizes no borders!

    Lesson from history Lenin would never have let the European workers fight in a capitalist world war! Where is Lenin when you need him now?

    And hey if climate change has been sexed up world government can solve the entire planet’s problems like economic growth and our current living standards which depletes Earth’s finite resources.

    It’s all good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    This mad bastard wants to lock up or execute people

    My emphasis. Where the hell does he say “execute”, please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Ed Snack (1,794 comments) says:

    Ahem, Andrew, RealClimate is not a science source, it is an advocacy and propaganda blog. Try asking interesting and strictly scientific questions about matters they don’t want aired and your post will be either deleted, or even more dishonestly, edited to make it appear that you say something that you did not put in your original post. They’re the sort of people who when they find reality diverging from their models.assume that reality is wrong by default. Oh, and thanks for the note about “PhD’s in a different field”, unintended I’m sure, but you did notice that Hansen is an Astrophysicist ?

    Frog, I must apologize then for misreading your position, sometimes I don’t pick up the /irony tag very well

    I don’t have a lot of time for Hansen because he is distorting the record in unscientific ways. The whole field is bedevilled by the consistent failure of many of the practitioners to reveal their data and methods. At least some of those that have been exhaustively investigated have been shown to be incorrect at best, fraudulent at worst, which is why openess is so important. A couple of examples. The original “Hockeystick” paper, MBH98 (and its followup MBH99) have been shown to have fraudulently presented conclusions. The results lack statistical validity and are not, in contradiction to explicit statements made in the paper, robust against variations in the data set. Both facts were known to the authors and yet not reported. MBH is still used in many reports, and its erroneously calculated PC1 data set is used in several current paleoclimate studies. This is quite apart from the serious flaws in the data that make the paper worthless.

    Secondly, the paper primarily referred for justification in largely ignoring the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect on the surface record, Jones 1990, appears to have fabricated its claims to have investigated tghe meta-data on the stations it used in the study.The paper claimed to have carefully checked the records of each station to ensure that there were no moves or other changes, whereas it has since been revealed that no such records apparently exist and probably never existed.

    These examples don’t invalidate all studies although they do cast doubt on a few quite prominent papers that use the results or data from these two, but the fact that the climate establishment is still fighting hard to conceal the problems and to prevent information on other important results being opened up to scrutiny. If the data is strong, why the need for such obsessive secrecy ? My own tentative theory is that the chief practitioners are indeed scared that the sheer scale of the uncertainties is such that it does in fact undermine the entire catastrophistic vision that has proved so effective in poroviding publicity, power, and funds for this group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Some fairly bold accusations re: Realclimate there…working climate scientists running a commentary on contemporary published science is propaganda? You sure you weren’t just making baseless claims of fraudulent science or just being rude? I’ve seen plenty of dissent on the comments there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    The debate about Hansen may soon be resolved in the Courts.
    A group are proposing to present an open letter to the US Attorney General recommending that he be stripped of his office, required to repay the various environmental awards he’s been given, and prosecuted for conspiracy with Al Gore and others to perpetrate securities fraud. The process will be supported by many experts who will submit testimony.
    So watch this space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    A wonderful essay on the transition from Yellow Journalism to Yellow Science from the Wall Street Journal.
    http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121433436381900681-lMyQjAxMDI4MTI0NTMyMzU0Wj.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    On the face of it, that sounds marginally less likely than any success Hansen could have prosecuting the oil companies Owen, but hey, whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    DPF:

    “This mad bastard wants to lock up or execute people (normal punishment for crimes against humanity) because they disagree with him on global warming.”

    So what’s your opinion of the “mad bastards” who prosecuted the tobacco companies for willfully spreading misinformation about the health effects of smoking tobacco? It’s one thing having an opinion, but it’s obviously quite another thing to deliberately spread lethal lies for your own financial gain. Really, do you have no ethics at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Hold up, do we actually KNOW he wants to “Lock up or execute” said oil folk, or is that what someone *assumes* he wants to do?

