Maharey on climate change
December 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarSteve Maharey is blogging at Pundit, and is upset over climate change policy.
One night in 2007 I found myself at an official dinner in Brussels seated next to a man who advised the German government on climate change. We chatted about the role countries could play in the shift to sustainability.
He noted that what New Zealand did would have little impact on the overall problem. Our small size, however, did not excuse us from making a practical contribution. In addition, he said, New Zealand had a very special and more important role to play. “You”, he argued animatedly, “need to be a symbol to the rest of the world of what is possible”.
This now explains why the last NZ Government was so keen to “lead the world”. Because a German Government advisor said so over dinner. That beats stuff such as a rational cost benefit analysis.
I felt proud that New Zealand was seen as so important to the world’s efforts to address climate change. I came home even more committed to being a part of advancing New Zealand’s leadership role.
It’s a pity though that emissions under Steve’s Government increased higher (percentage) than almost all other Kyoto countries – even more than USA under George W Bush.
Then Steve turns to the awful Nat/ACT agreement:
Evidence from competing points of view will be heard by New Zealand’s elected representatives. This evidence is to be treated equally. Public officials will be asked if they have been impartial. Those who advance the position that human activity is contributing to climate change are to be set against those who oppose this view – as if they are equals.
Oh my God, how dare they. This is the end of civilisation – NZ’s elected representatives will hear competing points of view. This must not be allowed.
Lest we think this does not matter because it is just one of the things that is done in an MMP system to appease the smaller parties and no one will take it seriously – think again. The news of such hearings will go around the world. The country that has been a beacon on the hill will find itself reduced to holding a candle in a wind of its own creation.
No, no, no – an Australian radio station has mentioned the agreement. Our international reputation is destroyed. We can never recover.
Maharey demonstrates what many of the left focus on – saying the right things instead of actual progress. He thinks that everyone globally will be aghast as NZ having had a select committee inquiry. They won’t be – most won’t give a damn or be interested – except academic politicians like Maharey.
Here’s what they will actually care about – the actual level of emissions. That si what counts – not whether “deniers’ might be allowed to have their say at a select committee. Maharey’s Government had one of the worst records in the world for emissions growth.
This to me is the true tragedy of any attempt to reconsider the evidence on climate change. While we should be leading the way to a world that is different to the fossil-fuel burning, automobile-centred, throwaway economy we currently have, our elected representatives will be weighing up the evidence.
Once again Maharey wants NZ to lead the world, no matter how much damage it would cause.
I’m all in favour of sensible measures to reduce emissions, that keep us in line with our major trading partners. But this hysteria about how the world is doomed if we not act within the next 12 months is ridicolous.
If they talk too long New Zealand’s reputation for leadership will not just be a candle in the wind it will be snuffed out.
Oh no, ACT and National have killed Prince Diana!!
Related posts:
- Frog on Aid and Climate Change
- Dom Post on Climate Change
- The Press on Climate Change
- More climate change problems for Govt
December 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
And the right go on about “hysteria”. What a load of dishonest strawman arguments.
He’s used an anecdote to illustrate a point.
The hypocritical right, complaining that Labour did too little, while campaigning on doing less.
He’s talking about treating the opinions of climate scientists and over-enthusiastic amateurs as though they’re equals in this debate, not about whether we hear from both.
It’s already on Aussie radio; what will happen when we actually start running the hearings?
Maybe he thinks that leading the world will be good for us? Maybe we should do nothing, or go backwards, no matter how much damage it does?
You’re all in favour of talking the talk, but as soon as someone proposes those measures, you’ll shout them down as reckless.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Pete, what utter shite. The left talked big, but did nothing. They did worse than nothing. The right simply held up the truth to their policies and pointed out they were left wonting. DPF is right, we’ve rushed into all manner of ridiculous decisions surrounding climate change, and crippling our economy while mightier, more influential nations like China and US do little to curb their behaviour is pissing in the face of lower income earners. The Kyoto Protocol is effectively a regressive tax, much like GST, and were it not for the Greens, I suspect an honorable left wing party would have nothing to do with it.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
That’ll be the Steve Maharey who said, “I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.” A foolish social engineer.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I thought that to be a leader you had to have followers. What exactly is it that the rest of the world (or even some little part of it) is following NZs lead?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
LUCY: One example is New Zealand’s world-leading agriculture R&D. If we had an ETS to encourage farmers to take up new emissions reducing technologies, then other countries would follow (and we could sell them the technology to do so).
[DPF: Do you have any idea of how much money has already been spent on ways to reduce emissions from livestock? It has been happening for 15 years.]
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Smarmy Maharey, the double dipper, is no moral authority on the subject. In fact, what does he know?
As one of the first rats to leave the sinking Labour ship, he would be better advised to keep his mouth shut.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Mr Farrar – you are an idiot.
[DPF: Oh such a punishing rebuttal]
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
World – Leading agriculture R&D. OK Which countries are using the results of our R&D?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Greenfly:
You mistake ad hominem for argument. I know they’re closely located in the dictionary but that’s no excuse (especially seeing as you apparently claim to have a superior intellect to DPF’s) – better luck next time.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Who cares what smarmy Maharey thinks. Fuck said the idiot.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
“Mr Farrar is an idiot, therefore his argument is stupid” would be ad hominem.
“Mr Farrar’s argument is stupid, therefore he is an idiot” is a sound argument.
I suspect greenfly meant the latter.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Ivar Giaever is a skeptic, but then again I suppose merely winning the Nobel prize for Physics doesn’t really qualify you as a proper scientist, right?
Of course Joanne Simpson was merely the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, who used to work for NASA, has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”, so she should be treated with total contempt when she says:
Wonder which organization she was referring to there….
Of course, the IPCC itself contains nobody who isn’t a member of the Cult of Climate Change, right? Oh, except for Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD in environmental physical chemistry.
And naturally, Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, would never, ever have said:
…right?
And we all know Kiwis are too sensible for that skeptic claptrap, right?
Which is, of course, why Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, never said:
…right?
Or maybe not so right. Maybe, just maybe, the crazy crackpot skeptics aren’t so crazy after all. Maybe they’re genuine scientists, committed to the truth and the scientific method. Maybe, unlike AGW proponents, they don’t have anything to gain from being right, and everything to lose.
Maybe…..?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Maharey is merely parroting the same line as Barry Coates of Oxfam, which I fisked here for anyone interested
http://adamsmith.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/11555/
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
pete said “It’s a pity though that emissions under Steve’s Government increased higher (percentage) than almost all other Kyoto countries – even more than USA under George W Bush.
The hypocritical right, complaining that Labour did too little, while campaigning on doing less.”
No, the right is merely pointing out that Labour talked lots but did nothing. Personally, I am glad they did nothing. There is nothing that needs doing. The Cult of Climate Change is collapsing. The Ice is Melting The Ice is melting. Every scientist on the planet could be skeptical about this whole debate and these fanatics like Pete would still be claiming the science is settled.
Vote:Twats.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Pete:
That’s a dubious claim: it amounts to “you’re an idiot because I say so”. Please explain how that is a “sound argument”.
I realise quoting Wikipedia is lazy research, but here goes:
So why, Pete, do you think Greenfly has nothing to say about this (quoting DPF):
It’s a pity though that emissions under Steve’s Government increased higher (percentage) than almost all other Kyoto countries – even more than USA under George W Bush.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Apologies all. My statement was unclear (not an argument Nostredamus, nor a rebuttal Mr Farrar) a statement of what I believe to be fact. Your comments re Maharey and Climate Change were idiotic, so I assumed you were an idiot in making them. Was I wrong? If so, please accept my humble apologies. By the same token Nostredamus, I say you are lazy, in accordance with your statement re. Wikipedia .
[DPF: I suggest you read the posting guidelines if you like commenting here]
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
pete; Liarbour emissions were rather toxic when smarmy was a Minister.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Christopher: I said climate scientists, and you respond with physicists and meteorologists.
If you spent half as much time trying to understand the science as you do collecting quotes from scientists-who-aren’t-climate-scientists, you’d know why Duffy’s argument is wrong:
1. Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
2. Climate scientists are aware of (1).
3. Climate scientists continue to hold that anthropogenic carbon is necessary to explain recent temperatures.
Therefore, climate scientists have an explanation that reconciles (2) and (3). Have you even googled for that explanation? (Hint: which variables are exogenous and which are endogenous in climate models?)
This doesn’t address what I said; farmers need the incentives to adopt ways to reduce emissions.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
In day before yesterday’s General Debate, Owen McShane had some pertinent things to say about CC or AGW.
The main evidence used by UN/Govt funded scientists (who will lose their funding if they come up with a result that does not suit the trendy AGW argument) are computer models. Climate Change and its causes are so complex that even the best scientists don’t fully understand it, by their own admission.
So the computer models are getting ‘Garbage In’ – which means ‘Garbage Out.’
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
pete – sorry but ….you said “I said climate scientists, and you respond with physicists and meteorologists.
If you spent half as much time trying to understand the science as you do collecting quotes from scientists-who-aren’t-climate-scientists”
Meteorology is, by dictionary definition
“1. the science dealing with the atmosphere and its phenomena, including weather and climate.
2. the atmospheric conditions and weather of an area.”
I am not sure who is more qualified to talk about climate than a climate scientist.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
What is wrong with an automobile oriented society Mr Mahary?
The private vehicle fleet is more efficient in transport terms and more energy efficient as well than public transport and is becoming more efficient by the day.
We do not have to abandon our cars which are the most efficient, equitable, and effective means of transport ever devised.
After all the private vehicle fleet accounts for only 8.5% of New Zealand’s total fossil fuel consumption.
If we were all forced onto public transport this would increase and of course so would the cost of housing and unemployment would rise and the cost of the inefficient public transport system would destroy the economy.
What on earth is he on about?
Pete, the models do not work. They have totally failed to predict the last ten years of climate behaviour so if they cannot get the first ten years right why should we have faith in their scenarios for the next ninety years?
As for methane. It is 1.7 parts per million of our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is 380 parts per million (approx). We can find no correlation between concentration of CO2 and temperature (except that in the past concentrtions have increased after warming but not before) so why should a change in the tiny amount of methane contributed by cows (remember this is natural cycling of existing atmospheric carbon – cows do not run on fossil fuel) change the climate?