    As always, paint the eco-movement as raving nutters because you simply cannot comprehend why anyone would fight for the environment instead of the bottom line!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    Oh and where’s DPF’s evidence that Hanson wants to execute anyone? BTW, and wrong with locking this type of crook up? Or is the profit of fat-cats more important to you than the lives of ordinary people? Oh, that’s right, you’re a Tory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Jinx!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    heh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    So you guys just passed over me just like I’m one of the nutters? Well, DID YOU?! (9:20 am comment)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    stephen, there are a few nutters here. i’m sure i look like one to some folks as well. FWIW you’re not shown on my ‘barking mad’ list. ah but then there’s nome … :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Well he’s not quite the blind-enraged-bull-in-a-china-shop that a few others tend to be coughghostiecough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    getstaffed – I do dispassionate “objective” pretty well (i.e. 1st class hons degree) – but that’s just doesn’t seem to be the currency here at ol’ K-blog :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I really don’t think stooping one’s level is really going to win anybody over….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    steve: You’re new to K-blog? On the right it’s generally populated by the rhetorical/ideological types who are largely immune to rational argument. So the effort is usually a waste. Having said that there are the odd exceptions, and I enjoy debating them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Obviously im not new, but right to er, rhetorically ask. I just don’t bother engaging with wackjobs, though it’s really hard, so sometimes I just make my own humble attempts at gentle mocking, which is much more satisfying than ‘no you’re wrong asshole!’, I find. Yes, if it wasn’t for the exceptions I wouldn’t come here either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    On the right it’s generally populated by the rhetorical/ideological types who are largely immune to rational argument

    y’know nome… there might be one or two folks here who suggest this sums up the left pretty well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    # Strutta (33) Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says:
    June 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm

    “There are valid reasons to adjust temperature records. However, they are most often adjusted DOWNWARDS because of the effects of the location of the recording devices (e.g. too close to warming influences). Adjusting so many data up seems to go against standerd practice.”

    THE following Article is VERY VERY INTERESTING…….

    “Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess”

    by Patrick J. Michaels

    Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia.

    This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2008.

    “………..The earth’s paltry warming trend, 0.31 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the mid-1970s, isn’t enough to scare people into poverty. And even that 0.31 degree figure is suspect.

    For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming.

    These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records. They are the surface record from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the satellite-sensed temperatures originally published by University of Alabama’s John Christy, and the weather-balloon records originally published by James Angell of the U.S. Commerce Department.

    The two revisions of the IPCC surface record each successively lowered temperatures in the 1950s and the 1960s. The result? Obviously more warming — from largely the same data.

    The balloon temperatures got a similar treatment. While these originally showed no warming since the late 1970s, inclusion of all the data beginning in 1958 resulted in a slight warming trend. In 2003, some tropical balloon data, largely from poor countries, were removed because their records seemed to vary too much from year to year. This change also resulted in an increased warming trend. Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate.

    Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults. The sensors don’t last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters. The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record. Frank Wentz, a consulting atmospheric scientist from California, discovered that the satellites also drift a bit in their orbits, which induces additional bias in their readings. The net result? A warming trend appears where before there was none.

    There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction. So it’s like flipping a coin six times and getting tails each time. The chance of that occurring is 0.016, or less than one in 50. That doesn’t mean that these revisions are all hooey, but the probability that they would all go in one direction on the merits is pretty darned small.

    The removal of weather-balloon data because poor nations don’t do a good job of minding their weather instruments deserves more investigation, which is precisely what University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick and I did. Last year we published our results in the Journal of Geophysical Research, showing that “non-climatic” effects in land-surface temperatures — GDP per capita, among other things — exert a significant influence on the data. For example, weather stations are supposed to be a standard white color. If they darken from lack of maintenance, temperatures read higher than they actually are. After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.’s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth’s surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend.

    Another interesting thing happens to the U.N.’s data when it’s adjusted for the non-climatic factors. The frequency of very warm months is lowered, to the point at which it matches the satellite data, which show fewer very hot months. That’s a pretty good sign that there are fundamental problems with the surface temperature history. At any rate, our findings have not been incorporated into the IPCC’s history, and they probably never will be…….” ETC…….

    DO READ THE WHOLE THING……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Didn’t you already post that here http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/04/the_lawyers_stroke_back.html philbest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    June 24, 2008 AMERICAN THINKER
    James Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust
    By Brian Sussman
    “Monday, James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), addressed Congress and brought a new twist to his tired global warming song and dance routine. Hansen now seems to be calling for the chief executives of Big Oil to be tried for high crimes against humanity. Their crime? Spreading doubt about global warming.

    Actually, it is Hansen who is guilty. Guilty of abusing the public trust.

    James Hansen is the recognized international arbiter of the global temperature record-past, present and future. Armed with a network of thermometers, state-of-the-art satellites, computers and a huge chunk of NASA’s near $18 billion budget, Hansen is the man who is deemed the final authority on Al Gore’s constant claim that “the earth has a fever.”

    All this despite the fact that GISS’ own data clearly illustrates that the Earth’s temperature has been flat since 1998 and recently has been dipping downward. Hansen’s shenanigans on Capital Hill are not about climate-they are about money.