And our cattle produce less methane per kilo of beef and milk than anyone elses so why should we be punished for being so carbon efficient. Our nine million cattle are chicken feed compared to the 290 million cows and bison in India. But they are sacred cows I suppose.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Brian, I’m not sure what dictionary you’re using, but I’ve generally seen “meteorology” used to describe the study of short-term weather, whereas the term “climatology” is used for the study of long-term climate. These are two very different fields.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Greenfly:
And I say you’re a troll – and a lazy one at that.
By the way, it’s Nomestradamus – a deliberate misspelling in recognition of the <sarcasm> resident Kiwiblog academic genius </sarcasm> who calls himself Phillip John/Roger Nome. You should look him up sometime – you guys would get on famously.
I ask again, oh lazy one: what do you say about this claim?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Smarmy is in denial.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Owen, you’ve been doing this a long time, so I can only assume that the weakness of your arguments represents bad faith on your part.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
The whole point about the carbon religion is that it is not a science issue – it has been hijacked for political reasons
trying to get to facts and hopefully keeping it simple
1) experimenters bias – in research whoever pays for research actually affects the outcomes eg the drug companies. The research money is all going in to proving AGW not disproving it. It should be treated with the appropriate skepticism.
2) science 101 – scientific method requires predictive outcomes to agree with a model or theorem. If they are accurate then we maybe think it’s OK. We have had so many doomsday temperature, sea level, outrageous weather predictions over the last 15-20 years it is not funny – the VAST bulk of which have NOT been accurate – this means the model/theories are wrong.
3) practicality – if it’s a choice between millions starving or dying 30 years too soon then I promise you that developing countries will accept any potential consequences of supposed AGW – if any of the AGW theories are accurate in their negative consequences then we will end up dealing with the consequences – likely to be a damn site cheaper I might add. We cannot stop this if it was true.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Nomestradamus, Nomestradamus, Nomestradamus (spelling practice) – mine was a careless error and I’m sorry for it.
Vote:I’m grateful for the ‘lazy troll’ tag! Brilliant! However, I’m not trolling. I stand by my call (idiot etc.) Sometimes a clear statement is needed. Bogging down in argument can smother otherwise unsullied thought.
There are many reasons why the past few years resulted in rising emissions for NZ, many of them unavoidable, supported by Labour’s opponents and likely to be continued happily (think; coal burning!) and others wilfully carried out despite best advice.
I don’t know pete, but he’s got Owen McShane pegged beautifully (and two too, Mr Farrar and Mr Nomestradamus)
December 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Lefties squealing like stuck pigs, kiwiblog leaning further toward climate change denial…the GW game is over. And not a moment too soon.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Yes “the very same Steve Maharey who said, “I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.”
Vote:Dipstick.
He’s just the right sort that the IPCC would like on their team and he’d fit in well there as long as they didn’t mind his double dipping.
Come to think of it, they probably wouldn’t rather ask how they can get extra funding!
December 30th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I see the dogwhistle is out. There are almost invariably three things stated:
1. Carbon production under Labour increased.
2. The science is a load of c%$p.
3. The economy is more important.
As for 1, carbon output did increase. The economy took off under labour, industrial production soared and unemployment dwindled. The demand for electricity increased substantially. There was no standby renewable power generation available and the thermal stations were turned on. There is never any instant solution to this, it takes years to turn around power generation. There are a pile of wind generators in the pipeline and quite a bit of geothermal. National’s reverse of the ban on thermal stations will mean that the situation will not improve for some time now. Transport carbon also increased, because people had jobs and increased wages they drove more. National has a good plan, mass unemployment and depression are the perfect developments to decrease discretionary car use.
As for 2, I really hope you are right. I have seen a tshirt that says that there are more climate scientists named Steve that believe in climate change than there are climate scientists that do not believe in it. If there are risks then steps ought to be taken. To say that the science is contentious and you should therefore do nothing in the height of irresponsibility.
As for 3, do you really want to live in a destroyed world that has a successful economy? The two things are related. Favour one over the other at your peril.
Perhaps you guys should say clearly if you oppose steps being taken about climate change. National has tried to assume this blue green persona where it believes in climate change and wants to do something and then in its first 100 days reverses the thermal power generation ban, destroys the local biofuel industry, reverses the ETS, and pumps for roads instead of public transport.
They should come clean. If they oppose steps being taken to address climate change they should say so. Right now they are having a bob each way. How does this make you all feel, that they are saying that Labour’s world view is correct and action is important, but they are then getting out the dog whistle and putting through policies to make you guys feel happy …
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Nomestradamus says:
Can it be?! Nomestradamus has morphed into Nome!! It’s just a matter of time now till Redbaiter starts quoting sonic admiringly and dad4justice writes a tribute to Hulun.
Kiwiblog has finally become The Matrix…
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
based upon the kinds of points mickeysavage describes above, I had no choice but to think (and say
‘idiotic’ to the original post. I would add ‘stupid’ also. Nomestradamus – Rex picked up on the ‘lazy’ theme as well – curious!
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Little old NZ does NOT need to lead the world in combating the effects of climate change. When the BIG poluters (China/India/Russia/USA/Japan/EU) step up to the plate then fine let’s climb on board but until then nix.
Kyoto was/is a crock negotiated in boom times by the liberal left who need a cause to make them feel wanted … the worm has turned and now the issue is survivability based not on an unproven theory but the economy.
It’s all about horses for courses and the really sad thing is that the Mahareys of this world are stuck in an Al Gore manufactured time warp.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Ross Miller
Guess who the NZ Minister for the Environment was and who took part in the negotiations when Kyoto
was negotiated ……………….
Simon Upton
Guess who was in power …………………
National.
The science is even more compelling now than it was back in the 1990s. Seen any photos of the North Pole lately?
I guess you must be an Act voter.
And why should the world wait for each country to step up>
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Greenfly, please don’t inveigle me into your critique (especially the off-topic one about other posters)… I know Nomestradamus well enough to poke fun without intending any insult.
As for the primary matter, I’m so far on the fence about the science I need a colonoscopy to get the splinters out. But I do wish to listen to conflicting views (unlike Mr Maharey, who’s supposedly an academic nowadays, and is doing his profession no favours with a mind as open as that of the Inquisition) and know that NZ “leading the world” has done us no favours in the past… people merely raise a curious eyebrow and wait to see if we implode.
What Mr Maharey’s German friend was really saying was that NZ has shown itself willing to be the canary down the mine before, and would we mind awfully doing it again, since, after all, we’re only an obscure island off the coast of Australia.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Up in Smoke said Mr Wong while the dumb kiwi paid fart tax, poor micky is a silly savage.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Ross – if the theory is unproven (as you say), why would ‘little old New Zealand ..climb on board’ when China etc. does? Why climb on board at all? Your thinking is flawed.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
The concept of ‘leading the world’ is causing many of you grief. Perhaps quick action by New Zealand should be framed as ..quick action by New Zealand. Our ‘place in the race’ is of little real consequence. Once we know what’s going on, we should act as thoroughly as we are able (and I don’t mean nobbling our economy to do so, but if the situation is dire, act as completely as we are able to). The attitude expressed in Mr Farrar’s post and in many responses to it is regressive – not the way foward imho.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Greenfly it appears you and the likes of Maharey are not so convincing – look around – (reality check), you lost the election?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
D4J
I always find your posts difficult to understand.
The fart tax was $12m a year to be used to develop highly valuable technology to reduce animal ruminations. Like it or not we will need to address this. The cost per farmer was very modest and it is time they start to pay for environmental damage caused by their industry.
Greenfly
I am also more than happy to lead the world. NZ is in a position where it could be a world leader. We did it with nuclear power, why not with carbon or methane production?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Wow! How lucky we are Maharey and the other Helenistas were born half a century after Hitler!
If Maharey had been born half a century or so earlier, could he have he bumped into some prominent Germans at a 1930s function? Would he have sucked up to them by making New Zealand a champion of some of the things Germans liked in those days? Like genocide, euthanasia of the mentally ill etc?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Patrick Starr – I lost the election? Your dart would sting, had I stood. Nevertheless, I take your point – I’m not very ‘convincing’. Doesn’t mean I’m wrong of course
Vote:mickysavage – the opportunity for leading has been lost now. We should still act positively and with honour to do all we can. Sadly, the NActional government will be a serious impediment to that kind of behaviour, in the short term.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
The ETS is a crock of poop and should be scrapped immediately.
Maharey is just another failed Labour MP feathering his own nest at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer. It is more than safe to ignore his opinions.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Poor Greenfly, for a few fleeting months he believed that polls, he becomes dizzy at the prospect of a Labour Green government.
What a shock it must have been for him to find out that very few shared his fucked view of the world.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Greenfly:
You know, Greenfly, what’s curious is that you don’t recognise lighthearted banter when you see it. Unlike you, I don’t take everything Rex says at face value
And, since you insist on labelling me as lazy, what could be more lazy than this deadly rebuttal:
I’m intrigued that you can say “Sadly, the NActional government will be a serious impediment to that kind of behaviour, in the short term”, and yet say nothing about the Labour-led government’s abysmal record in nine years of office – surely medium-term on any sensible definition. In my view, that was actually the main point of DPF’s post, and the fact that you see that as first “idiotic”, and then later “stupid”, leads me to question your reading comprehension level.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Big Bruv:
You reckon Greenfly is one of the lonely few who visit Philu’s blog for his (in)famous predictions?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Greenfly, Pete: since neither of you appear to have even the faintest connection with or understanding of science, let alone the enormous complexities of understanding climate, I suggest your shelve the insults and go away and better yourselves.
Failing that, you could perhaps go away instead and study the economics of climate mitigation with special reference to appropriate discount rates and sensitivity to them. Let us know when you have figured out your conclusions.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
bruv – I never ‘believed that (sic) polls’ and the prospect of a Labour Green government stirred me not at all, nor am I shocked by the numbers of people who share my world view, fucked or otherwise. I admire your forthrightness though am dissapointed by your lack of depth. Your blunt extrapolating could have been done by a chimp.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Mickysavage, a pure coincidence that Maharey is VC of Massey and most likely wants funding for carbon reduction rumination research?
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The only climate Maharey should be worried about is the one that will surely change at Massey when they realise he is a useless and morally corrupt administrator. I give him two years there MAX.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Nomestradamus – reading comprehension level? Consider yours – I replied to Mr Farrar, saying mine was not a rebuttal (check it out FSB) and far from insisting that you are lazy, I merely pointed out that you claimed that you were guilty of laziness – “I realise quoting Wikipedia is lazy research, but here goes” remember? They are minor points, but they point to a lack in your own reading comprehension (since you mentioned it).