    As is the case with all government agencies, maintaining a budget is critical. The bureaucrats at NASA boast of their obvious needs for cash: completion of the International Space Station, furthering the Space Shuttle Program, and, of course, preventing the world from spontaneously combusting in a ball of flames. Hansen is a zealous promoter of the latter, and, since the 1980s, has been able to keep the funds flowing-both into NASA, as well as into his personal pocket-to study the world’s climate. A slick marketer, Hansen possesses an insatiable appetite for media attention — as long as the person asking questions is favorable to his point of view.

    In 2007, Hansen agreed to an interview conducted on a rooftop in downtown San Francisco with a counterculture, internet-based outfit called TUC Radio (TUC is an acronym for “Time of Useful Consciousness”-the time between the onset of oxygen deficiency and the loss of consciousness”). During the interview Hansen hardly sounded like an honorable director of a U.S. government agency, but rather more like an underground community agitator:

    “I tell young people that they had better start to act up. Because they are the ones that will suffer the most. Many of the changes will take time, but we’re setting them in motion now. We’re leaving a situation for our children and grandchildren which is not of their making, but they’re going to suffer because of it. So I think they should start to act up and put some pressure on their elders, and on legislatures, and begin to get some action.”

    I assume that prior to the interview, Hansen made it clear that all his comments were his own and not representative of NASA. That is a line he uses from time to time to appear as pure as the wind driven snow. But the truth is, Hansen a proclivitiy for popping off at the mouth.

    Early in 2006, a major story in the New York Times pointed a finger at the Bush Administration for supposedly trying to censor Hanson. In part, it read:

    The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

    The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

    Can you blame the administration for wanting to review his content? As a NASA Director, his role should be collecting data and truthfully sharing results, not trying to influence policy and legislation.
    |
    Congressman Darryl Issa (R-San Diego) called Hansen on his continual talking out of turn. During a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his abuse of his government status, Issa said, “You’re speaking on federal paid time. Your employer happens to be the American taxpayer.” Issa went on to say that an internet search showed Hansen had had stated on more than 1,400 occasions in over a year’s worth of interviews and appearances (15 interviews alone in the month that the congressional hearings were taking place) that the Bush Administration had censored him.

    According to the Associated Press:

    “Hansen said…as a matter of free speech, government scientists should not be restrained in their remarks or have public affairs officers listening in on interviews.”

    I agree with Congressman Issa. Government bureaucrats should not be allowed to use their job as a soapbox; nor should they be allowed to receive huge sums of cash for work they have conducted on the taxpayer’s dime, from private, liberal interests with a global warming agenda.

    Examine the largess culled by Hansen.

    In 2001, the Heinz Foundation “awarded” James Hansen with a payment of $250,000 for his work on global warming. According to the foundation:

    “It was Dr. Hansen who, in the sweltering, drought-scorched summer of 1988, went where few scientists were willing to go-before Congress, to explain just how serious the potential for global warming truly was.”

    The Heinz Foundation, directed by the wife of U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate, John Kerry, is widely known for its support of liberal causes. Is it any surprise that James Hansen also endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004? The quarter of a million was just a tease of additional monies to come. In 2007, Hansen split a $1 million prize from the Dan David prize category of “Future Quest for Energy” (layman’s translation: a world without oil). In addition he also reported to have acted as a consultant to Gore’s global whining slide show, which was the impetus to the Prince of Peace’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In fact, in 2006 Hansen had the gall to appear on a New York City stage with Mr. Gore to promote the then upcoming film-though he did reportedly inform the audience, “I’m not speaking as a government employee.”

    Topping it all, Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, “How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower’ standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice’? That’s right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship ‘philanthropy’ by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s ‘politicization of science’ program.”

    Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor’s Business Daily refused to back off on their story, “claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media.”

    With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster?

    In talk-radio such conflicting activities would be deemed “payola” with the guilty party booted out the door. For the sake of truth, and the proper use of the taxpayer’s dollar, James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties.

    Show Mr. Hansen the door — for the sake of humanity.”

    Brian Sussman is a radio talk show host on KSFO-AM in San Francisco and formerly an award-winning television meteorologist. He is currently writing, “Global Whining, a Denier’s Handbook”, a book represented by WordServe Literary Group, Ltd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Is it any surprise that James Hansen also endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004?

    Who was the other candidate again?