Vote:Alan – I’m not arguing the science, I’m concerned with personal and political responses to climate change. Out of interest, do you have significant knowledge of the ‘enormous complexities of understanding climate’ or do you too need to ‘go away and better yourself’? Just interested.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Greenfly
Cheer up old chap, now that the climate change myth been exposed as a total con job you guys have hours of endless fun creating the next crisis that can only be saved by communism/socialism.
I will even offer a bit of advice as you are obviously a spotty faced school kid who is struggling with his sexuality…………
…. (and by the way, in today world it is OK to be fat, spotty, gay and live in the Waiarapa, although I am not sure how you will live down a Christian name like James but not everything in life is easy)
Don’t bother coming up with things like SARS, Bird Flu, Y2K, or the like, all of those have been tried and failed dismally, I suppose you could always do something radical like actually campaign on your true intentions but as we all know that people seem to have a rather intense dislike of communism.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Nomes
“You reckon Greenfly is one of the lonely few who visit Philu’s blog for his (in)famous predictions? ”
He may well, although I did note when I popped over the other day that nobody has left a comment on Phools blog for well over a month.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Greenfly, you weren’t arguing anything, you were just stupidly insulting people.
And yes, I have a PhD in physical organic chemistry and enough statistics to understand some of the critiques people like Steve McIntyre justly make of the nonsense often published under the banner of climate science.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
If the model used by the CC/AGW supporters is accurate they will have no difficulty in using it to demonstrate that the last bout of global warming had the same origins as todays and then explain were the evidence of mans carbon emmissions at that time sic 12000 years ago is. Perhaps the answer lies in the output of the sun/longer term weather patterns we know little of or other events we have yet to consider – the most important thing is to adapt and today is the time to start planning the adaptations necessary and what climate changes will rerquire us to implement those plans. Perhaps CC/AGW is more about control through fear – religion/wars/diseases have already been used but no longer credible with economic instability the current tool which will probably follow with CC/AGW the next tool being readied.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Alan – is Organic Chemistry a branch of Climatology? True, I wasn’t ‘arguing anything’ I owned to that right away. ‘Stupidly’ insulting people, as you wrote, is a classic, but can you see it. I only insulted Mr Farrar. He deserved to be called for his stupid collection of comments. I’m in awe of your PhD. I’ve taught sciences to people in your position (he says enigmatically but honestly). Bruv – like you, I visit Phil U’s blog. I’d visit yours if you posted snippets of interest they way he does. Btw – I’m neither spotty nor fat, gay, nor glum, domiciled in the Wairarapa nor struggling with anything beyond the desire to laugh at your off beam assumptions, but thanks for the laugh!
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Your blunt extrapolating could have been done by a chimp.”
Big Bruv, you are now qualified to join the IPCC
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
greenfly
No problems James….BTW..stay off the road, there’s a good lad.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Patrick
I must decline your most generous offer, first of all I have no bloody idea what the IPCC is and secondly I have no desire at all to belong to an organisation that wants me as a member.
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Patrick Starr – the IPCC is peopled by ‘chimps’? Your credibility just soared to the rarified heights occupied by your big bruvver! And himself – you drive erratically? I’m feeling a little nervous for wee James!
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Patrick – bruv is joking…isn’t he??? IPCC please!!!
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I don’t know, I’m sure the Independent Police Complaints Commission would be all the better for his input
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
you obviously took that the wrong way, or are as cynical as I am with this climate change b/s
Vote:December 30th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
So Stevie had dinner with a climate change consultant who blew smoke up his ass all night on the off chance he’d get some lucrative government consulting out of the hillbilly (and yes, being based in Palmy DOES class as a derivative of hillbilly).
Some one needs to take Steve up to the top of the hill and show him that the “beacon on the hill” is actually a neon advertising light – ‘soft touch socialist f__ktards be here’
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 12:51 am
Greenfly is just another leftie REMF (rear end mother fucker) – an NCO called into battle when the cause is looking bad, to shore up the troops in the front. Army AGW is looking unstable and they need propaganda from division to keep the troops focused and ready to keep up the fight.
However, Army Denialist is staedily gaining ground and soon Operational HQ with Labour Prime Ministers led un-ably by Herr Gore will be over-run by the truth. Cooling will soon be the victor in the battle.
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 7:24 am
Gee all I hope you are right. Otherwise the planet is stuffed.
How do you all feel that National now acknowledges that climate change is a fact and its proposals to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2050? And even though it has been subversively undermining everything the last Government did it still is talking about the need to take action against climate change.
It has changed its mind, hasn’t it. When will you?
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 7:47 am
skyblue – this is a battle? Yours is an army? You have a General called ‘Hide’ (not a very staunch name for a fightin’ man, is it!) ? Are you the ‘Yellow Backs’ then?
Vote:If you believe ‘cooling’ will be the victor, you must believe there is an issue with warming presently, and you are correct. The mistake you are making is that you are turning your ‘fire power’ onto the fire fighters, rather than the fire.
btw – I haven’t been called up. I happened to read Mr Farrar’s idiotic post and wanted to give him some unsullied feed back.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:34 am
Mickey numbnuts.
“even though it has been subversively undermining everything the last Government did” – What a f____g LOL moment.
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am
Expat the current “government” has:
1. Reversed the thermal station ban.
2. Repealed the Biofuels requirement and destroyed a perfectly good company in the process.
3. Reversed the incandescent bulb standard on the deeply thought through and thoroughly intellectual basis that it was “nanny state”.
4. Stopped the ETS and is in the process of replacing it with … I am not sure. I have counted 4 different positions in the past month. I expect they will say it is too hard and do nothing eventually.
Each policy had long term implications beneficial for our need to reduce carbon. The nats could have left them in place as they thought out what their policy actually was. Instead they have stopped the major policy planks and left nothing in their place.
This is deeply cynical. If they do not believe in climate change they should be honest and just say so. If they do believe in climate change then they should not be acting the way they are.
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Mickey Savage: “1. Reversed the thermal station ban.”
Mickey, the ban was total hypocrisy in the first place. On one hand, the Labour government was happy to get greeny points for banning coal generation here. On the other hand, they were happy to export vast quantities of our coal for China and Japan to burn. If they were truly principled they would have locked up the coal completely, keeping its C02 buried forever. Considering that China was building one coal powered generator a week, building another coal powered generator or two here was inconsequential even if AGW is a fact.
Mickey Savage: “2. Repealed the Biofuels requirement and destroyed a perfectly good company in the process.”
Mickey, biofuel is the greatest con to next to the Kyoto Protocol at the moment. Generating biofuel is resulting in the starvation of many of the worlds poor as they cannot afford their staple food crops anymore because the land is being used for biofuel crops. Also, many of the world’s forests are being sacrificed for biofuel, making the situation worse not better from an AGW perspective.
Mickey Savage: “3. Reversed the incandescent bulb standard on the deeply thought through and thoroughly intellectual basis that it was “nanny state”.”
Mickey, I have no problem with eco bulbs being promoted on their benefits. It is the compulsion that many detest. My experience with them is that they are not suitable for many situations, given that they take considerable time to gain full brightness. Also, there are bulbs in my house for which there are no eco replacements, meaning a major refit for me if I am to light up certain rooms in my house.
Mickey Savage: “4. Stopped the ETS and is in the process of replacing it with … I am not sure. I have counted 4 different positions in the past month. I expect they will say it is too hard and do nothing eventually.”
The Kyoto Protocol is deeply flawed and unfair. For instance, if a tree is chopped down, from a carbon trading perspective, it is considered that the full amount of carbon from the tree has been released into the atmosphere. In reality, this is seldom the case. Usually the wood is used for other purposes that keep the carbon locked up. E.g. furniture, house framing etc.
Vote:Even if AGW is true, it is recognised that the Kyoto Protocol will have virtually no effect on world temperatures anyway.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
I’m glad that you still haven’t quite accepted that labor are not in ‘government’. It brings a twinkle of joy to my eyes.
Anyway – the orginal point is that Stevie is also in denial.
Perhaps you could form a support network.
Vote:December 31st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Was that Mahrey’s last gasp? Isee that he now has his useless gong which may well impress some German at dinner.
Vote:Gongs that are a pile of rubish. If the Most Magnificent One Peg leg Wilson ex opeaker of the House can get one for imposing her apalling view onf the world upon us and silent Clem can get one .clearly the political patronage of gongs eeds an urgent revise.
The whole deal looks like a swan song of the Liarbours with only the top dogs being left off. No gongs for Williams, Cullen, Hellen ,Mallard and that’s the way it should remain.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:25 am
This sums up my views on climate change quite nicely.
Vote:
December 31st, 2008 at 10:36 am
Former Labour Cabinet high flyer and now Massey University Vice-Chancellor, Steve Maharey, is made a companion of the order.
His previous colleague Dame Margaret Wilson former Speaker of the House is also made a companion of the order.
In my view these tow peoplle did not deserve the Order. They were both a disgrace to Parliament
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Pete,
You challenge my integrity rather than my arguments. Please tell me which of those statements are clearly wrong?
Re: the meterorologists vs climate scientists debate. Such titles are often bestowed by others or may just reflect the name of the institution one works in.
Vote:However, in my recent experience meteorologists tend to hold the present “climate scientists” in some measure of disrepute because they are typically people who spend their time creating and running computer models of the climate out into a future sufficiently distant that no one will be around the check their claims.
Meterologists tend to focus on observations and measurements and are proud of the fact that they work in the field rather than behind an office desk.
I have a leading meterologist discuss the effects of ocean currents in establishing ocean temperatures which have a massive effect on long term cycles. He was somewhat cynical about the fact that the IPCC models do not include these currents but they don’t include clouds either.
Climate science is probably the archetype multi disciplinary study. The inputs to their models include demographics and economics because of course the number of people and their activities generate the final scenarios if you accept their proposition that human activity now drives the climate to a significant extent.