    ROFL

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    YOu may remember I wrote an NBR column reporting on two papers which suggested that water vapour provided strong negative feedback and hence nullified any effect of CO2 concentrations on global temperature.
    The essay below (which has translated the long scientific paper into readable English) develops the argument further and may well drive the final nail into the AGW alarmist coffin. As more of these papers appear we can expect the Alarmist voices to grow more and more shrill.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    I love it when Right-Wing institutions take a name that insists they are the unbiased and politically neutral voice of middle-of-the-road reason and/or they speak for the populace as a whole.

    E.g:
    “American Thinker”
    “The Heartland Institute”

    (and, dare I say it, “Kiwi Blog”… :-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Owen:

    Then I like how you’ve made up your mind before the scientific community has been able to reach a consensus!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    The essay below (which has translated the long scientific paper into readable English) develops the argument further and may well drive the final nail into the AGW alarmist coffin. As more of these papers appear we can expect the Alarmist voices to grow more and more shrill.

    Sadly, I never found the time to do a lengthy post at Hot Topic discussing the papers Owen’s referring to. It’s fair to say, though, that Spencer’s paper isn’t getting anything like the traction Owen might suggest, at least outside the company Owen likes to keep.

    There’s one big problem with the idea of a strong negative feedback in the atmospheric water cycle. If there is one, it becomes impossible to explain how the earth warms out of ice ages. You get 5C warming, roughly, between the depths of an ice age and an interglacial. Factor in Spencer’s feedback, and we’d be stuck in a permanent freeze.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    There is a tiny bit of stuff on Miskolczi in the comments section there:
    http://realclimate.org/index.php?p=538#comment-87648 and there
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/climate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/ .

    It’s all Greek to me, but seems you can almost hear the contempt of the commenters…

    Where’d Ed Snack go?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Steve Withers (98 comments) says:

    Owen Mcshane: A letter from the oil companies to a US Attorney General hand-picked by the Oil President for lick-spittle compliance.

    The same Oil President who appointed earlier Attornies General who told him he could torture with impunity as long as he didn’t call it torture.

    The Oil President who appointed an Attorney General who – with a straight face – said it was possible for a President who receives all his power from the US Constitution to step outside the Constitution and…..STILL HAVE ALL HIS POWER!!!!

    Lock and load!

    As Kangaroo Courts go, the oil men certainly are spoiled for choice given they have their bought and paid for crony criminal in the White House.

    No wonder they don’t want to go to court when the Oil President has the fix in using his usual extrajudicial means: his pet law dog – the AG.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,820 comments) says:

    AGW is a great steaming pile of poop!

    How does some one like James Hansen continue to draw federal funding from NASA? Doesn’t NASA have more important things to be getting on with like sending Men back to the Moon and Mars?

    It’s OK for Clark to harp on about “sustainability” because it’s just empty rhetoric and another failed promise by Labour (Closing the gaps, Top half of OECD). Hels isn’t going to be around to take the heat from the voters when the bill comes in for this pipe dream.

    Best to realise that Human induced Climate Change is not occurring. Humans just aren’t all that. The climate has always changed; all without the benefit of the industrial age and the modern wonder of capitalism. Why do people want to turn back the clock to the Stone Age where like was brutish and short? Oh, that’s right, because life’s little failures can’t stand seeing other people be success and the crab pot mentally must rule. But don’t tall poppies act as a carbon dioxide sink while parasitic freeloading bludgers with their hands permanently out expecting “the government” (Hard working New Zealand taxpayers) to pay for their lifestyle actually generate carbon dioxide.

    Socialism doesn’t work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I hope you were taking the piss about getting to Mars OECD!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    all you denialist-dingbats..

    ..both the ‘true believers’..and those whose opinions are paid for..

    need to read/reply to this..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2008/climate-chaos-is-inevitablewe-can-only-avoid-oblivionumthis-is-a-must-read/

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Been a bit of editing on this thread since last night, did Mr Whale ask for certain posts to be removed perchance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    yeah..all that nazi stuff is gone..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Stephen, I would naturally expect RealClimate to reject the Miscolski paper. I think Peden gets it right in this release.

    Scientist Smacks Down Activists At RealClimate.org: By Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and a founding member of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

    Excerpt: Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior. “Real Climate” is a staged and contracted production, which wasn’t created by “scientists”, it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering. There you will find the word “model” used a million times, for the entire basis of the Global Warming Hoax is based on computer modeling ( not climate science ) which has thus far failed to predict anything accurately since day one. For example, one of their past clients, Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, hired them to create the illusion that Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) was somehow dangerous, despite the fact that it had been fully tested and approved by the FDA. After a lengthy national fearmongering campaign by Environmental Media Services, Ben & Jerry’s proudly announced that their ice cream was “BGH-free”… as if it made any difference. Real Climate has become the Alamo for folks like the highly discredited Michael Mann, whose original analytical blunder led to the famous “hockey stick” curve, which helped kick off the Great Global Warming Hoax after it was picked up by science illiterate Al Gore and proudly paraded around the globe. The hockey stick was proven to be an absurd blunder, but by then you couldn’t put the genie back into the bottle, and today we are wasting billions of dollars on a cure for a nonexistent disease. Perhaps the best summary of “Real Climate” was given by a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who said, “This website appears to constitute a support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is then repeated by the reassured believers.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Gareth,
    We are discussing the AGW theory which holds that by burning fossil fuels, manking has raised the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that because Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas this is causing global warming.

    We are not discussing the causes of the cycles which cause the great ice ages. No is suggesting that mankind caused them by driving cars and other mortal sins.

    The AGW theory assumes that increased carbon dioxide warms the planet which causes more evaporation which provides positive feedback and hence the tipping point etc. The new papers, based on new measurements from the Aqua satellites (NOT on new scenarios of computer games) are telling us that the increased evaporation provides negative feedback – which explain why the history of the Earth is not replete with Heat Ages. Ice ages have their own cycle and I have not heard anyone claim that they are caused or ended by changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide. However, if you depending on RealClimate for your info then they of course will tell you anything.

    I think these new papers are great news and should be cause for world wide celebration. Why do so many people find good news to be bad news? Why do they yearn for catastrophe?
    Finally, for any scientist, measurements trump models. However, civil servants who depend on the government for their funds work in a different paradigm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Earth is not replete with Heat Ages”

    You do have to wonder if Owen is taking the rip again

    http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/Last%20100%20million%20years.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. RRM (9,639 comments) says:

    Well, I still think it’s extraordinary that laymen pick and choose, from among the various cutting-edge studies that are out there, the ones that they want to believe, and then assert (in their layman way) that these are “obviously” the ones that are right because they make “common sense” or whatever!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    “Why do so many people find good news to be bad news? Why do they yearn for catastrophe?”
    Accuracy not catastrophe.
    As you know Owen, Realclimate is run by scientists active in climate research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    I think these new papers are great news and should be cause for world wide celebration. Why do so many people find good news to be bad news? Why do they yearn for catastrophe?

    They would be great news, if they were even close to being right. Sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    The reason the ice ages are relevant is that the climate system (all of it, all gases, ice sheets etc) working together, warms about 5C from the depths of an ice age to an interglacial. At the same time, CO2 rises from about 180ppm to 280ppm. If there was a strong negative feedback in the water cycle, why would it only start working at 380ppm? That’s why Lindzen’s iris theory has never gained any support – apart from Spencer. New ideas on how the climate system work have to be able to cope with everything we know – and that’s a lot, in paleoclimate terms.

    As for Miscolksi, I’ll quote a working atmospheric physicist (Ray Pierrehumbert) posting at RealClimate:
    The paper does have some value as a teaching tool in undergraduate physics or climate classes. It’s like those puzzles in kids’ books our Swedish friends call “Finn Fem Fel.” I ran the paper past a guest class I was teaching at Bowdoin and with a little encouragement the students were able to find and understand the two elementary mistakes Miskolczi made in the first 9 pages, which invalidate the rest of the paper. The students in that class are writing up their work, and it’s my intention that we’ll put it up on RealClimate as a guest post, once it passes muster with the rest of the RC crowd. I’m still waiting for the first draft. Meanwhile, you can try your own hand at finding the mistakes. The only hint I’m giving at this point, so as not to spoil the fun, is that you needn’t look beyond the first 9 pages.

    That paper should be out soon…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    Well, I still think it’s extraordinary that laymen pick and choose, from among the various cutting-edge studies that are out there, the ones that they want to believe

    A fair point, but then a good number of those studies have very opposing views, and come tainted with the agendas of their backers. So there’s probably a good amount of picking and choosing that goes on from participants at all edges of the discussion.

    As an aside, I’m amused by the somewhat disparaging term “climate change denier” which I’ve seen bandied about recently. It suggests that climate change (or more importantly the implications of any actual change) is established as a matter of undisputed fact.. which is being scandalously ‘denied’. From this laymen’s perspective at least, there is plenty of dispute about the facts from scientific/intellectual giants. Perhaps those that use this term are too blind to see that opposing views do exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Gareth (55 comments) says:

    And just in case anyone takes Owen’s tired slur against RealClimate seriously, here’s what they had to say on the subject:

    We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Right getstaffed, the terms used in this sphere are right odd – ‘sceptic’ being another, totally inappropriate term of disparagement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.