Yet they chose to use market determined exchange rates rather than PPP – a most basic error. But of course it tended to give more extreme results. Statisticians, paleontologists, geologists, chemists, biochemists, modelling experts, economists, demographers, earth scientists, soil scientists, meteorologists, solar scientists, astronomers, astro-physicists and others all have something to contribute to this debate. To suggest one should listen only to someone who calls himself or herself a “climate scientist” is like saying that when considerting political issues one should listen only to “political scientists”.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
The Telegraph reports some good reasons for being a climate skeptic.
“Global warming: Reasons why it might not actually exist
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved, according to the Telegraph’s Christopher Booker. Sceptics have long argued that there are other explanations for climate change other than man-made CO2 and here we look at some of the arguments put forward by those who believe that global warming is all a hoax.
1. Temperatures are falling, not rising
As Christopher Booker says in his review of 2008, temperatures have been dropping in a wholly unpredicted way over the past year. Last winter, the northern hemisphere saw its greatest snow cover since 1966, which in the northern US states and Canada was dubbed the “winter from hell”. This winter looks set to be even worse.
2. The earth was hotter 1,000 years ago
Evidence from all over the world indicates that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. Research shows that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.
3. The earth’s surface temperature is not at record levels
According to Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis of surface air temperature measurements, the meteorological December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Their data has also shown that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.
4. Ice is not disappearing
Arctic website Crysophere Today reported that Arctic ice volume was 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. Additionally, Antarctic sea-ice this year reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. Polar bear numbers are also at record levels.
5. Himalayan glaciers
A report by the UN Environment Program this year claimed that the cause of melting glaciers in the Himalayas was not global warming but the local warming effect of a vast “atmospheric brown cloud” over that region, made up of soot particles from Asia’s dramatically increased burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.
6. Temperatures are still dropping
Nasa satellite readings on global temperatures from the University of Alabama show that August was the fourth month this year when temperatures fell below their 30-year average, ie since satellite records began. November 2008 in the USA was only the 39th warmest since records began 113 years ago.”
So what is the panic? Well, I would be panicking more about the prospect of cooling than of warming. Past warmer periods have been benign. It was the Little Ice Age that caused so much suffering. It even stopped the Polynesian migrations!
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
The most obvious one is the co2/temperature correlation. Either you know why co2 lags temperature pre-anthropocene, in which case your argument is dishonest, or you don’t, in which case you’re uninformed. Given how long you’ve been following AGW, I have to assume the former.
(For those watching at home, co2 works as a positive feedback for temperature. Higher/lower temperature -> more/less co2 -> higher/lower temperature. Before the industrial revolution, temperature changes (e.g. from orbital variations) would come first, so co2 increases would come after temperature increases.)
If you hang out with denialists, you’re going to hear denialist views. Climate scientists tend to hold (a small subset of) meteorologists in disrepute, because they have a habit of talking outside their expertise, while relying on the public’s confusion of meteorology and climatology.
I never said we should “only” listen to certain scientists. I said we should give more weight to scientists that are actually producing climate science (whatever other fields they are nominally part of).
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
1. Unpredicted? Given a La Nina event and extended solar minimum, no one was surprised that 2008 was a little colder. Scientists predicted that these sort of short-term effects were likely to mask the long-term warming trend. You should know this, because the denialists were gleefully misrepresenting that paper all of last year.
2. I’m not sure what research he’s referring to, but if it’s M&M then their work has been thoroughly discredited.
3. See 1; the 30′s saw hot temperatures in North America, not globally.
4. See 1, we’d expect more ice in a cold year. Models predict cooling in Antarctica (it’s global warming, not local warming).
5. Climate scientists aren’t denying that other forms of pollution cause environmental problems.
6. Again, see 1.
Of course you have me at a disadvantage here — it only takes a few minutes to throw up a spurious argument; but it takes a lot longer to find out what the science actually says.
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
2. I’m not sure what research he’s referring to, but if it’s M&M then their work has been thoroughly discredited.
Not at all. Mann has attempted to resurrect his hockey stick and McIntyre has a comment accepted for publication that demolishes it again. Extensive analysis on Climate Audit of Mann’s statistics continues to show the data does not support Mann’s conclusions, that in fact the conclusions came first and the data selection and treatment followed accordingly.
Noteworthily, Mann refuses to cooperate in allowing his work to be checked. That of course is not science but merely politics in disguise.
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I was under the impression that that comment hadn’t been published yet. If you already have a copy I’d like to see it.
Given the standard of their previous work, I’m not expecting much.
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Pete, either you are totally clueless or totally dishonest. M&M discredited, bullshit, And this “Given the standard of their previous work, I’m not expecting much.” only shows that you are in fact not familiar with their work or have only read the self serving and dishonest treatment of it as espoused at “Realclimate”.
Michael Mann’s work has been shown for what it was, a piece of scientific fraud writ large. Have you ever actually considered the science behind Mann’s work ? If not, let me inform you, Mann claimed his results were robust to the removal of individual proxies, whereas he knew perfectly well that without the Bristlecone Pine proxies, his conclusions were without merit. He knew this because he accidentally published an analysis of his work absent those proxies (as the “Censored Directory” on the website that some of the data was stored on), and the result was radically different. Fraud. Mann’s code (assuming he has released the correct version, it cannot be made to run, but he does claim it is the right code) calculates the r2 statistic for every step in his work. He published some of those results (for the 1815 step for example) where the result is positive. He did not publish the result for the 14th century step, a result we know to be approximately zero (0.018, verified by Mann supporters, Wahl & Amman, in their 2005 paper), showing those results are without significance, although he claimed they were in fact significant. To claim significance while suppressing evidence that they were not: Fraud. This leaves out the entirely justified criticism that Mann’s statistical methods are inappropriate (incompetent is also a valid description), that other parts of his key data, the Gaspe Cedars, were also doctored as used in his work, and that he still today refuses to explain how he calculated his confidence intervals.
Mann has now published anew, using much the same data, I wonder why he doesn’t use the now available (to him anyway, suppressed to the hoi-polloi under “legal advice”) update to the Bristlecone Pine data produced by Linah Ababneh as a doctoral thesis. Could it be that by more appropriate sampling and by not focusing on strip-bark samples that the update fails to show the “hockey-stick” shape and hence would tend to show the fatal flaws in his earlier work ? Surely not, these “climate scientists” would always use the best and most current data, wouldn’t they ? They wouldn’t use data originally collected and analysed to show that the growth spurt in the bristlecones was due to CO2 fertilization purely because it gave the “right” answer, would they ?
Pete, rather than dismiss the criticisms, why not see if they are correct ? What IS the correlation of the bristlecone pine proxies to local temperature ? Did Mann’s code calculate r2, do Wahl & Amman agree that the 14th century r2 is effectively zero ?, and then ask yourself, if you know that your calculations don’t support your conclusions, is it ethical to publish claiming that they do, and then to avoid publishing your methods, code, and data, and to actively try to prevent anyone finding out the same ? Is it ?
Ultimately, paleoclimatology is a “science” without as yet useful answers in any detail. We can tell that temperatures were high and low in the past at a fairly gross level. For example in medieval times the tree-line in Finland and Sweden was several hundred kilometres further North than it is now, and in the depths of the “little ice-age” some 200 or so years ago temperatures seem to have been significantly lower, but putting quantitative numbers on these changes is still very difficult. All the major proxy types, from tree width or density measurements, speleotherm or glacial dO18, and lake sediments, have significant confounding factorsd that cannot be adequately assessed at present. I suggest we can’t take any conclusions about the current climate and whether it is in any way unusual seriously until the degree of knowledge is improved.
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Ed, you accuse me of only reading Real Climate, then dump a comment here that seems to be a 50/50 mixture of Climate Audit talking points and noisy invective. For example:
If you were familiar with the work, you’d know that that question is irrelevant — MBH doesn’t assume proxies are correlated with LOCAL temperatures. Bristle cones are correlated with local precipitation, local precipitation is correlated with ENSO, ENSO is correlated with global temperatures.
Vote:January 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Correlation coefficients of the order mentioned are a pitiful joke and in any real branch of science would indicate that the paper wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.
Vote:January 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Oh Pete, what misdirection. I am very familiar with the work, and believe me, if Mann wanted to prove a teleconnection for the Bristlecones, then he should offer some proof. Teleconnections can exists and indeed of broadly the form that you suggest, however in his paper(s) he does none of that. You are in fact correct that the ring widths of the strip-bark variants used by Mann do show a better (but still not all that high) correlation with local precipitation than temperature, but the link between local precipitation and temperature for even a defined section of the globe like, say, the NW Pacific, is totally absent. ENSO has NOT been shown to correlate with global temperatures, sorry. Anyway, Mann made no such arguement about ENSO, subsequent attempts to make some such link is clutching at straws.
And, if you wish to make that arguement, why then do Linah Abanneh’s results show a completely different pattern, with no massive increases in ring widths ? The simplest solution is that the original samples, collected by Graybill and Idso, heavily over-represented strip-bark specimens, and for probably simply bio-mechanical reasons, the strip-bark section of such trees grows faster than non-strip-bark trees. Recall too that Graybill & Idso used these specimens to conclude that the additional growth was due to CO2 fertilization.
Nope, Bristlecones, at least in the form of the original G&I samples, are not valid temperature proxies until demonstrated properly to be so; and they haven’t.
I make two main charges against Mann, that he misrepresented his data by falsely alleging that they were robust against variations in his proxy roster when it is clear that they weren’t, and second, that he calculated verification statistics for his early results that showed that they were without statistical merit. Even with his argument that he didn’t need r2 and that RE was sufficient (trivially untrue as there are papers going back to 1928 at least demonstrating high RE results for spurious correlations), having calculated the statistic and derived the result, he cannot publish a conclusion contrary to those results without practising scientific fraud. I notice that you disputed neither point, but merely accused me of “dump a comment here that seems to be a 50/50 mixture of Climate Audit talking points and noisy invective.” Ad hom attacks merely show a lack of substance, thanks.
If you wish to rely upon Mann’s results in any form, you will need to refute both points, and since these are part of the public record, good luck to you.
Vote:January 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
wtf? Of course ENSO is correlated with global temperatures.
One of the strengths of the method is that you don’t need to know how any of the links work; you just link proxies to temperature variations according to any correlations. MBH98 specifically point out that their method allows for teleconnections.
That’s what happens when you dump a couple of pages worth of “points”. I just chose the most obviously wrong one.
It’s only you Climate Audit types who are so fixated on Mann. He’s not the only climate scientist in the world. I’m relying on a lot more than just his work.
Vote: