To “fisk” and to “monckton”

Fisking is “the practice of savaging an argument and scattering the tattered remnants to the four corners of the internet (named after Robert Fisk of The Independent)” who was a victim. A verbal equivalent of the process was demonstrated last night by Christopher Monckton.

Perhaps the debate should move on to address the problem of extricating ourselves from the impending wave of wasteful and counterproductive regulation. And the question of how the warming lobby and Greens managed to inflate a possible temperature increase of a degree or two over the next century into the greatest moral challenge to humankind. And the way the increase in CO2 is described as pollution when it will tend to green the planet and increase our production of food. Etc.

Moderator (KP) – We do not exercise any pre-publication editorial control here at Troppo.  We trust our authors to exercise sound judgment in what they publish.  Rafe clearly has not exercised sound judgment here.  Troppo aims to publish thoughtful and even challenging articles which make a contribution to public policy debate and analysis.  In my view at least, Rafe’s post (and one or two others from him in recent times) is simply an exercise in regurgitating right wing slogans and makes no constructive contribution to public debate.  Mind you, some of the comments it has generated (e.g. JamesH at #20 and DD at #29) have been really interesting, so maybe there can be some value in occcasional blatant provocation!

I was initially minded simply to withdraw Rafe’s automatic authoring access at Troppo.  However, Rafe is a veteran blogger and almost an icon of the blogosphere.  At the very least he’s an amiable eccentric who doesn’t do any harm because no-one who reads Troppo is likely to take this sort of material remotely seriously anyway.  It may even give you an outlet for a bit of therapeutic spleen-venting!

Our current intention (although Nicholas Gruen isn’t presently in contact) is to leave this post up and continue Rafe’s authoring access but make it clear that we reserve the right to remove any future post that is as lacking in intellectual content as this one.  As Geoff Honnor observes in the comment box to this post, Troppo is an exception to the increasing tendency of the blogosphere to retreat into tribal cyber-enclosures and conduct conversations only with ideologically like-minded.  We want to publish opinion and analysis from diverse viewpoints, but it should be worth reading for its intellectual content not just its amateur shockjock qualities.

RC reply

The only hope for the future lies with civil discourse across party lines. As a centre-left blog I thought Troppo was in that business, like Catallaxy on the centre-nonleft. It this post is not regarded by the management as a reasonable contribution  to that dialogue I do not want to have posting rights on the site. I would not want to post on Lavertus for example. I may want to contribute comments however that is in the balance given the tone of rejoinders to this post.

The ALP will most likely crash and burn on the Green agenda, including the climate change strategies. People of good will of all parties will not rejoice at this spectacle

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

678 Responses to To “fisk” and to “monckton”

  1. Tim Lambert says:

    What Monckton did already has a name: The Gish Gallop.

    Here’s a challenge for you Rafe: pick out what you think is Monckton’s strongest argument that temperature increase could only be a degree or two and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it.

  2. Rafe says:

    Dateline Tel Aviv 20/07/2011 at 20.30

    You choose Tim.

    BTW are you in favour of (1) mining and exporting uranium (b) storing the nuclear wastes of the world (3) developing domestic nuclear power?

  3. Dallas Beaufort says:

    The Green Labor fear monger Denniss was in full swing and hopelessly lost the complete show as he could not step on to the front foot where retreating to fear and loathing at the first opportunity nearly dragged out the black can and the Children’s, children’s, children’s sob awards and motioned towards nationalism in his squirming defence of the lefts man made global warming CO2 tax scam horah cry for me weeping willow portrait.

  4. hc says:

    I wonder why Club Troppo publishes this. There are sites where this nonsense is welcome. Roughly we need to cut our global per capita emissions by more than 50% on average over the next 40 years to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees c. That’s a tough target and even hitting it does not avoid damage risks.

    Which climate scientist anywhere denies the role of co2 in the carbon cycle? Again why publish this? Is it more of the ‘both sides need to be heard’ media balance myth? Any claim should get an airing?

    Holocaust denial? Vaccines cause autism? Secondary tobacco smoke harmless?

  5. Rafe says:

    Would you like to have me branded as well hc?

    Given that most if not all of the other major industrial powers are not doing anything serious about cutting emissions why do we have to embark on this fantastic exercise?

    What damage are you predicting from a 2 or even 3 degree increase?

    You may not be interested in the other side of the story but people who are interested can get more background here http://joannenova.com.au/

    You might like to answer the same questions that I asked Tim. Are you in favour of (1) mining and exporting uranium (b) storing the nuclear wastes of the world (3) developing domestic nuclear power?

    The reason I ask these question is to assess the extent to which you are scientifically literate and also genuinely concerned about “clean” power.

  6. Paul Montgomery says:

    I, too, wonder where the centrist tension of the Club was in this post.

  7. Mr Denmore says:

    When did Club Troppo become a home for nut jobs?

  8. Tim says:

    Rafe gave the game away in his answer to Tim Lambert. He’s got nothing.

  9. hrgh says:

    I’m confused as to why Club Troppo is willing to misrepresent science and publish such nonsense. Why give legitimacy to post-logic denialism?

  10. Richard Tsukamasa Green says:

    There is not editing on Troppo, the normal reliance is the expectation that a member has some standards of attempting to make a decent argument and that flaws can be be respectfully pointed out by comments and aknowledged in civil debate by the poster.

    There was no expectation that a member would try to use the reputation of the site to legitimise material that has been extensively published on sites that have subsequently lost respectability outside a narrow and tribalistic intellectual niche.

    Here we have a tragedy of the commons. Previously the common good – a high average standard on the site that drew recurring readers – was maintained though norms. A rogue operator can make a desert of the garden that everyone else has tended.

    I also suspect that, like his previous nuclear power post, rafe has neither the ability nor the inclination to debate with anything except evasion, rhetoric and contextless linking. It his prerogative to do this elsewhere, but it is our responsibility to maintain basic Troppo standard.

  11. rog says:

    Rafe has already admitted his ignorance on nuclear power yet claims to be able to assess scientific literacy presumably relying on the Jo Novas of the world.

  12. Ken Parish says:

    I agree with Richard. As Richard explained, we don’t exercise any organised editorial control in advance of post publication. We simply trust authors to act responsibly in the material we each choose to publish. I will email Nicholas and Don and discuss this question. My own view is that Rafe has so abused the hospitality of Troppo by this disgraceful post that his authoring access should be removed. Of course more thoughtless righties will probably scream censorship, but so be it.

  13. chris dodds says:

    I have read troppo or many years and enjoyed having my views challenged by articulate and thoughtful people. debate and differing views are important but a line must be drawn in an age of information overload. As of today I am deleting by clubtroppo bookmark on the basis that a site that allows a lead like Rafe’s is not worthy of reading I will miss many of the other s but as I said one must draw a line.

  14. Phil says:

    Catallaxy would be a far more appropriate venue for this nonsense than here.

  15. Incurious and Unread says:

    Oh dear. What a pathetic post.

    A more interesting topic might be why an intelligent person would want to publicly associate himself with a clown like Monckton.

  16. wizofaus says:

    Ooh, so the line of argument now goes:

    There is no warming. Even if it, it’s not because of us. Even if it’s because of us, it’s hardly any. Even if there’s a bit more, it won’t cause any problems. Even if there are problems, new taxes and regulations won’t work to fix them. And now…even they don’t work new taxes and regulations are Bad Things (TM) anyway, therefore we should go back to “There is no warming”.

    Rafe do you even hear yourself?

  17. Liam says:

    IT’S A PILE ON WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE POOR ANTI-WARMENISTS

  18. Emma in Sydney says:

    So Club Troppo finally jumps the shark. For Monckton, of all people, a liar, fantasist and fraud. Sad, really.

  19. Paul Montgomery says:

    I don’t think the choice of subject is itself egregious, as it’s very timely, but the utter laziness is. On a high quality blog with excellent recent examples of thoughtful essays like the McMansion one and the China one, 125 words of frippery is unacceptable.

    Perhaps Rafe could be allowed to resubmit. This may give the impression that you’re treating him like a scruffy undergraduate, but this contribution doesn’t even meet the standards of a first-year layabout.

  20. JamesH says:

    Rafe,
    I’d have you branded, but something tells me that getting to wave your branded buttocks about in public shouting “look what the climate police did to me!” would just turn you on.

    I take it “Major Industrial Powers” for you excludes China, the UK, the EU, and the US, all of whom are doing serious things about cutting emissions. The US’ efforts keep getting hamstrung by the republicans, but that is hardly the US government’s fault.

    All current predictions for business-as-usual emissions are for temperature increases of 3-5 degrees over the next century. For Australia that would mean that once-in-a-hundred-year events (like the recent massive victorian bushfires, for example, which happened on a day which hit 46 degrees) would become something like once-in-ten-year events, record temperatures would top 50 degrees (current record is 47 or so), a permanent 20-30% decline in water availability in the murray darling and other agricultural areas, and irreversible bleaching of the great barrier reef.

    In answer to your questions about nuclear power, anticipating you will just froth at the mouth if I don’t answer: 1) Yes, if uranium is subject to the MRRT or equivalent, the recipients have signed the non-proliferation treaty and are using generation 3 or better reactors and aren’t building them on top of a geological faultline 2) Yes, if there’s a traditional owner group that is willing to have the repository on their land and it’s a genuine deep-burial site a la sweden, as opposed to a 2 metre ditch dug with a backhoe as the last plan was 3) no, we have plenty of more cost-effective energy sources and lack the expertise and infrastructure to build reactors everywhere, export it to places which don’t have our alternatives instead.

    This is a curious test of scientific literacy by the way; most tests of such a concept would ask about understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, understanding of the peer review process, and whether people offering universal panaceas, faked cvs, and munchausen-like accounts of their own ability should be trusted, all of which Monckton fails. If you want an actual analysis of his arguments, check out Skeptical Science’s “Monckton Myths” page: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm

    If you’re really convinced that all greenies hate nuclear power I suggest you head over to Brave New Climate, your head will explode as your paradigm shifts without a clutch.

  21. Geoff Honnor says:

    I don’t think ‘banning’ anyone is warranted. As Paul points out, Rafe’s contribution is more of a daubed slogan than a blog post and I think it’s a tad hysterical to assume that Troppo’s credibility is shot forever because Rafe has decided to take up graffiti art later in life.

    If Rafe doesn’t choose to expand on his thoughts, you do have the option of cleaning the art off but I’d take a chill pill and a moment to reflect before consigning Rafe to the outer Troopo darkness forever.

    The best counter to views you don’t like is to offer your own as an alternative. Increasingly the Australian blogosphere seems to operate on the basis that like-minded folk huddle together excoriating views different to their own and expelling those that think differently.

    It’s an affliction that this blog has never suffered from and I’d think carefully before changing that. The Rees-Mogg injunction about breaking a butterfly on a wheel comes to mind.

  22. KB Keynes says:

    Rafe probably forgot this was for Troppo and thought this was just another bit for Catallaxy.

    Ken I think you are being a tad harsh as this is the first time it has happened.

    It is better he is put on a warning.

    No Catallaxy type pieces here. Mind you after his previous fiasco on nuclear power I thought he may have realised there is a significant difference between the two sites.

  23. wizofaus says:

    I assume by banning Ken means his posts would no longer be automatically accepted – he would have to submit via the guest posting mechanism. It may be a bit much for one offence, but if it’s the consensus of the other Troppo editors I can’t imagine too many objections.
    And Geoff it’s not the view we don’t like – it’s the quality of the posting.

  24. John Quiggin says:

    Note Rafe’s own demonstration of the Gish Gallop in #2

  25. Patrick says:

    If this post is so far beneath you all why have you all commented on it? Where the other recent posts (on which hardly any of you have commented) too far above you?

    I agree that it seems like a pointless and silly post, but so what? Ignore it if that’s what you think (which is what I was going to do until I saw the 24 comments and wondered what I was missing – answer: not much!).

  26. wizofaus says:

    If it were any other blog Patrick I would have ignored it. But I expect better of troppo.

  27. hrgh says:

    Patrick @25

    The reading community are enforcing quality control with the best means available to them.

    That needs explaining?

  28. Tim Macknay says:

    Rafe, you seem like a generally pretty smart and interesting guy. It’s a bit unfortunate you seem to have fallen into the predictable Libertarian trap of reflexive climate change denial.

    Here’s a tip Rafe – why not try reading some of the actual scientific literature on global warming, rather than just the opinions of people like Monckton and Nova? You could even try starting with the IPCC AR4 report. You might be surprised at how well referenced it is. Sometimes it’s a good idea to challenge your own prejudices, rather than indulging them.

  29. derrida derider says:

    You know there is indeed a genuine debate to be had on the best tactics for Australia to promote global emission cuts (for a thoughtful, if IMO ultimately wrong, criticism of Australian action on carbon pricing see here). And it’s not silly, though again IMO ultimately wrong, to argue that the freeriding problems are so severe that we’ll never get effective global agreement so we should be focusing on amelioration rather than prevention (a counsel of despair).

    But parroting Monckton’s crude falsehoods is just silly. Note the successive lines of retreat are palpable: “it’s not happening”, “it’s happening but nothing to do with us”, and now “it’s happening, our fault but no big deal” The next stage will be “it’s happening, our fault, a big deal but its now too late to do anything”, followed eventually by “it’s happened and it was all the fault of them stinking hippy commos”.

    Note too the underlying logic:
    If AGW is real, government action is a solution
    Government action is never a solution
    Therefore AGW is not real.
    QED

    Rafe and his tribe prefer to deny all evidence of the falsity of the conclusion rather than abandon the second premise. If there was a way of abandoning the first (ie some vaguely plausible mechanism by which the market miraculously takes the social cost of CO2 emissions into account without any intervention) they’d cease to be AGW deniers overnight.

  30. wizofaus says:

    dd – thanks for expressing what I was attempting to in my first post with a good deal more clarity and proof-reading! FWIW, I actually think we could restructure our economies to better account for environmental externalities such as climate change while simultaneously reducing the overall level of government intervention/tax imposition on the economy (which is not to say I believe there’s anything like the imperative to achieve this that many right-wingers do – but I don’t want to see either increased hugely either). Further, it should be painfully obvious that if we do nothing now, FAR MORE draconian measures are likely to end being imposed in another decade or two.

  31. Paul Montgomery says:

    Patrick @25: Indeed yes, many other Troppo posts are beyond my ability to contribute useful comments. That is not to imply I have not enjoyed them, quite the contrary. You’re right to point out that respectful silence is not useful on a blog.

  32. Thomas the Tout says:

    I must have missed something. Has the site cut out something from Rafe’s post? Or is it that Rafe puts 8 lines on the blog, and many people get their knickers in a twist? Nothing rude; nor personally offensive; nor immoral, that I can see.
    I see it as Rafe asking a question; and a good one at that.What type of bureaucracy is about to be thrust upon us? It will measure CO2; it will impose a tax, and then redistribute it.
    Will it do any good?
    What are we doing to get ready for global warming (because our tax alone will not stop it). Sea-walls? Dykes? Coastal building control? New fodder and cereal crops? Farm adjustment? New fishing techniques? Better cooling systems for buildings? Fission reactors? Better trains? etc etc.
    Seems to me that the government has split society into two waring camps; and I think those in favour of the tax are a very intolerant and myopic lot.

  33. Next week, Rafe will fill us in on dark matter.

  34. hrgh says:

    Thomas the Tout @ 32

    In fact, what the bureaucracy will do is impose a consumption/sin tax, compensate households to ameliorate the regressive nature of the consumption tax, then use the additional revenue to fund carbon reducing actions that are required because the carbon price is not / was never going to be high enough.

    Quite smart really.

  35. Fyodor says:

    Hehstorm!

    The Don should link to this in the tabloid edition of Missing Link.

    “Almost-an-Icon-of-the-Teh-Blogosphere too Partisan for Pony Club Shock!”

  36. Nabakov says:

    What Geoff and M. Fyodor said.

    I for one welcome any post that generates a nice long steaming comments thread, even if it is by Rafe, the reasonably well off man’s John Ray.

    Actually I always thought “moncktoning” meant bullshitting about your position and achievements and then trying to pass it off as a joke when caught out.

  37. cbp says:

    @Thomas the Tout

    I must have missed something.

    I see it as Rafe asking a question

    Yes, you must have missed something.

    Rafe’s comment is simply a troll. The rhetorical question you somehow read into the post was absent, but even it was there, would be of no interest to the majority of Club Troppo’s readership.

    If you or Rafe wants to have a reasonable discussion about ‘sea-walls’ and ‘coastal building control’, by all means, go ahead. But most of us have long since tired of the ‘plant food’ nonsense.

    And ‘a degree or two over the next century’ is out by more factors than Rafe’s post had sentences.

  38. Tim Lambert says:

    Rafe, you invited me to choose, so I choose Monckton’s strongest argument on climate sensitivity — watch the video here. You can find my on nuclear power on my blog.

  39. I, for one, do not see value in having Rafe spread the same content that he posts to much applause at Catallaxy at this blog.

  40. Sally says:

    Graeme M Bird admires Rafe. Graeme’s smarter. Rafe lacks his intellectual curiosity and is more bilious.

  41. Fyodor says:

    Rafe lacks his intellectual curiosity and is more bilious.

    Oh yah, Birdy is far less bilious…

    …except when it comes to the following subjects:

    AGW
    9/11
    Martian pyramids
    Barrack Obama’s birthplace and religion
    Pretty much every dopey conspiracy theory going
    Commies
    “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy
    Laser-lke focus
    Bully-boy Advocates of the Status Quo
    Public servants [take them out the back and shoot ’em, then mass-sack them, or vice versa]
    Liquified coal
    Pinochet
    Competing hypotheses in parallel
    Vampires
    Dobell, it polls for thee [HT Haiku Hoges]
    Witches
    Light speed
    Homosexualists
    CAPITAL LETTERS
    Diamond nano-technology
    Muslims
    Brutal [and pulverising] ice ages
    Raw milk
    The love of Allah and all his whores
    Genghis Khan
    Peak oil
    Big-titted blonde women
    Joachim of Fiore
    Everybody who disagrees with him [list would be too long]

    AND…

    Fractional reserve banking

  42. Liam says:

    At the very least he’s an amiable eccentric who doesn’t do any harm

    Being serious, now, that’s what they say about Monckton. Just an interesting old bird who’s doing nobody any harm by shilling the material interests of very profitable companies who happen to pollute.

  43. Rafe says:

    Thanks Tim, I have looked at the video, maybe it is the wrong one, in addition to identifying a disagreement on the maginitude of forcing there are data which suggest that the oceans of the world have not warmed over some decades and may have even cooled in the last six years.

    Can you identify some papers that provide evidence that we can expect more than a degree or two of warming over the next several decades?

  44. Tim Lambert says:

    Rafe, “disagreement on the magnitude of the forcing” is a rather odd way to express the fact that Rachel Pinker,the author of the paper that Monckton cites for this number, says he got the magnitude wrong. What possible evidence would it take to convince you that Monckton got this wrong?

    After showing how Monckton got the forcing wrong, I went on to present strong evidence that climate sensitivity is about 3 degrees for a doubling of CO2. If sensitivity was as low as you seem to think it is, how come it was so much colder at last Glacial Maximum?

    If you want a paper that summarizes the evidence, see Knutti and Hegerl (2008).

  45. Paul says:

    The test of any hypothesis is its ability to make successful predictions. The hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming doesn’t have a single successful prediction on record, not one! Lots of self-serving numbers produced by people desperate for power, funding and personal glory (and a host of usefil idiots) but not a single successful prediction.
    Further, the CAGW hypothesis has consistently failed to predict the observed behaviour of the real world e.g., the total lack of any global warming since 1998.
    Calling religion ‘science’ doesn’t make it so. If, like CAGW, your ‘science’ can’t predict the real world, it’s not science.
    Now that we see Ken Parish clearly deminstrating his inner fascist, I’ll leave you parrots to your group armageddon fantasy. Like all bigots, your bigotry makes you stupid.

  46. John Quiggin says:

    This thread illustrates the problem we face as a society. Paul #46 doesn’t understand statistical significance or the basic properties of time series and has derived his “opinions” from a bunch of stuff he read on the Intertubes. He can’t even spell.

    But he’s absolutely confident he knows more about the topic than the thousands of scientists who have spent their lives first gaining the basic knowledge he so obviously lacks, then applying it to understand different aspects of the problem.

    Rafe didn’t used to be a fool, but cultural loyalty has reduced him to the point where he can look at the performance of someone like Monckton and proclaim it a dazzling exercise in intellectual brilliance.

    And that’s universal on the political right. With the exception of Turnbull and the occasional visiting British Tory, there hasn’t been a single rightwing polly or pundit willing to call Monckton out as the fraud he so obviously is.

    In these circumstances the idea of discussion between alternative views makes no sense at all on Troppo or in society more broadly. As John Cole at Balloon Juice said a while back, it’s like discussing dinner plans from the starting point that you would like Italian and your prospective parter proposes old tyres and battery acid.

  47. Rafe is demonstrating with perfect clarity the difficulty with arguing climate change policy with those who want to do nothing. Their credibility on the “why should we get ahead of other countries” is undermined by the fact that they simply do not believe there is any problem that any country should address.

    When pointed to the wealth of material supportive of climate change, or to sites like Skeptical Science which specifically debunk the hundreds of skeptic arguments thrown up over the years, they revert instead to the political and ideological motivated sites such as Jonova and Monckton’s group as being the more authoritative, and ignore the dozens of scientific bodies which have endorsed the mainstream of AGW science.

    They like to claim that belief in AGW is like a religion, ignoring their own ideological conspiracy mongering about socialist control of the world as the real “faith” issue that dogs the political debate.

    They ignore the fact that turning around greenhouse gas production is a long term project, which does not allow the luxury of another, I don’t know – 10 to 30 years? – of temperature records to pin down precise sensitivity to doubling of CO2 to their satisfaction. In fact, most of the current prominent sceptics won’t even be alive by then to apologise for being wrong.

    They would prefer to play a game of wait and see, moving the goal posts all the time to suit themselves. This has already happened, given that the earlier skeptic movement used to be big on promoting reasons why CO2 could not be a greenhouse gas at all. Now that view has largely been abandoned, and it’s all “lukewarmenism” – yes it has caused warming, but where’s the proof that it’s dangerous?

    The Arctic ice extent is currently tracking for an all time summer low, beating 2007. It may not yet come to pass, but if it does, you can bet your bottom dollar that the response will be along the lines “but look at this record of what happened in the year XXXX? It’s probably just a natural cycle.”

    They also steadfastly refuse to believe that ocean acidification could be a large ecological problem within 50 years, regardless of temperature increases. (Strangely, Bob Katter seems to be the only Australian politician who seems convinced of that!)

    Anyway, we’ve been through all this before at Catallaxy. It is a contagion that does not deserve to spread to this blog.

  48. wizofaus says:

    steve, except the word you want is ‘pointlessness’ rather than ‘difficulty’. Australia will join most of the developed world in implementing some form of carbon pricing soon enough, no matter what nonsense Monckton or others spout. It’s really only in the U.S. there might be some point in trying to argue sense with the naysayers. But the way things are going there economically they may well achieve greater cuts in emissions than anything we can anyway in the near future (and no, of course I don’t sincerely hope that – not least for the sake of America’s poorest who will suffer the most).

  49. Nabakov says:

    “Now that we see Ken Parish clearly deminstrating his inner fascist”

    What? By allowing opposing viewpoints to be posted on his blog?

  50. Pingback: Club Troppo » Missing Link Friday – Burkas, bogans, burbs and crap

  51. murph the surf. says:

    Professor Quiggen’s comment higlights a valuable thing about well moderated blogs.
    When I worked fulltime I was dealing with the public and explaining very complicated and sometimes expensive problems to them. They often didn’t like the explanation or the sudden costs they would have to account for.
    However with patience and a touch of empathy most situations can be approached in such a way that understanding grows and then the client could make a reasonable decision on matters affecting them.
    As such I strongly disagree with his conclusion that there is no point to debate certain subjects regardless of the forum.
    If you have been privileged with an advanced level of education or experience I thing it is incumbent on you to use those skills especially for others who have trouble understanding complex problems.
    I agree with him that it is a problem for society but when isn’t this the case?
    It might be frustrating to feel that your wisdom and training are being ignored but people with understanding should accept their obligation with grace.
    Mind you I see Marilyn Shepherd has popped up on another thread and if you ban her I won’t object or think that CT will miss anything worth considering.

  52. Alphonse says:

    Rafe:

    The only hope for the future lies with civil discourse across party lines.

    Ah yes, the appeal to civility when there there is no other thread by which to to hang. I resent how this tactic gives civility a bad name. Just let go, Rafe. Please.

  53. KB Keynes says:

    ah the irony of Rafe from Catallaxy appealing to civility.

  54. Tim Lambert says:

    Well I’m bemused that Rafe professes to value civility while endorsing Monckton, who roundly abuses anyone who gets in his way. The most recent example is ABC Chairman Maurice Newman, who Monckton called a “shrimp-like wet little individual”. Newman, BTW is on Monckton’s side, but failed to obey Monckton’s command to censor an ABC story critical of Monckton.

  55. Rococo Liberal says:

    May I, a Conservative, make a comment?

    Of course my degrees are in Arts and Law, so I confess to have no special amount of scientific knowledge.

    I have one question about the whole CO2 tax debate. I am sure that the bright people on this forum can answer it for me.

    Why now?

    Whatever the pro-CO2 tax politicians and pundits tell us, the fact is that the PM went to the electorate in 2010 promising not to introduce a CO2 tax. Now that she has introduced such a tax anyway, without what the majority of the electorate seems to think is a mandate, we have witnessed a catastrophic fall in electoral support for the Government.

    It didn’t have to be this way. If the PM and Bob Brown are so certain that a CO2 tax is necessary, they could have taken the policy to the next election in 2013 to seek a mandate. In the meantime, the Government could have eased up on the radical plans and run a steady ship, concentrating on shoring up the economy. When the 2013 election came, the ALP might have been seen as a steady government with real practical achievements under its belt. The past waste and incompetence may have been forgiven. And the ALP could run a campaign on the inconsistencies of Mr Abbott’s views on climate change. Come 2013 the ALP and the Greens would then have been in a great position to sell the CO2 tax to the voters.

    But this chance has been blown away. The only thing I can think of is that the PM is really a Liberal sleeper in the ALP who was activated and has now set the labor Party on self destruct.

  56. rog says:

    The only hope for the future lies with civil discourse across party lines. As a centre-left blog I thought Troppo was in that business, like Catallaxy on the centre-nonleft.

    Civil discourse and Catallaxy just don’t mix.

  57. KB Keynes says:

    RL,

    She isn’t introducing a carbon tax at all. She is introducing a mechanism which is one year shorter than the one originally negotiated by the liberals when Turnbull was leader.

    no-one called that a carbon tax.

    The ETS was part of their election policy. A pity some-one as ‘bright’ as you doesn’t know that.

  58. Paul Bamford says:

    The only hope for the future lies with civil discourse across party lines.

    Well, we all know how that played out – when the ALP tried to stitch up a deal with the Liberals to get an ETS up in 2009, it was scuttled by the “AGW can’t possibly be real faction within the coalition – the same faction that backs Tony Abbott and his “the science of global warming is crap” crap.

    Time to play the blame game – civil discourse on this issue has been killed off by conservative and right wing commentators who persist in peddling the following untruths:

    – It’s all lies from self interested scientists protecting their grants;
    – It’s all left-wing group think;
    – It’s not real science;
    – Ross Garnaut is a fascist;
    – Bob Brown is a fascist;
    – Tim Flannery is a fascist;
    – Anyone who disagrees with me is a fascist;
    – We’re being persecuted like Galileo in the 16th century;
    – CO2 is plant food and contributes to the greening of the planet;
    – CO2 can’t be a pollutant because it’s not only plant food, it’s a natural by-product of human metabolism (hint – so are piss and shit but you wouldn’t want them in your drinking water).
    – It’s time we had a proper debate (we had the proper debate a decade ago – you weren’t paying attention).

  59. derrida derider says:

    It’s OT, but KB Keynes is dead right – the “carbon tax” is a purely temporary measure before we move to a full ETS, and is only a tax anyway on a fairly broad definition of “tax”. Julia should have, as Costello did with the Medicare Levy Surcharge, quibbled about the meaning of words and insisted on a narrow definition – IOW she should have denied it’s a tax. She wasn’t sneaky enough.

    That an educated person like Rococo Liberal has not understood any of this just shows how truly dreadful this government is at marketing – really, they couldn’t sell ice cream in a heatwave.

  60. JC says:

    That an educated person like Rococo Liberal has not understood any of this just shows how truly dreadful this government is at marketing – really, they couldn’t sell ice cream in a heatwave.

    Really DD? You think that? I think the government is doing a reasonable job of selling it.

  61. Mel says:

    In the interests of civility and discourse across party lines Rafe ………. cites Monckton and links to Andrew Bolt, dishonestly misrepresents the science by suggesting only one or two degrees of warming are predicted over the next century then mischeviously claims anthropogenic carbon dioxide will help us feed the world.

    This type of nonsense is embarrassing to read and rightly belongs on bottom feeder sites like Catallaxy. Sorry Rafe, you’re probably a swell guy but you aren’t capable of producing an interesting argument. No hard feelings etc ..

  62. Rob says:

    Strewth, what have you stirred up here, Rafe? The blogospheric equivalent to a lynch mob? I’m with you.

  63. Rafe says:

    Well I suggest you leave town. I am holed up in Seoul but not far from some decent Aussie tucker.

    http://www.the-rathouse.com/2010/IMG_0360.JPG

  64. Rafe says:

    Tim, I don’t think you have provided evidence to support the 3 degree theory, the most striking feature of the paper that you provided is the way that people operating inside the paradigm have to say that many years of work have yielded disappointing progress.

    I was hoping you might come up with some good papers to document robust time-series studies that establish the extent of warming in recent times to provide a basis for alarm about further increases.

    Interesting to observe the credibility of the IPCC as reported by Lomborg, one of the more nuanced commentators.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/solar_powered_bull/

    The IPCC press release declared, “Close to 80 per cent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.” That story was repeated by media organisations worldwide.

    Last month the IPCC released the full report, together with the data behind this startlingly optimistic claim. Only then did it emerge that it was based solely on the most optimistic of 164 modelling scenarios researchers investigated. And this single scenario stemmed from a single study that was traced back to a report by the environmental organisation Greenpeace. The author of that report, a Greenpeace staff member, was one of the IPCC lead authors.

    The claim rested on the assumption of a large reduction in global energy use. Given the number of people climbing out of poverty in China and India, that is a deeply implausible scenario.

  65. FDB says:

    Man, this is like when my uncle got on the decks at my cousin’s wedding.

    Bruce Hornsby fan, Rafe?

  66. Rafe says:

    I don’t think Ken showed any “inner fascist” in responses to this post,just a very high degree of exasperation at a post that is right in the face of the prevailing opinion around here. We don’t normally invite peole into our place to have them insult is, and i just hope that as the discussion proceeds my contribition will be perceived to be less insulting and more credible.

  67. Paul Bamford says:

    I see Rafe is sticking to Jo Nova’s “Skeptic Handbook” script: concede nothing to your interlocutor and keep raising the same old objections until they weary of argument and walk away in disgust. Then claim victory.

    Another demonstration of why “civil discourse across party lines” is impossible on this issue.

  68. Sally says:

    Rafe whatsiname is an habitually bad faith commenter. One wonders why he bothers, aside from attention seeking and acting out.

  69. Paul Bamford says:

    Adds – none of the following falsifies the claim that “Close to 80 per cent of the world’s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies.”

    … it was based solely on the most optimistic of 164 modelling scenarios researchers investigated. And this single scenario stemmed from a single study that was traced back to a report by the environmental organisation Greenpeace. The author of that report, a Greenpeace staff member, was one of the IPCC lead authors.

    There is no correlation between optimism (or pessimism) and truth. The rest is ad hominem argument which seeks to discredit the claim by discrediting the author.

    I can understand Ken’s exasperation. I feel it too when I read reports that Tony Abbott has described CO2 as “weightless”.

  70. cbp says:

    Ah, now we observe the next phase of trolling: the change of topic with a link to Bolt whining about the latest non-scandal.

    No, don’t tell me! This is it – the ‘nail in the coffin’!

  71. Tim Lambert says:

    Rafe, the paper I linked was a survey that summarized the evidence from dozens of papers, and estimating sensitivity in several different ways, from climate models, to observations in the instrumental period, to paleoclimatic evidence. Time series of recent temperature is one of the pieces they consider, but as they explain (see figure 4), that doesn’t constrain sensitivity very much — its consistent with being as low as 2 and as high as 6. Mind you, your favoured value of 1 is still ruled out. That you would deny that all of this is evidence and instead embrace Monckton’s work (see here for a list of the errors in the Monckton article that he touted in the debate) tells me that your approach to this question is not in the slightest bit scientific. The scientific approach is to go where the evidence takes you. The Rafe Champion approach is to only accept evidence that supports your preconceived notions. You are linking to Andrew Bolt for evidence now, Andrew Bolt!

  72. Rob says:

    No, I’m not going to leave the country, Rafe @64. But you have to boggle at the insensate fury of the warmenistas in response to perfectly mild views such as yours. And no kudos at all to KP for his role in whipping up the frenzy.

  73. cbp says:

    @Rob

    perfectly mild views

    I’m sorry, in this universe it is not considered mild to persistently cite two highly-partisan arts graduates as evidence that thousands of scientists and a hundred years of climate science is all a big fraud.

  74. Rob says:

    cbp – bollocks. AGW is just an adolescent Marxist wet dream. Now that‘s a mild view.

  75. Sally says:

    Rafe thinks a century is such a darn long time.

    That in itself tells you a lot about the man, his mind, his awareness and his praxis.

  76. Rob says:

    Try playing the ball and not the man,Sally.

  77. Sally says:

    It’s the lack of balls that I’m targeting here, Rob, Rafe’s that is.

  78. Fyodor says:

    Bruce Hornsby fan, Rafe?

    Stoush on.

    What’s your beef with Bruce, Hefty Bee? Too much syncopation grating on your precussionary principles?

  79. Rob says:

    Strange comment indeed from Sally.

  80. Ken Parish says:

    Sally

    Rob is right (at least in one respect). Your last 2 comments have both been ad hom. Please stick with the arguments rather than “playing the man”.

  81. Rob says:

    I don’t think your own role in this has been particularly glorious, Ken.

  82. Sally says:

    (Moderator) Comment deleted. It was again ad hom.

  83. Rob says:

    Doubly strange from Sally.

  84. Rob says:

    Sorry, should have added this:

    You can’t expect anyone to respect such people and in a masculine guise they’re doubly disgusting because they betray women and children now and (in the) future.

    What on earth is this supposed to mean?

  85. Sally says:

    (Moderator) another ad hom comment deleted.

  86. Ken Parish says:

    Rob

    I only made one comment and it wasn’t ad hom. It simply reflected on the quality of Rafe’s article (not his character). In my view it isn’t of an appropriate standard for publication on Troppo, nor is Rafe’s “hit and run” lack of comment box engagement with serious argument about the issues. That’s an editorial judgment I’m perfectly entitled to make, and one evidently shared by the overwhelming majority of readers. The fact that you don’t share it is neither here nor there.

  87. Sally says:

    Oh well, no point in commenting here.

  88. Rob says:

    OK, Ken, I would like to make a comment about that.

    I think you have abused your editorial position, by explicitly undermining and exposing to invited scorn one of your own contributors. You held Rafe up to ridicule and by necessary implication egged on the heated throng. If you had been a 16th century inquisitor you would have had a burned body by now.

    Even at LP I’ve never seen such conduct by a moderator (but maybe I blinked a couple of times).

    I am profoundly disappointed in you.

  89. Liam says:

    Well I’m not disappointed in this thread. For such a piss-poor effort at a post it’s really brought out the Australian blogosphere’s most entertaining and worst behaved.

    The blogospheric equivalent to a lynch mob?

    Pile of skulls! Pile of skulls!
    And on that note, I think the bottle of Campari is still half-full.

  90. Patrick says:

    lol just close the thread Ken, they all think you are a fascist anyway so what have you to lose?

  91. Rob says:

    Phwee, weren’t those the days, Liam?

  92. Sally says:

    Jaysus, what a heap of stuff-shirted frigid men.

  93. Sally says:

    I note the only other woman who has commented here in recent days, Marilyn, has also been given the frog march to the door treatment.

    Telling.

  94. Emma in Sydney says:

    Rubbish, Sally. No one marched me to the door, and ain’t I a woman? I just decided to stop feeding the trolls, and you might consider that too.

  95. Sally says:

    If no one marched you to the metaphorical door Emma, then no, you ain’t a woman.

  96. Liam says:

    Jaysus, what a heap of stuff-shirted frigid men

    You’re not, are you? Really? J-Ro? Please tell me it’s you.

  97. Sally says:

    Rafe sezs:

    “And the way the increase in CO2 is described as pollution when it will tend to green the planet and increase our production of food.” This is classic Graeme Bird.

    Oops, mea culpa, another ad hom.

  98. Rob says:

    J wouldn’t have resorted to that, Liam (if we’re talking about the same J).

  99. Mr Denmore says:

    well I just listened to Wendy Carlisle’s fearless report on ABC Background ABC Briefing about the dubious ‘Lord’ Monckton’s fossil fuel funded roadshow and I have to say Rafe is in bad company. The supposed ‘doubters’ are clearly a bunch of highly compromised spivs, extremely cynical spinners for Big Oil and outright tin-hatters.

    Back in the ’80s, I would have cheered Rafe on for his ‘raffish’ contrarianism, but I’m afraid he now comes across as a ‘let’s oppose consensus for the sake of it’ wrecker just like the rest of the look-at-me-I’m-standing-up-to-consensus ultra-reactionary ragbags.

    It’s really rather sad: Otherwise formidable intellects standing against a purely rational economic reform purely because they feel they are on the wrong side of the tracks

  100. Sally says:

    Mr Denmore, serious question. I like your work and therefore respect your opinion. Can you point me to anything this Rafe chap has ever written that is worth reading?

  101. JC says:

    Sally:

    You seem more highly strung than a Stradivarius.

    Jaysus, what a heap of stuff-shirted frigid men

    Really? I’m not.

  102. JC says:

    Dr. Tim Lambert:

    You asked the Rafster what he thought his Lordhship’s finest point on the science was…..

    Let me ask you, what do you think was Doc Deniss’ strongest economic point? (That’s worth 48% of the semester.)

  103. JC says:

    Emma in Sydney said:

    Rubbish, Sally. No one marched me to the door, and ain’t I a woman? I just decided to stop feeding the trolls, and you might consider that too.

    Honest question.. WTF is going on here. Lol

  104. Leinad says:

    The spirit of ’04 lives on.

    9/10 and the Russian judge is crying jubilant, 180-proof tears.

  105. Anna Winter says:

    Bird bless us, every one.

  106. FDB says:

    “Honest question.. WTF is going on here. Lol”

    Fyodor and I are discussing the music of Bruce Hornsby (and his ‘Range’) as it relates to climate change denialism.

    Jinmaro (aka Philomena, etc etc… now ‘Sally’) is “making a stand” against whatever the blokes are saying, while offending and marginalising other women.

    Various people are criticising Ken for leaving Rafe’s steaming turd of a post out on the Troppo lawn to attract flies, when it might have been kinder to the old duffer to pop it in the wheelie bin. Or perhaps to proclaim it to be chocolate icecream, I’m not quite clear on this point.

    Rafe himself pops by occasionally, to not address comments and not provide any justification for his own.

    You meanwhile are standing around like a late arrival at a kick-arse house party – sober, and a little slow on the uptake.

    It’s all perfectly straightforward.

  107. Ken Parish says:

    Strong contender for comment of the year at this stage FDB.

  108. Nabakov says:

    Who dares call on the Old Ones from slumbering eons where – did someone say “party”?

    Right that does it, I’m having an Irish coffee for breakfast.

    ““Honest question.. WTF is going on here. Lol”
    Good to see Joe can still remember his family motto. Think of it as an impromptu jam session you tone deaf old thing.

    Speaking of which, another band who’s contribution to climate change studies has been sadly overlooked is… Weather Report.

    Thank you, thank you. Try the veal it’s been here all week.

    Off now to FNQ to bag a few rays. Be doing a bit of diving too Fyodor. See if the Great Barrier Reef is still there. Will drop later in to freshen the beer fridge and get some bongo action going.

  109. Rococo Liberal says:

    Keynes thanks for calling me bright. It would appear that you are much smarter than me, so may I ask some more questions?

    The PM and the Treasurer both said before the election that there would be no carbon tax under an ALP government in the next Parliament.

    Your argument is that the package just anounced does not impose a CO2 tax but a CO2 price. Isn’t this just a quibble? At law this impost is definitely an excise (i.e. a tax on the production or distribution of goods). Can you tell me of any other ‘price’ charged by the Government? There are fees and charges, but they imposed in return for the supply of something by the government. There are no such thing as prices. So in using the term ‘carbon price’ don’t the government just look sneaky?

    But more importantly, the perception out there is that the PM lied.

    SO the question remains, why didn’t the Government wait until 2013 to bring in this package and put it to the voters, like Howard did with the GST?

  110. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Yep, I’ll vote for comment 107.

    Rafe’s post and subsequent impersonation of the Scarlet Pimpernel (“they seek him here, they seek him there”) puts me in mind of an old John Cleese BBC radio announcer monologue on the old program I’m sorry I’ll read that again. It went something like this.

    Last week Mobuto received its independence. What travails await this new state as it seeks to forge its way in the modern world? Will the modern manners of its British institutions prevail over the tribalism of its ancient culture? Or will warlords come to dominate its politics and its civil life? And what role will King Mutulezi play in the new power structure, both now and after the Parliament elects its first Prime Minister? Will the water starved but resource rich West come to dominate this newest of countries? Or will the agricultural riches of the South East predominate? And what of the battle between Islam and Christianity and their battle with older African traditions of animism?

    All these questions must be answered.

    Good night.

  111. KB Keynes says:

    RL,

    Try and learn the difference between a ETS and a carbon tax. when an ETS is introduced what happens to the price just beforehand.

    I cannot help it if Julia makes mistakes on what something is called because her ‘brilliant strategists’ advised her badly again.
    Last time I looked an ETS was part of her policy so in fact she didn’t lie at all.

    I am surprised blogs like Catallaxy hasn’t made this perfectly clear.

    Well no I am not

  112. derrida derider says:

    Yep, RL, that’s the point. She did NOT say there won’t be a carbon price – quite the contrary. An ETS was and is part of the ALP platform. She (stupidly, IMO – I agree with the jibe about her “brilliant strategists”) DID rule out a carbon tax, mainly to differentiate her product from the Green’s, and also made even more ill-advised mutterings about trying to forge a “community consensus” (never going to happen, of course, while Murdoch has 70% of the print market). But she had always promised to try for a carbon price in the life of this parliament.

    But FWIW the Green’s policy for a transitional tax was actually the right one anyway, to prevent the sort of initial problems starting up an ETS that the Europeans experienced. Far from being ideological here they were trying to learn practical lessons from other’s experience.

  113. Sally says:

    “Jinmaro (aka Philomena, etc etc… now ‘Sally’) is “making a stand” against whatever the blokes are saying, while offending and marginalising other women.

    FDB as per dreary usual simultaneously shoots his wad sideways and falls short of his mark. I have no idea who he is referring to. And I do have an interest in what at least one bloke here is saying, to wit, Mr Denmore.

    If Mr Denmore’s not around, please, any other bloke here feel free to post even one link to something Rafe Champion has written that will blow my mind and/or make me or any woman who has ever lived think thoughts worth thinking.

    GO.

  114. john walker says:

    Derrida

    Few voters buy the line that- ‘you should have read the fine print’.

    The government might have won the last election with a open and clearly understood (by the public) proposal for a carbon tax , or they might have lost – either way they would have retained public respect.

    By now the government is a much bigger issue than just carbon; the last poll on ‘carbon’ itself (as apposed to the government) was %48/%58.

    The rich fudge of superior sanctimonious ,slippery , incompetent hypocrites will be hard to wash off .

  115. john walker says:

    sorry the split on carbon was %48/%52

  116. Rafe says:

    The reason for sporadic replies to comments is very simple – a combination of time-zone differences and lengthy periods spent without net access.

    By the way, you can thank James Farrell for this post, it started with a comment on his Wasted Hour thread, suggesting the Monckton Show as an alternative use for the hour, but the comment was deleted.

    Someone made fun of the idea that enhanced levels of CO2 promote plant growth. Not sure how to reply to that.

    Tim, I don’t have a favorite value for sensitivity and the issue remains open as long as values have to be derived from unstable models of complex systems. As for linking to Andrew Bolt, what is the matter with that? Especially as he was quoting from a Lomborg paper. Do you have a problem with Lomborg?

    The Conservative scenario sketched by RL is very persuasive. The tax debate should be conducted before an election, not after an election fought on the promise that there would be no tax. Yes, she said “no tax”!

    What is the rush, given that the one thing that cannot be disputed in this debate is the fact that our actions will not make any difference? We want to lead the world? We may lead the world in demonstrating that a “carbon tax” plus a massive bundle of regulations is electoral suicide. The Canadian Conservatives won a comprehensive and unexpected victory with a platform of reduced corporate and personal tax rates, (to be funded by spending cuts), and a token climate change agenda.

    Spain and Portugal have been outstanding in leading the world in developing renewable energy sources, however they are both economic basket cases.

    Some of the things that the Monckton debate demonstrated.

    1. Journalists are generally clueless and often enough dishonest when it comes to covering this issue.
    2. Leftwing commentators cannot resist the temptation to play the man rather than the ball.
    3. Warming believers are prepared to sacrifice free speech.
    4. The Press Club could not find an opponent for Monckton who was capable of engaging with the scientific issues, beyond chanting a list of putative authorities, like a mantra. He also screwed up the economics issues which should have been his home ground.
    5. When the punters find out more about the two sides of the issue, they tend to reject the carbon tax proposal and also much of the alarmism that has driven the debate in the past.

    There are several layers in debate, from science to policy options.

    1. Is there actually global warming, and if so, is it enough to cause concern?
    2. If there is global warming, how much if any can be attributed to human activity rather than natural processes of a cyclic or random nature?
    3. If Yes to that question, is it (a) possible (b) necessary and (c) cost-effective for the human race to alter our activities to reduce the warming?
    4. If Yes to all of the above, does it make sense for Australia to take the lead in reducing our standard of living?

    The principle of prudence is often cited to justify the rush to action (nosing into the icebergs), however I suggest that the principle of prudence means moving slower, taking more time get clear on the science, especially the rate of warming and a better account of the benefits in addition to the costs of warming.

  117. Paul Bamford says:

    Someone made fun of the idea that enhanced levels of CO2 promote plant growth. Not sure how to reply to that.

    Presenting evidence that it does might be a start. Then you could go on to present evidence that, once the Earth’s atmosphere is suffuiciently CO2 enriched the Sahara, the Kalahari, the Gobi and vast areas of inland Australia will become fertile grainbelts.

    Just a suggestion.

  118. Peter says:

    Individuals who caution and advocate prudence in the face of urgent historical necessity for action are reactionaries who themselves have much privilege to lose, or are impelled (for various reasons) to act in defence of the powerful minority who also have the most to lose.

    It’s a transparent process.

    And who are the actual greatest losers from concerted group action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet?

  119. rog says:

    Shorter Rafe;

    In Spain and Portugal they drink a lot if wine, eat a lot of olives and are economic basket cases. Therefore wine and olives are to blame.

    More CO2 in the atmosphere will make plants grow faster, this is good. The faster plants grow the more that they take up carbon and expel oxygen and oxygen is good for humans. So more CO2 means more oxygen, it’s all good.

    I went outside today and it was a warm day, but not too hot and certainly no hotter than yesterday. Can anybody really prove that there is global warming?

    Anyway, if there is global warming the deserts will have rain and they will grow wheat in Siberia. How could this be a bad thing when the starving masses get food and jobs and careers?

    The current drought in Africa is due to the welfare state, if these people had more opportunities they would get off their backsides and create their own wealth instead of collecting rent.

    I am very busy and must rush, I have a plane to catch.

  120. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Rafe, back to comment one “Here’s a challenge for you Rafe: pick out what you think is Monckton’s strongest argument that temperature increase could only be a degree or two and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it.”

    That’s a recipe to have a structured debate in which we might learn something. As we did here. Why don’t you take up the challenge?

  121. Rococo Liberal says:

    Keynes and DD let me quote from Leonore Taylor in the smh on July 23, 2010, from before the last election,

    ‘JULIA GILLARD will convene a ”citizens’ assembly” to act as a litmus test of community support for an emissions trading scheme before Labor’s final decision on implementing its centrepiece climate change policy in 2012.

    In an attempt to stamp her consensus-building style on the ETS backdown by her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, Ms Gillard will pledge to lead the case in favour of a carbon market. But she will argue that such an enormous change must be based on genuine community support.’

    So it would seem that at the last election the ALP did not have a policy of introducing an ETS. They had a policy of asking the people whether they should introduce an ETS.

    In Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board defines a tax as: “a compulsory exaction of money by a public authority for public purposes, enforceable by law, and is not a payment for services rendered.” So what is the government’s new imposition if it is not a tax?

    So once again I ask, why didn’t the PM wait until near the next election, after running a steady and stable government to attempt to introduce this new tax?

  122. rog says:

    The so called citizens’ assembly was lampooned by the coalition and greens – in short, it failed to gain popular support. And rightly so, you elect govt to govern, not run bingo nights.

  123. rog says:

    Just so that RL can be better informed, the 2010 election had no outright winner. So the ALP and the Greens cobbled together a deal which included a carbon tax. They then put this deal to the independents, the coalition also put together their own deal. The independents picked the ALP/green package and govt was formed.

    If memory serves me right it was Abbott who said he would agree to anything and do anything to get govt and it was Abbott who failed to be convincing.

  124. Ken Parish says:

    RL, I dispatched the “it isn’t a tax” nonsense in a comment some time ago that I later linked in a post. It’s legally a tax on any view. DD and Homer are in good company though. ABC’s Barrie Cassidy devoted a whole article recently to arguing that Julia shouldn’t have called it a tax. He seemed to be suggesting that it’s arguably a fee for services (which the Constitution differentiates from a tax even though it meets the elements of the Matthews test you quoted):

    After all, there is a half way reasonable argument that the Government is not taxing the 500 companies who pollute the heaviest, but charging them for doing so, in much the same way householders are charged – and not taxed – for the power they use.

    It would be a good argument if it weren’t for the inconvenient fact that the government isn’t actually providing any services (or goods) in return for the carbon impost. A slightly better argument might be that it’s a licence fee not a tax i.e. a charge for a licence to pollute the atmosphere with excess CO2. The problem with that argument (as you inferentially argued in a previous comment) is that current High Court authority holds that a volumetric licence fee (at least on a producer of goods) is a tax for constitutional purposes. There’s no direct authority on whether that would be true in relation to something like electricity supply (arguably a service rather than goods) but the reasoning in cases like Ha suggests it would certainly be held to be a tax.

    Where I part company from you is on your repetition of the ubiquitous Tory assertion that Gillard was lying when she promised not to introduce a carbon tax in the next term. It’s abundantly clear that she meant every word of it at the time. She judged (very probably correctly given the current situation) that it was likely political suicide to persist with a carbon price policy in the immediate term in light of the failure of Copenhagen, Abbott’s accession to Coalition leadership and his successful(albeit deeply dishonest) demonisation of a carbon price as a “great big new tax”. It was only the political necessity of backflipping caused by the need to accommodate the Greens’ demands that made her break that promise. Likely but not completely certain and in any event delayed political suicide suddenly looked more attractive than immediate capitulation and an Abbott minority government. Whether that was the right judgment remains to be seen, but it’s easy to see why she made it. It’s also easy to see why she can’t bluntly admit it beyond saying “circumstances changed”.

  125. Rob says:

    Good riposte, Rafe. As for your adversaries, as evidenced by rog and Nicholas, what we are dealing with here is not the globe warming but brains freezing.

  126. Paul Bamford says:

    … what we are dealing with here is not the globe warming but brains freezing

    If neurons behaved like electrical wires (which they don’t) what we’d then have is superconductive brains which would work much more rapidly and efficiently than their unfrozen counterparts.

    One point from Rafe’s “riposte” is particularly telling:

    1. Journalists are generally clueless and often enough dishonest when it comes to covering this issue.

    That’s definitely true of Andrew Bolt.

  127. Dave says:

    Ken,

    “It’s abundantly clear that she meant every word of it at the time. She judged (very probably correctly given the current situation) that it was likely political suicide to persist with a carbon price policy”

    You’ve got that completely wrong. DD and KB Keynes have it right, upthread. Gillard was consistent in promising to introduce a carbon price, but in the form of an ETS rather than as a “carbon tax”: which (at least at the time) clearly meant a fixed levy on carbon as opposed to an ETS.

  128. KB Keynes says:

    Read properly Ken it isn’t a CARBON tax!!!

    Rob can you point out where Rafe has answered “pick out what you think is Monckton’s strongest argument that temperature increase could only be a degree or two and I’ll tell you what is wrong with it.”

    you cannot thought not.

  129. Peter says:

    ‘1. Journalists are generally clueless and often enough dishonest when it comes to covering this issue.’

    That’s a dumb and lazy generalisation and the mark of (among other things) a pedestrian mind that’s never learned or even been motivated to ask “why?”

  130. Paul Bamford says:

    Peter @ 131 – please don’t widdle on Rafe’s petards. Some of us want to see him hoist by ’em.

  131. murph the surf. says:

    KB keynes- isn’t the tax definition answered by this?From Ken Parish’s comment-
    “A slightly better argument might be that it’s a licence fee not a tax i.e. a charge for a licence to pollute the atmosphere with excess CO2. The problem with that argument (as you inferentially argued in a previous comment) is that current High Court authority holds that a volumetric licence fee (at least on a producer of goods) is a tax for constitutional purposes. There’s no direct authority on whether that would be true in relation to something like electricity supply (arguably a service rather than goods) but the reasoning in cases like Ha suggests it would certainly be held to be a tax.”
    Is it current precedent( is this the correct term?)that the High Court would rule the ETS as a tax?

  132. desipis says:

    Rococo Liberal.

    Why now?

    Why not now? They’re a government formed by a majority of a democratically elected parliament, it’s their job to get on with pursuing policy that’s in the best interests of the nation. It’s not their job to bow to the political whims of a hostile media engaged in political bloodsport.

    But more importantly, the perception out there is that the PM lied.

    If the issue is lying, or saying one thing then switching to another, why is an Abbott led opposition so popular?

    Rafe,

    I don’t have a favorite value for sensitivity and the issue remains open as long as values have to be derived from unstable models of complex systems.

    So you accept its at least plausible that humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere does result in harmful warming?

    Warming believers are prepared to sacrifice free speech.

    How can you try to claim the debating high ground when you resort to name calling and lies? I don’t think it’s an issue of belief, rather a matter of whether one trusts the climate science establishment. I’m not an expert in climate science or global conspiracies, however based on what I do know of physics, chemistry, politics and history I find the climate change hypothesis much more credible than a global conspiracy involving climate scientists.

    The Press Club could not find an opponent for Monckton who was capable of engaging with the scientific issues, beyond chanting a list of putative authorities.

    And what exactly, did Monckton do, other than chanting his own list of authorities (who often don’t even support his position)?

    If Yes to that question, is it (a) possible (b) necessary and (c) cost-effective for the human race to alter our activities to reduce the warming?

    You need to add (d) desirable, and (e) ethical to that list.

    If Yes to all of the above, does it make sense for Australia to take the lead in reducing our standard of living?

    You’re falsely equating reducing carbon output with reducing standard of living. At least add a debating point that to the are linked in a materially significant way.

    Particularly given that many business leaders consider the currently proposed system as preferable to continuing uncertainty, delaying action could result in more economic harm through delayed investment than implementing the ETS thus resulting in reduction in our standard of living.

  133. Ken Parish says:

    murph

    I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. The impost that is undeniably a tax for constitutional purposes is the one that will exist between 1 July next year and 2015 i.e. a fixed price impost of $23 per tonne of carbon rising to just under $25 by 2015. That is beyond question a tax. OTOH I think an emissions trading scheme as proposed for the post-2015 period is probably NOT a tax (the market rather than the government sets the price, although if they’re annually renewed permits which the business must buy from the government each year at a set price then that starts to look more like a tax too).

  134. murph the surf. says:

    Thanks Ken, the last part of your last sentence answers it for me-as I understand the plan the annual renewal and increased price due to contraction of the number of permits might be considered a tax.
    It is really all just a distraction though and the politics of this are the real concern to me – the pity that fear is a bigger driver of voting intentions then shared concern for the greater good. How corny that sounds!
    I also wonder if libertarians are all just happy to sit back and let circumstances deteriorate to whatever extent occurs and then hope that the invisible hand will emerge to address the adverse changes occurring?
    What do you reckon JC and Rafe , just let everything rip and commercial forces will respond and save us?

  135. cbp says:

    @Rafe

    Someone made fun of the idea that enhanced levels of CO2 promote plant growth. Not sure how to reply to that.

    It appears from your blog post and subsequent comments that you believe that the argument that CO2 promotes plant growth is so wonderfully profound and compelling that upon hearing it, not a soul would fail to instantly nod their heads in agreement and wonder how they could have been so stupid to have overlooked such a bright and amazing revelation about the world. At some of your more welcoming haunts you may have been witness to such a response. I’m sorry that your notion has proven to be unfounded. In reconsidering, a good place to start would be to read an argument that explains why the co2-is-plant-food idea is not taken seriously be the majority of the world’s scientists: for example, this one. Once you have finished reading, proceed to respond to the counter-arguments presented in an intelligent and logical manner.

    the one thing that cannot be disputed in this debate is the fact that our actions will not make any difference?

    This ‘fact’ can most definitely be disputed and in fact has been many times. Again, rather than pretending that the counter-arguments do not exist, it would be more helpful if you responded to them directly.

  136. Mel says:

    Rafe says:

    “Someone made fun of the idea that enhanced levels of CO2 promote plant growth. Not sure how to reply to that.”

    Actually I made fun of this comment in your original post: “And the way the increase in CO2 is described as pollution when it will tend to green the planet and increase our production of food.”

    In truth we don’t know exactly how climate change will impact on food production. However the CSIRO predicts a significant reduction in agricultural production in southern Australia. This finding is several years old and has been widely reported so I assume you are well aware of it.

    A quick perusal of the scientific literature reveals a range of concerns such as increased insect herbivory, differential effects on weed versus food plant species and impacts on nutritional value. You may also be interested in this abstract from a paper published in Science magazine which refutes your claim:

    “Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. Here, we show that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends for 1980–2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors.”

  137. Ken Parish says:

    “You’ve got that completely wrong. DD and KB Keynes have it right, upthread.”

    My recollection, although I haven’t checked it and it might be wrong, is that Gillard promised (though possibly only once when pinned down) not to introduce a carbon tax (i.e. fixed price impost) and, as RL quotes at #123, promised a Citizens’ Assembly before introducing an ETS. That is, she didn’t positively promise not to introduce an ETS in the next term, but promised not to do so without first building consensus via the Assembly. Clearly what she was doing was trying to kill it as an election issue (and I suspect she mostly succeeded in that regard), and equally clearly what is now proposed is contrary to what she said before the election. It’s indisputably a broken promise but nor was Gillard lying before the election. If Labor had won a majority in its own right we certainly wouldn’t be looking down the barrel of any imminent carbon pricing regime of whatsoever nature right now.

  138. Rococo Liberal says:

    This attack on Rafe rests on the fact that people here have decided that AGW is scientific fact.

    Science demonstrates that on average children who are brought up by their two heterosexual, married parents do better in life than children brought up in any other circumstances. Yet I suspect most posters on this forum would, justifiably, be horrified if the Government decided to discourage the ‘wrong people’ from having children or the ‘right couples’ from divorcing by introducing some sort of tax or ‘child price.’ It is possible that such policies would lead to a happier and healthier society, as new generations of well-adjusted children grew into adulthood and crime and delinquency diminished. But we would all rightly reject these policies on the basis that any such benefit to society would be outweighed by the diminution of personal freedom involved and the sheer vileness of condemning certain people as inferior to others.

    At this stage there is less scientific proof for AGW’s effects than there is for the social deprivation caused by no-fault divorce and single parent families. So why, when we wouldn’t insist on massive Government action to follow the science on the latter, do we insist Governments inventing huge new bureaucracies, wasting vast sums of taxpayers’ money and diminishing living standards in the name of preventing AGW? Why are we living in a age where a solid chunk of opinion seems to want to reject one of the great civilising forces of modern times, abundant, cheap power in the name of what appears to be a great puritan crusade?

    So the climate may change a bit. It has done so in the past and mankind has adapted. And in the medieval warm period they didn’t have the technology we have now. Private enterprise would come to the rescue as it always does. The left however, are so devoid of imagination and spirit that they can never pass up a chance to support another boring, bureacratic

  139. Paul Bamford says:

    Science demonstrates that on average children who are brought up by their two heterosexual, married parents do better in life than children brought up in any other circumstances.

    Evidence please.

    At this stage there is less scientific proof for AGW’s effects than there is for the social deprivation caused by no-fault divorce and single parent families.

    More evidence please.

  140. cbp says:

    @Rococo Liberal

    At this stage there is less scientific proof for AGW’s effects than there is for the social deprivation caused by no-fault divorce and single parent families. So why, when we wouldn’t insist on massive Government action to follow the science on the latter, do we insist Governments inventing huge new bureaucracies

    Well you’re premise is wrong, but to answer your question whilst we’re waiting for your citations: a) ethics and b) the stakes.

    Ethics: We consider it far worse to restrict people’s freedom to engage in one of life’s great joys, that of raising a child, than it is to restrict people from say, leaving their set-top box running all day or leaving their aircon running because they lost the remote control under the couch cushion.

    The stakes: well, I have no idea what type of apocalyptic scenario you have in mind if gays were free to raise children with equal opportunity and lack of stigma, but from our point of view, there would be little to lose and much to gain. On the other hand, if some of the worser case scenarios were to play out climatically, we are talking about the possibility of an unprecedented scale of famine, war and extinction etc.

    Furthermore, the effects would quite possibly be irreversible. Let’s imagine a worst case for gays raising children – i.e. God comes down and starts smiting people willy nilly with flashes of lighting. It would be a simple matter for us to repent and elect a prime minister that God favours. The smiting would stop and normality would return.

    Not necessarily so with climate change. We could unlock a runaway destabilisation of the climate that would be irreversible. Unless we had made massive advances in regards to the ressurection of extinct species, it would be unlikely that they would magically return. Not to mention the people who died in wars and famine. Yes, we may invent some future technology that can control the weather or raise the dead, but we also may not. Personally, I’m not game to play dice.

  141. JC says:

    Mel says:
    In truth we don’t know exactly how climate change will impact on food production. However the CSIRO predicts a significant reduction in agricultural production in southern Australia. This finding is several years old and has been widely reported so I assume you are well aware of it.

    IPCC says

    Under local average temperature increases of ~2 to ~5°F (1 to 3°C), regions such as Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of Latin America could benefit from increased growing season length, more precipitation, and/or less frost, depending on the crop.

    The IPCC is describing a big swag of industrialized global food production. So an increase in those areas could very well compensate for falls elsewhere.

    Note also that may appear to benefit North America, which may cause one of the biggest emitting regions not to care. And if other parts of south America are fine why would they care.

    Farmers here would change their crop. This is 100 year span we’re talking about offering plenty of time to move crops types around. Adaptation is not a stupid policy strategy.

    CBP

    Yes, but you’re prepared to play dice with OPM’s on tail risk. Tail risk is best covered with option contracts not insurance.

  142. Paul Bamford says:

    Under local average temperature increases of ~2 to ~5°F (1 to 3°C), regions such as Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of Latin America could benefit from increased growing season length, more precipitation, and/or less frost, depending on the crop.

    Which is great if:

    – You live in Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand or various parts of Latin America;

    – the crops are right.

    Not so great if:

    – You live elsewhere;

    – You’re reduced to depending on those gains in Northern Europe, North America etc getting shipped to you in exchange for some stuff that the Europeans, North Americans and the rest can’t produce for themselves.

    So the question is – how will we survive once we’ve run out of iron ore to sell the New Zealanders in exchange for food?

  143. cbp says:

    @JC

    IPCC says

    Under local average temperature increases of ~2 to ~5°F (1 to 3°C), regions such as Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of Latin America could benefit from increased growing season length, more precipitation, and/or less frost, depending on the crop.

    The IPCC is describing a big swag of industrialized global food production. So an increase in those areas could very well compensate for falls elsewhere.

    Would you like to provide us with the full paragraph from IPCC, or should I link to it?

    Why did you truncate the parts of the quote that provide important qualifications that don’t support your case?

  144. JC says:

    Well aren’t you begging the point? A significant constituency in the (now) second largest emitter is not at this as a problem and their votes in the Congress suggests this.

    You are therefore asking these people to impose a cost on emissions for which they don’t see it as a problem.

    You’re reduced to depending on those gains in Northern Europe, North America etc getting shipped to you in exchange for some stuff that the Europeans, North Americans and the rest can’t produce for themselves.

    So the question is – how will we survive once we’ve run out of iron ore to sell the New Zealanders in exchange for food?

    This is a very simplistic way to describe international trade developments over the next 90 years, Paul.

    So the question is – how will we survive once we’ve run out of iron ore to sell the New Zealanders in exchange for food?

    So you’re suggesting our economy is too inflexible to adjust over the next 90 years. You’re basically implying we will suffer an absolute fall in our living standards. Really?

  145. JC says:

    Why did you truncate the parts of the quote that provide important qualifications that don’t support your case?

    I didn’t truncate anything and your suggestion is pretty offensive.. I took the part summary from the IPCC which discussed food production, copied and then pasted it from here

    If you’re suggesting this isn’t a direct quote then say so otherwise knock off the bullshit.

  146. cbp says:

    Yes, but you’re prepared to play dice with OPM’s on tail risk. Tail risk is best covered with option contracts not insurance.

    I’m sorry, I don’t understand your analogy – are you saying that an implementation of carbon pricing equals ‘playing dice’ slash ‘insurance contract’; whilst business-as-usual equals ‘not playing dice’ slash ‘option contracts’? Help me out…

  147. JC says:

    Cpb

    You also need to answer the point i raised about confusing tail risk as an insurance problem. Why would you pay a premium to over insure because that’s what you’re suggesting by making this point that i will highlight.

    Not necessarily so with climate change. We could unlock a runaway destabilisation of the climate that would be irreversible. ……. Personally, I’m not game to play dice.

  148. cbp says:

    @JC
    This is the full paragraph from which you quote. You truncated the last sentences:

    Under local average temperature increases of ~2 to ~5°F (1 to 3°C), regions such as Northern Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of Latin America could benefit from increased growing season length, more precipitation, and/or less frost, depending on the crop. However, these regions can also expect more flooding, and if local average temperatures rise beyond this range, crop yields could decline in some of these areas.* Note that these higher-latitude regions warm at a faster rate than the global average.

    With the full paragraph in tact, is your original comment supported or hindered by the quote?

  149. cbp says:

    Why would you pay a premium to over insure

    $23 a tonne is drastically under-insuring actually.

  150. JC says:

    $23 a tonne is drastically under-insuring actually.

    Nonsense. It’s not $23 a ton at all. The Productivity Commission said we are already in the mid range in terms of an implicit price, which they estimated at around either 44 or 43 bucks a ton. So you need to add the carbon tax to the implicit price and that would put us at the very top of the range by a material sum.

    Add in the $10 billion that will invariably be wasted with the Brown Bank and the price will rise even further, as the losses accruing from that boondoggle directing money to the subsidy whores should be accounted for as abatement costs.

    It’s not as though this tax proposal is going to be introduced and subsidies removed. That’s not happening. We’re keeping the subsidies to the subsidy whores adding new ones and the wrapping a tax around the entire thing. Which economist is supporting this I wonder?

    Secondly my point was directed to your emotional demand we need insure tail risk and not the tax itself. Why would you want to over insure tail risk with insurance rather than a put (like) option?

  151. JC says:

    With the full paragraph in tact, is your original comment supported or hindered by the quote?

    Nope. Not at all. The quote was specifically to counter the earlier opinion I also quoted from the other commenter that the world would see a fall in food production. This isn’t necessarily the case.

  152. observa says:

    Troppo needs to face facts that there is an ovewhelming ‘scientific consensus’ out there about the policy prescriptions of warmists, which belies the acceptance of the consensus among climatologists and their science. Personally I think climatology has about as much clout as humanology. What! You haven’t heard of our mob of self-appointed, peer reviewed eggsperts in the field overlooking the lesser lights of medicine, biology, psychology, psychiatry, physiotherapy, chiropracty, scientology, reflexology, etc, etc..? Shame on you ignorati. Apparently noone but us are qualified to speak on humanology, just as lowlifes like Lindzen, McKintyre & McKitrick, McShane & Wyner, Plimer, etc are not allowed to comment on climatology. That must only be left to other eminent climatologists like Gore, Flannery and Garnaut, etc but not Lords and Nobels taking the piss out of themselves quite deliberately, to make that very point.

    There are 2 parts to AGW. The veracity of the science and its predictions and then there’s what to do about it but the climatology club blurred the two and have paid the price for that. Perhaps you have to be agnostic on the science/predictions to appreciate that now. Whatever Monckton’s view of the science he presented a damning actuarial analysis of the IPCC’s best predictive science in response to Dennis’ emotional appeal to ‘we gotta do sumpink’ and fallback on the insurance principle, which Monckton’s figures showed was bats for comets stuff. No journo asked the obvious of Dennis- Do you refute those damning actuarial figures and if so where are yours? As Monckton rightly asked- where’s your homework? Well in the absence of that we simply fall back on the ‘consensus science’ of the voters out there. Have it any way you like warmistas and either way they’re cooked even if they’ve never accepted the reality of Copenhagen as Rudd rightly did.

    Despite all that, any of us could still support a no exemptions, level playing field shift to CO2E taxing with income and company tax tradeoffs but what are we really faced with? A witches brew of exemptions, contradictions and avenues for rent-seeking, profiteering and special pleading, the Morgan Sachses of the world could drive a bus through. And what will it all achieve? The question they will not answer but everyone knows the answer to without any help from the evil Murdoch and Monckton. It’s all about needing tax revenue fast for fiscal incompetence in order to shore up that promise- we are all fiscal conservatives now. Why bother Julia, they know they can’t trust you and Labor anyway, just like trying to tell coal-miners they’ve got a great future while Bob and Co tell them the truth.

  153. observa says:

    Or the shorter observa-It aint about the science now stoopids! It’s about the policy prescriptions.

    The answer lies in the constitution of our marketplace to drive us all in the direction of that true underlying concern out there about our natural environment. This steaming pile of crap won’t cut it so get over it and move on.

  154. haiku says:

    When you’ve got Observa’s incoherence on your side you know you’re onto a winner.

  155. rog says:

    Precisely, the arguments as presented by JC/Observa are compellingly for action on carbon.

  156. Rafe says:

    A helpful primer on CO2 and plant growth.

    The effects of an enriched CO2 atmosphere on crop productivity, in large measure, as positive, leaving little doubt as the benefits for global food security …. Now, after more than a century, and with the confirmation of thousands of scientific reports, CO2 gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in plant bulk, is usually in short supply, and is nearly always limiting for photosynthesis … The rising level of atmospheric CO2 is a universally free premium, gaining in magnitude with time, on which we can all reckon for the foreseeable future.

    Thomas Barlow on the Government advertising campaign.

    There are a great many criticisms that can be made about these extraordinary government advertisements. They have been justified on the basis that we need more information yet they contain little information. They have used taxpayer funds to provide free publicity for a very small group of companies, presumably to the disadvantage of their competitors – something for the government’s Competitive Neutrality Complaints Office to chew over.

    But the real sadness lies in what these advertisements tell us about the failed and excessively cosy relationship between this government and its scientific advisers. In its blind acceptance of the scientific promise, this government tragically has succumbed to the triumph of wishful thinking over common sense.

  157. Nicholas Gruen says:

    What a sad joke Rafe. You give us all lectures about critical rationalism – the importance of debate in searching for better positions, but your contribution is inane musings about a crank followed by the odd link to various partisan hacks.

    “A helpful primer on CO2 and plant growth”. Thanks. Much obliged.

    An imposition on our hospitality.

  158. Rafe says:

    Nicholas, who do you regard as the crank, Christopher Monckton? Thomas Barlow?

  159. cbp says:

    Nope. Not at all. The quote was specifically to counter the earlier opinion I also quoted from the other commenter that the world would see a fall in food production. This isn’t necessarily the case.

    No, this is what you replied to: “In truth we don’t know exactly how climate change will impact on food production. However the CSIRO predicts a significant reduction in agricultural production in southern Australia.”

    And no, the quote from the IPCC doesn’t support your comment, in fact it undermines it. But to me this is as plain as day and to you obviously not, so let’s just leave it at that.

    Nonsense. It’s not $23 a ton at all.

    Why would you want to over insure tail risk with insurance rather than a put (like) option?

    You missed my point – whatever the total price is, the point is is that it is under insuring. I never said I want to over insure – we are so far away from over-insuring that the notion is moot.
    Also, I have no idea what solution you have in your mind which you equate to a put option – please reveal it.

  160. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Rafe,

    You’ve been challenged to debate the issues. By Tim, and by me. You don’t seem to want to do so. I don’t particularly want to debate the issues with you – I don’t know enough – but as ever I’d be interested in observing a debate. I might learn something. A debate like the one I started and linked to above.

    Paul Frijters joined the discussion with this comment.

    “great initiative, Nick! And kudos to David Evans too for exposing himself to 20 odd skeptics who are mainly ripping into him!”

    The contrast with your own efforts is, like I said, sad.

  161. Tim Lambert says:

    Rafe, you illustrate again how profoundly unscientific your approach is. Your “helpful primer” is a quote from a book published in 1995 and not to any scientific literature. If you want a primer that is properly supported by references to scientific sources, go here. Your conduct here is particularly telling, since on your web site I found that you were first author a paper published in Soil Science in 1969 which was properly supported by cites in the scientific literature. So you knew how it was done then. What happened to you since then?

  162. JC says:

    1. It doesn’t undermine anything other than in your own mind. Food may increase in certain parts of the world and fall in other areas. It’s not that clear cut.

    That was the point I was making, which for some reason you took issue with because you incorrectly thought it as only referencing Australia.

    2. I didn’t miss your point. Your understanding of how one mitigates tail risk is unsophisticated and simplistic. Let me repeat what you said again.

    Not necessarily so with climate change. We could unlock a runaway destabilisation of the climate that would be irreversible. ……. Personally, I’m not game to play dice.

    What you’re sloppily describing is tail risk and tail risk is best mitigated with option like cover .

  163. JC says:

    Tim Lmabert

    I’m confused. Can you help? I once asked which energy supply you’d advocate and you unashamedly suggested “windpower”! without a second hesitation. Remember Tim, when we all laughed? That was part of your exact quote, which I’ll try to find if you can’t recall. ” windpower”

    A number of people speculated the real reason you came out of the closet as this nuclear renaissance-man (that one and only time in all the years you’ve been busy researching climate science) was that it remarkably coincided with Barry Brooke’s brave support of nuclear energy. That’s when he realized renewables (subsidy whores) weren’t going to achieve their perpetual promise they were the next power form… it’s been going on for the past 40 odd years. Some of us thought you might have sort felt “upstaged” by Barry’s brave position. Can you set us straight on this please, as to when you went from wind only to nuke, as I’m a little curious? Well actually more than a little curious.

    You asked Rafe to tell you what he thought was his “Lordship’s” strongest position on the science.

    Let me ask you… what do you think Doc Deniss’ strongest economic point was?

  164. Tim Lambert says:

    [email protected] says

    I don’t have a favorite value for sensitivity and the issue remains open as long as values have to be derived from unstable models of complex systems.

    Firstly, as Knutti and Hegerl (2008) (linked above @45) shows and I have already stated in this thread, you don’t have to derive sensitivity from models — you can also derive it from observations and from paleoclimate. These estimates braodly agree that the sensitivity is about three degrees of warming for doubling CO2.

    Secondly, you do seem to have a favoured value for sensitivity. In your original post you stated:

    And the question of how the warming lobby and Greens managed to inflate a possible temperature increase of a degree or two over the next century into the greatest moral challenge to humankind

    Are not saying that under business as usual warming over the next century will be at the most one or two degrees?

  165. observa says:

    Perhaps I could put it to the Dennis’ insurance principle fans another way. Suppose a firm believer in the climatology consensus like Rudd was a Lord and Nobel winner, but came back from Copenhagen and stated unfortunately the great moral imperative is over because of the clear lack of global action and also promulgated those same actuarial analysis figures of Moncktons based on IPCC’s best science, can you refute Kev’s arguments? I say Kev is right unless his actuarial sums are wrong and it only takes one layman climatology skeptic to prove it wrong. However any Lord, Nobel winning climatologist, true believer will do just nicely. Anyone?

    Here’s the silliness of making the top 500 polluters pay, rather than my take that a universal level playing field CO2E tax with income tax cuts would be doable. Apparently Brisbane City Council is in, whereas my local Adelaide metro council won’t be because we didn’t amalgamate all our metro councils like Bris back in the 1920s. And that’s just for starters. Even without Lord Rudd’s actuarial analysis being debunked, this Labor/Green tax is rubbish.

  166. cbp says:

    What you’re sloppily describing is tail risk and tail risk is best mitigated with option like cover.

    How many times are you going to keep saying that and how many times am I going to keep asking you what in blazes your analogy to option cover is refering to?

  167. observa says:

    Now I don’t need Lord Rudd’s analysis to be debunked to accept a move to CO2E taxing and nor do you. Even an agnostic like me might accept it’s not a bad idea on its tax reform merits and there is peak oil to consider. How much do you want to rely on CO2E taxing warmist doomsayers? Is 100% of tax collections what you had in mind? I’m listening.

  168. cbp says:

    2. I didn’t miss your point. Your understanding of how one mitigates tail risk is unsophisticated and simplistic. Let me repeat what you said again.

    From this statement, quite clearly you did miss the point. Look, you seem to not be able to follow the conversation in a clear way so its really no fun anymore discussing with you. I just wanted to point out that you had chopped off half of an IPCC paragraph that didn’t support your argument. I’ve done that and now I’m going to try resist the temptation to get lost in the weird maze of dead-ends and twisty passages that is your mind.

  169. JC says:

    I repeat it because you make these comments without even understanding risk and risk mitigation. Comments such as this:

    Not necessarily so with climate change. We could unlock a runaway destabilisation of the climate that would be irreversible. ……. Personally, I’m not game to play dice.

    and this:

    You missed my point – whatever the total price is, the point is is that it is under insuring. I never said I want to over insure – we are so far away from over-insuring that the notion is moot.

    You don’t understand risk… you want to over-insure against tail risk oblivious to the fact that you are playing dice even when you think you aren’t.

  170. wizofaus says:

    “Adaptation is not a stupid policy strategy”

    Who was claiming that JC? At this stage, I’d say it’s almost certain we’ll spend a lot more money (and impose much harsher restrictions on businesses etc.) due to necessary adaptation strategies than any mitigation attempts are likely to cost. Of course we could have globally decided 10 or 20 years ago to implement a pretty minimal system of migitation and saved ourselves most of the inevitable cost and burden of what adaptation is now bound to entail, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.

  171. desipis says:

    JC, how do you get to the conclusion that the carbon trading scheme is over-insuring?

  172. rog says:

    If only Rafe would take the time to read the junk that he links to,

    A higher temperature without adequate level of the necessary ingredients for growth might produce no response or even damage.

    An increase in CO2 has both positives and negatives.

  173. Rafe says:

    Just like global warming!

  174. john walker says:

    Desipis @134
    “the currently proposed system as preferable to continuing uncertainty,” the only thing that looks certain is continuing uncertainty.

    It is also pretty obvious that none of you have much direct contact with farming, even a small increase in unstable climate events will have massive effects on food production

  175. wizofaus says:

    …and it really does take a wilful suspension of belief in basic laws of thermodynamics to think that any process responsible for trapping that much extra energy in the atmosphere will do anything other than increase the intensity and frequency of climate variability, regardless of what you think about temperature sensitivity.

    Tim, as far as your question what happened to Rafe since 1969 goes, I’d have to say someone like Ian Plimer (who used to be a bit of a hero of mine) takes the biscuit for a truly sad and bewildering loss of faith in his apparent ability to separate scientific argument from blatant obstructionism.

  176. john walker says:

    It is a bit strange to watch so many ‘libertarians’ and scientists so easily falling for the sophistry/methods that were developed for the purpose of confusing creationism with credible science .

  177. JC says:

    Desipis

    JC, how do you get to the conclusion that the carbon trading scheme is over-insuring?

    It’s a unilateral decision by an insignificant emissions producer (Australia) to impose a relatively significant tax over a host of interventionist actions like dismantling coal fired plants, subsidies galore and renewable mandates picking winners making it the highest cost consolidated abatement scheme in the world.

    Here’s the other issue. We keep hearing how there are no economists that supports the opposition’s plan. I find that hard to believe when the Abbot speech to the Melbourne business community was obviously written by an economist. There’s one. However all that is beside the point.

    What I would like to know is are there are any economists here that would generically support a conglomeration of expanding subsidies, performing significant intervention by closing down coal plants, creating a bank that every rent seeker in the country will invariably try to scam, mandating a renewable scheme then wrapping a tax over this abortion and calling it market based. Anyone?

    My missive doesn’t suggest I support the opposition’s policy either. In fact I’ve always supported John Humphreys proposal when he was at the CIS and later became LDP policy, which was to substitute a carbon tax in place of income tax
    (no bullshit 100% income neutral), remove every shred of subsidy and then leave it alone, raising or lowering the tax depending on global temp behavior.

    (And John Walker what libertarians are those? A neo -Libertarian market based
    intervention would closer to what is suggested above).

  178. rog says:

    We keep hearing how there are no economists that supports the opposition’s plan.

    You may read that in the Australian JC but the reality is that a majority of economists favour a price based mechanism over direct government action.

  179. JC says:

    Ah yes Rog, we know what you think of online polls and “interested bogan” petitions from the time, just recently, when you were Jennifer Marohasey’s biggest supporter.

    This is you , right Rog.

    Comment from: rog February 26th, 2009 at 7:43 am

    Someone will need to clean up the petition; signatories such as “Ignorant Bogan, Paulinehansonville, Queensland”, “Fat Pig, Conservative Propaganda Wing, New South Wales” and “Liberal Wanker, GasGuzzler, Western Australia” only confirm the lack of any credibility of online polls.

    I can appreciate it’s hard for you to get your head around it, Rog, but the question I asked is this:, which I’ll repeat for your own benefit:

    What I would like to know is are there are any economists here that would generically support a conglomeration of expanding subsidies, performing significant intervention by closing down coal plants, creating a bank that every rent seeker in the country will invariably try to scam, mandating a renewable scheme then wrapping a tax over this abortion and calling it market based. Anyone?

    This doesn’t lend any support to the Libs policy either. But I guess it needs to be spelt it out to you ……again.

  180. desipis says:

    JC,

    …making it the highest cost consolidated abatement scheme in the world.

    How are you measuring this, and what data are you using?

    …calling it market based.

    It seems to me to be a hybrid solution, using a market based mechanism for optimisation in the long term adjustment but also using subsidies and direct action in the short term to deal with the low hanging fruit. Calling it a ‘market based’ solution could, on the face of it, be somewhat misleading, however in the context of the alternative proposed by Abbott it is the market based option.

    …substitute a carbon tax in place of income tax
    (no bullshit 100% income neutral), remove every shred of subsidy and then leave it alone…

    The problem with doing it that way is that it’ll be significant shock to the economy that the harm will be much more than any harm done through “inefficient” subsidies or intervention. In the longer term it’s probably not a bad system (although action would need to be pre-emptive based on predicted global temperature), however like people with drug addictions, going cold turkey isn’t going to be a viable option without assistance.

  181. rog says:

    Correct JC, I have no idea what you are talking about.

  182. Ken Parish says:

    JC at #182

    Yes, my view of an optimal solution like yours is a pure carbon tax (like the LDP policy) and without any direct action “picking winners” add-ons. The only direct action measure I DO support is seeking tenders to subsidise closing down the dirtiest brown coal power stations like Halzelwood on an accelerated timetable. That’s part of both Coalition (nominally) and Labor policy. I don’t see it as distortionary because it isn’t really in any doubt that they’re badly in need of closure, but they won’t close until they approach the end of their economic life in the absence of incentives beyond a modest carbon tax that doesn’t make them unprofitable.

    However I can’t help seeing a distinctly ideological slant in your rhetoric given that you’re focusing on the deficiencies of Labor’s prescriptions when the Coalition’s are clearly inferior on your own criteria. That is despite saying (to your great credit) that you accept the strength of the scientific analysis, in contrast to most Tories here and elsewhere who seem intent on tying themselves in knots to avoid conceding the logically undeniable force of the scientific case that AGW is a real and present danger. Given that Labor is only hanging onto government by the skin of its teeth, why aren’t you devoting more time to critical analysis of Abbott’s policies? Check out Ben Eltham’s critique of the Coalition’s policies. Labor’s proposed solution is at least predominantly (for the next 3 years anyway) based on a straight carbon tax.

    BTW I have serious doubts about the wisdom of an ETS with emissions credits purchasable internationally in the absence of a credible and reasonably global agreement that ensures that overseas carbon credits represent GENUINE emissions reductions not just dodgy money-making scams. To me that is the real “elephant in the room” in Labor’s scheme, but it has received next to no media or blogosphere attention. In itself that suggests that very few people have any real understanding of the issues.

  183. wizofaus says:

    Ken, I don’t think it’s at all fair or helpful to suggest that anything even close to *most* “Tories here and elsewhere” prefer to adopt a denialist position. At most, a significant minority of the federal Liberal party may qualify, plus a few particular individuals whose opinions attract far too much attention for whatever reasons.

  184. JC says:

    Ken

    This is what I think. AGW is a big freaking long term problem that will likely become increasingly problematic as time goes on and the emerging economies blow out a storm.

    This can only be dealt with through the right technologies. But primarily it’s a technological problem

    I’ve said I reject the Libs policy but it’s not up for contention at the moment. . I despise both plans

    ……why aren’t you devoting more time to critical analysis of Abbott’s policies?

    Because I don’t really understand the freaking thing. I can’t really imagine anyone can. Lol.

  185. TerjeP says:

    Ken – a response to a few of your comments:-

    “It was only the political necessity of backflipping caused by the need to accommodate the Greens’ demands that made her break that promise.”

    This reads as if power is more important than integrity. Maybe it is but it isn’t hard to see why a naked power grab would make many people revolted irrespective of the hand waiving. Even if Gillard chose not to call it a tax and a technicality allowed her to do so the general public isn’t stupid. If it causes revenue to flow to the government by a legislated form of compulsion then even if you don’t call it a tax it sure smells the same.

    “Yes, my view of an optimal solution like yours is a pure carbon tax (like the LDP policy) and without any direct action “picking winners” add-ons.”

    The LDP does not have a carbon tax as policy. Although I also think that if your policy objective is to reduce Australian emissions then a pure carbon tax is the best option assuming that you have already opened up the market to all technological contenders. Given that nuclear is still prohibited a carbon tax is remains suboptimal. All the proxies for a carbon tax like MRET and handouts are obviously pure nonsence whatever the landscape.

  186. TerjeP says:

    ……why aren’t you devoting more time to critical analysis of Abbott’s policies?

    Abbotts policy is rubbish but he isn’t running the country. I notice that Lord Monckton also said Abbotts policy was rubbish but it didn’t get much press. ;-)

  187. Mel says:

    Rafe @158 – “A helpful primer on CO2 and plant growth.”

    Rafe, the “helpful primer” you provide is a link to a web page written by an economist. I don’t see how it refutes the empirical findings of appropriately qualified scientists published earlier this year in Science Magazine, for which I have furnished an abstract. You have genuine empirical evidence to suggest the world is greener and producing more food now than it did previously because of increased CO2 levels, please provide it.

    [email protected]: “The IPCC is describing a big swag of industrialized global food production. So an increase in those areas could very well compensate for falls elsewhere.”

    Subsequent empirical research, as indicated, demonstrates otherwise. The IPCC reports tend to err on the side of conservatism, consequently each edition becomes that little bit more gloomy than its predecessor. It’s a bit Harry Potter meets Marilyn Manson in that regard ;)

  188. JC says:

    Terje

    Just to be clear, was Humprhreys proposal for a carbon tax in the way it was described and discussed on the ALS blog many times is not part of the party platform? I thought it was.. however I could be confusing John H and the LDP being one and the same when he was around more.

  189. rog says:

    Abbott’s policies may be rubbish but to dismiss analysis of them on the basis that he isn’t “running the country” is also rubbish – should there be a by election that goes his way he could end up “running the country”.

  190. Rafe says:

    Thanks Mel, I have not done enough recent research to write a paper for a refereed journal. Increased CO2 looks like a bonus but it may not be an unequivocal benefit, depending on other factors. A basic principle of plant growth is that increasing the supply of a nutrient give increased yield with diminishing returns, subject to some caveats: Ph effects if the species is Ph-sensivive; balance of nutrients and interactions with other nutrients (so too much N can boost height but the plants fall over); and in extreme doses, toxicity (salting).

    Just to demonstrate the complications of research in the field, some African studies showed huge gains from planting seeds and fertilizer together instead of spreading the fertilizer over the soil. It turned out that much of the effect arose from the aversion of baboons to the fertilzer. They came out of the bush in the night and ate the seeds that were not mixed with fertilizer.

    Clearly there are mixed effects of increased CO2 and some of the adverse effects appear to be related to higher temperatures and reduced water supply. Given that alarmists anticipated higher temperatures and droughts, any findings along those lines are emphasised, especially if IPCC editors happen to be also friends of Greenpeace.

  191. observa says:

    When you’ve got a spare 50 mins or so it’s well worth having a listen to an interview with this old physicist and the ‘good old days’-
    http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/06/08/3238621.htm
    Aunty must be slipping because he’s one of those nasty deluded skeptics apparently but as he’s not a dinkum climatologist then clearly he’s way out of his league so his rantings and ravings don’t matter on that score ;)

  192. observa says:

    WARNING: That nasty denier Bolty recommended it but it sums up pretty well why I’m an agnostic on the ‘greenhouse effect’. Still a bloody good listen if you want to work out where we agnostics hail from.

  193. John Quiggin says:

    You’re just making an idiot of yourself observa (and rafe has already done so)

    The idea that someone who hasn’t studied the relevant science (that is, studied it properly, not read some silly web pages) and doesn’t know enough statistics to detect obvious nonsense like that cited by the “sceptics” who say things like “global warming ended in 1988” can sensibly be “agnostic” is an epic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. To put it bluntly, you’re too ignorant to have an opinion.

  194. PSC says:

    This can only be dealt with through the right technologies. But primarily it’s a technological problem

    JC – How do you propose funding the R&D?

  195. TerjeP says:

    JC – a carbon tax was never LDP policy. Although at least one person quit the party saying they could not support a party that supported a carbon tax. It was quite odd. I think the confusion was because John Humphreys (and me and others also) talked a lot about the theoretical merits of a pure revenue neutral carbon tax relative to the existing and proposed raft of measures. Which is still pretty much my view. The current policy on the LDP website is I believe the same one we took to the last two elections.

    http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1154:global-warming&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290

  196. FDB says:

    Just to demonstrate the complications of research in the field, some African studies showed huge gains from planting seeds and fertilizer together instead of spreading the fertilizer over the soil. It turned out that much of the effect arose from the aversion of baboons to the fertilzer. They came out of the bush in the night and ate the seeds that were not mixed with fertilizer.

    Fascinating.

    Clearly there are mixed effects of increased CO2 and some of the adverse effects appear to be related to higher temperatures and reduced water supply. Given that alarmists anticipated higher temperatures and droughts, any findings along those lines are emphasised, especially if IPCC editors happen to be also friends of Greenpeace.

    Intellectual suicide, committed in public.

    Ewww.

  197. Paul Bamford says:

    A basic principle of plant growth is that increasing the supply of a nutrient give increased yield with diminishing returns, subject to some caveats: Ph effects if the species is Ph-sensivive; balance of nutrients and interactions with other nutrients (so too much N can boost height but the plants fall over); and in extreme doses, toxicity (salting).

    Rafe,

    Once again, evidence please? The reason I ask is that basic principles of biochemistry make your initial claim a crock of shit: increasing the presence of any single nutrient where other nutrients are in either limited supply or completely absent isn’t going to increase yields one iota.

    John Quiggin described your situation correctly @196. Maybe it’s time for you to quit commenting while you’re still behind and book your ticket for the IPA Vaclav Havel gabfest.

  198. observa says:

    Well the climate must be hotting up to pull the good Professor away from his echo chamber and come to debunk Monckton’s actuarial analysis of Dennis’ insurance principle as unnaffordable bats for comets, in order to provide his own superior figures based on the best IPCC consensus science. Monckton apparently places the cost of the IPCC wish list at $60000 per human on the planet, which may present some small hurdle for those living on a dollar or two a day, but if Monckton is so wrong about so much then he likely has his sums wrong on that too and it is your specialty John. I’m all ears and so are the broader electorate by all accounts.

    Did you listen to the full interview with Brian J O’Brien John? Some modest experience in science I would have thought but perhaps just some johnny come lately physicist dabbling in environmental science he knows nothing about? As you said- “The idea that someone who hasn’t studied the relevant science..” perhaps??? But then when did I ever say- “global warming ended in 1988″ but I do recall you were somewhat of a fan of the Mann hockey stick that Gore and Co frightened kiddies in schools with until some big kids in the science playground pointed out the truer nature of their bogeyman. Still it provided some mild relief no doubt from the Cold War instructions to curl up in the foetal position behind the monkey bars or slippery dip in the event of a nuclear strike.

    I’m agnostic on AGW because I’ve seen particular fads and alarmism come and go, correlation isn’t necessarily causation and there’s no doubt some of the current bunch of alarmists were engaged in some considerable, post-normal, advocacy pseudo-science. There’s some of that going on from the other side of the argument too which leaves me straddling the fence somewhat. That said, I like so many of my fellow citizenry now, can more easily judge the efficacy of the plethora of policies and remedies to date to deal with the perceived problem. They stink!

  199. JC says:

    JC – How do you propose funding the R&D?

    Hi PSC, Dot and I have spoken about this before. No public funding of R&D for anyone except in the normal way it’s done at present with the treatment of R&D.

    What we came up with was a long term tax holiday for any entity that can produce energy at comparable prices to coal or some formula thereof. Even if it was coal plants with clean tech as some firms like (US) Babcock claims it can achieve. It’s the least damaging way to intervene and would certainly keep the rent seeking hoards away.

    What you want is private capital swimming in this direction looking always looking for that elusive carrot.

  200. haiku says:

    Observa,
    This is a sentence.

    This is a paragraph. It should contain a key idea, comprised of a few sentences. Once this is done, there should be a space between this paragraph and the next.

    This is the next paragraph. It contains another idea. Once again, it contains clearly written, coherent sentences. It is in contrast to your rambling, which is parodied in the next section.

    Rambling paragraphs like this one which don’t contain a coherent idea or thought or anything like that but which are just strung together without any sense of flow or understanding of how to make an argument or even a general point but don’t you know Professor that this is the way that I think so I’m just going to write it down as a stream of consciousness and that might be OK if I were James Joyce but as I am observa the grand old man of the smoko room and veteran of vile racism at other parts of the Australian blogosphere and whereabouts did I say that global warming was rubbish oh up there well time to assert something about the hockey stick not that I understand it and also Al Gore is fat.

  201. rog says:

    Rafe, I have a modest understanding of the functions of N, P and even K but am perplexed by this new element Ph.

    Please explain?

  202. murph the surf. says:

    pH perhaps rather than Ph?
    It’s influence is all pervasive.
    The small fragment quoted by Paul Bamford is basically correct as supplementing a crop or pasture while dependent on the rate limiting principle will usually boost growth as long as we are talking about major nutrients- N,P,S or K rather than trace elements.
    This entire discussion about plant physiology is getting way past relevance – as the link from ( I think) Tim Lambert concluded the question about the effects on plants of increasing CO2 levels is extremely complicated and influenced by too many variables for any prediction to be reliable.
    “The global increase of CO2 is thus a grand biological experiment, with countless complications that make the net effect of this increase very difficult to predict with any appreciable level of detail.”

  203. rog says:

    I was just teasing Rafe.

    Plant growth is much more than just N,P,K, carbon, a bit of light and some water. Soil scientists would argue that it is the biota that feed the plant and most agree that the loss of biota through climate change will be significant.

  204. Rafe says:

    Call me dyslexic, of course I was talking about soil pH. That should have been pretty obvious from the context but of course what is obvious depends on what people know.

    In reply to Paul “basic principles of biochemistry make your initial claim a crock of shit: increasing the presence of any single nutrient where other nutrients are in either limited supply or completely absent isn’t going to increase yields one iota.”

    That is completely consistent with the principles as I sketched them. There are vast tracts of vegetation where nutrients other than CO2 are not limited or absent.

    Thanks rog, your last comment went up while I was writing, this is my home ground, although I have been playing away for several decades I will get onto the local soil science boffins and get a briefing on the state of play.

  205. One thing about the climate science debate that bothers me at the moment is that arguments about uncertainty cut both ways; but climate change skeptics think it only implies that only the chances of minor changes are higher. As John Nielsen-Gammon (who really tries to keep out of political debate on the topic) said at his blog recently:

    I happen to be one who thinks the greatest reason for concern about global warming is the uncertainty, the fact that we’re mucking with the climate system without knowing the consequences, and I tried to make the point clearly that uncertainty is a bad thing rather than a good thing.

    I wonder whether we may be seeing this happening in terms of the “blocking” weather patterns that have been prominent in the Northern Hemisphere in the last couple of years, and which appear to have caused both very snowy winters in some parts, but also the extraordinary Russian heat wave of last year. There were some papers – but only a couple, I think – which predicted the greatly reduced periods of sea ice in Northern Canada due to AGW might cause such events, but the jury appears very much out if that is what’s happening. In any event, I just wonder if it is an example of a specific change to a weather pattern due to AGW which was not widely anticipated but could turn out to be very significant.

  206. john walker says:

    Steve , you are spot on, farming needs reliable predictable climate, not ‘average’ climate.

    Most(virtually all) of the worlds most arable soils are in areas that are likely to experience increased unpredictability of climate.

  207. Rafe says:

    You don’t need to spend 50 minutes on the link that observa put up, the interview with Professor Brian O’Brien, just go to the last 10 minutes where he lifts the lid on the rise of “normal” (uncritical) scientists, pursuing the climate change agenda to maintain their funding.

  208. wizofaus says:

    Rafe, there’s no shortage of well-funded entities happy to pay for research with the express purpose of casting doubt on mainstream climate science. Any scientists that love their work but are so desperate for money they can’t continue it are either going to give up science all together, or find an organisation to work for where the monetary rewards are sufficiently high enough to compensate for the inability to follow their true passion. Scraping by on the funding bodies like NOAA or CRU get is hardly likely to be much temptation for deliberately destroying your own reputation.

  209. Ken Parish says:

    There are literally thousands of climate and related disciplines scientists who have contributed to research on AGW and who accept that it is a real and serious problem. There is a genuine scientific consensus just as much as with the Theory of Evolution (which a few fringe scientists also still dispute – are all biological scientists also engaged in a conspiracy to maintain their grant funding?).

    Expert consensus doesn’t guarantee correctness but it’s usually the best guide in any field where most of us lack the specialist knowledge to decide the question for ourselves. Occam’s Razor is also useful here. If faced with a choice between the proposition that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe that AGW is a real and serious problem because that’s what the evidence tells them, and one which suggests that they’re all

    (a) left wing ideologues; or
    (b) conspiring to maintain grant funding from governments around the world and of all political persuasions who for some unexplained reason are intent on plotting with the lefties to fund only pro-AGW research;

    which explanation would you choose?

    Is it really plausible that there is a Machiavellian conspiracy between just about every government science department, bureau of meteorology and university science department in every country in the world to assert falsely that AGW is a real and serious problem? The fact that people like Rafe blithely assert that the answer is yes merely indicates that they are not willing to engage seriously with the issues and are simply intent on asserting any argument however implausible that might impress credulous readers.

    BTW In my non-expert understanding, the most important reason why the “CO2 is a fertiliser” argument is silly is that CO2 is not only a fertiliser but a greenhouse gas. Doubling its atmospheric concentration is increasing earth’s temperature. That is beyond serious question (although the precise amount and rate isn’t). Increasing temperature also increases evaporation rates and most plants don’t grow as well with less water. No doubt in some areas increased evaporation rates will be counterbalanced by higher rainfall, in others (e.g. seemingly large areas of Australia) it will be exacerbated by lower rainfall.

    All this is of course highly uncertain, and the systems are indeed so complex that precise or even terribly reliable predictions of local or regional effects are impossible. Similarly even with global predictions of average temperature increase. That’s why the IPCC’s reports deal in terms of various “scenarios” involving a range of differing factors and human responses (e.g. population increase, technological and other responses). However the mid-point of the moderate scenarios is around 3 degrees C of warming by 2100, which is a major warming in anyone’s language. It could with a lot of luck be lower but it could also be significantly higher and therefore more catastrophic. As others have observed, the high degree of uncertainty as to exact effects in relation to such critical matters is a strong argument for preventive action, not an argument for doing nothing.

    BTW According to this document, the global mean temperature between 1880 and 2005 was 13.9 °C. Thus an increase of 3°C between now and 2100 is an increase of more than 20% in temperatures. I wonder why it isn’t more often couched in those terms? I seriously doubt that too many people would feel relaxed and comfortable about the planet getting 20-25% warmer over such a short period. Moreover, it’s already happening. Earth has warned by almost 1°C since 1880 and scientists (except the few fringe ones) accept that human intervention has been the predominant factor. We’re not talking here about some hypothetical risk based only on computer modelling (the impression denialists try to give) but a clear and present danger and reality.

  210. Tim Lambert says:

    So now its all a vast conspiracy, Rafe? Do you think the moon landings are a hoax as well?

  211. cbp says:

    As other commenters have pointed out, the big danger with climate change is not so much the climate part, but the change part.

    Drought has killed off many societies and civilizations, yet people have lived in the deserts of Africa for thousands of years. It’s the sudden change that’s the problem.

    Yes, wealthy, technologically-advanced countries will be able to adapt their agriculture and infrastructure somewhat (although it will no doubt be very costly). And just like rats and rabbits have largely benefited from human civilization, there may well be winners amongst animals and plants. But for the vast majority of poorer countries, plants and animals, it is doubtful that climate change will be a boon.

    A farmer in a first world country might be able to utilize modern technology to benefit from higher temperatures and CO2 levels. But will the Daintree or the Great Barrier Reef? What about endangered species already pushed to the southern coasts?

  212. Thomas the Tout says:

    Fascinating! This is a very different salon from the time that it was called “The Parish Pump”. Ken! What have you let loose?
    Analagous to a pack of (yapping) dogs attacking their quarry.
    Nearly everyone has forgotten the big picture; instead there are quibbles about whether it is a tax or an excise or a levy; is it an ice-hockey stick graph or a cooked-up result; and constant bleating of “where is the proof”?

    I went to Lord Monckton’s lecture on the weekend. Much more sense there than IPCC reports and East Anglia’s traducing of scientific credibility.
    But the point that I consider most important is that of cost. It will cost us huge money to try to stop global warming; but all that expenditure might have little effect. Then what? No, don’t answer that – too much bad manners and invective already. I am off to do something useful.

  213. john walker says:

    No scientist myself , but plants carbon metabolism pathways- C3 and C4- is complex and strongly affected by heat ,light, and water. C4 plants such as sugar cane can cope with hot dry conditions better than C3 plants – C is about 75% of all plants – C3 plants photosynthesis ability drops markedly under hot and dry conditions.

    Whilst there may be some scope for ‘engineering’ more efficient photosynthesis, at present many of the worlds food plants and grazing grass ,because they are C3 ,will become less productive in a hotter world.

    At the moment it is very hard to buy mutton or hogget at the butcher shop, this is because breeding stocks were very damaged by the recent long in time and widespread in area, drought . Breeding stocks take decades (often lifetimes) of care to create, they cannot easily replaced. A small increase in the frequency of severe droughts could over time result in a permanent drop in the Quality/productivity of herds.

    Fire frequency is the main determinant of native vegetation type (in Australia);
    a increase in fire frequency will change some currently productive native hard wood forests (and native cypress forests) into scrubby heath and woodlands. Monterrey Pine (radiata) the main plantation timber , needs about twenty five years to get to harvest size and is killed by wild fire.

    Civilization is a very complex highly integrated system, thus it is vulnerable to sudden catastrophic collapse triggered by a string of small unexpected events.
    I am quite sanguine that negative feed back will solve the problem long before positive feed back kicks in.

    However Rafe …. ‘it might hurt’.

  214. john walker says:

    Sorry -C3 pathway is about 85% of all plants.

  215. Mel says:

    Ken says:

    “BTW According to this document, the global mean temperature between 1880 and 2005 was 13.9 °C. Thus an increase of 3°C between now and 2100 is an increase of more than 20% in temperatures.”

    I hate to be a pedant Ken but your 20% figure is wrong because 0 degrees celsius is not an absolute zero.

    Rafe says:

    “A basic principle of plant growth is that increasing the supply of a nutrient give increased yield with diminishing returns, subject to some caveats: Ph effects if the species is Ph-sensivive; balance of nutrients and interactions with other nutrients (so too much N can boost height but the plants fall over); and in extreme doses, toxicity (salting).”

    Rafe, I’ve grown and planted thousands of plants over two decades, work with Landcare in a voluntary capacity and I have forgotten more about what it takes to grow plants than you’ll ever know. Your statement is utterly wrong and rather clearly demonstrates your ignorance of Liebig’s law of the minimum.

    Liebig’s law of the minimum has been known for almost 200 years and is basic knowledge for a first year horticulture student.

  216. desipis says:

    “BTW According to this document, the global mean temperature between 1880 and 2005 was 13.9 °C. Thus an increase of 3°C between now and 2100 is an increase of more than 20% in temperatures.”

    I hate to be a pedant Ken but your 20% figure is wrong because 0 degrees celsius is not an absolute zero.

    Yes, that’s true Mel. It’s about 1% of absolute temperature. However one of the important potential costs of warming is the effect on the temperature gradient in our thermal powerplants, for which 3°C inrease in ambient temperature represents a dramatic loss of efficency. Add to that the increased demands for cooling (and in some circumstances heating) due to climate change and the energy costs of the change could become quite significant (possbily more significant than the effects of the proposed carbon price).

    Of course biological systems are often more sensistive than man made ones…

  217. Rafe says:

    Ken, do you grant that alarmists like Al Gore and Tim Flannery have muddied the waters of debate?

    Do you agree that the Greens and the hard left of the ALP have agendas that go far beyond the environment, and that they are using climate concerns to push those agendas?

    Do you acknowledge that there are thousands of scientists who do not go along with the so-called consensus? One of them is Professor Brian O’Brien who has cred in both ecological concerns and the scientific and technical issues.

    I do not claim that there is a Machiavellian conspiracy between just about every government science department, bureau of meteorology and university science department in every country in the world to assert falsely that AGW is a real and serious problem. However I do claim there are several factors working together to distort the direction of research and the interpretation of findings.

    So far as the CO2 as food effect is concerned, the critics make much of the negative impact of temperature increases and rainfall reductions. However if there is only moderate warming those adverse influences will not come to pass and there will be increased productivity in colder parts of the globe.

    Do you accept the upside of longer growing seasons and more production in colder parts of the world? That is, the shifting of the current boundaries for certain types of farming.

  218. Rafe says:

    Mel if you will just cut me some slack you will see that I was essentially stating Liebigs Law. I should have said that increasing the supply of a nutrient “that is in short supply”….

    The point here is whether CO2 is in “short supply” so that increasing the supply can increase the yield. That is what I want to follow up with some scientists who are working in the field.

  219. wizofaus says:

    For those worried about the risks of Australia taking the lead…

    http://www.economist.com/node/18989175

    Now I’d be the first to admit nobody knows for sure whether there might be other factors that were responsible for BC’s solid performance since the tax was introduce – it’s even possible it might have done better without it. But the fact is we have a solid data point showing that there is no reason at all to assume a price on carbon should have any measurable negative impact on the economy.

  220. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Thanks for that Rafe, but I think it would be more germane to let us know what Andrew Bolt thinks of Liebigs Law.

  221. Rob says:

    Further to John @ 218, it seems Gillard may not be a conviction politician on this issue after all.

    As La Bolta said: who leaked?

  222. Mel says:

    Rafe:

    “Mel if you will just cut me some slack you will see that I was essentially stating Liebigs Law.”

    No, you most certainly were not.

    Ocean acidification is another serious concern in respect of food production. Rafe might like to address this point.

  223. desipis says:

    Rafe,

    Do you agree that the Greens and the hard left of the ALP have agendas that go far beyond the environment, and that they are using climate
    concerns to push those agendas?

    a) What does this have to do with the science?
    b) This goes both ways.

    However if there is only moderate warming those adverse influences will not come to pass and there will be increased productivity in colder parts of the globe.

    And if you happen to get one of the empty chambers, Russian Roulette is a perfectly safe game to play.

    Do you accept the upside of longer growing seasons and more production in colder parts of the world?

    Do you accept the economic upsides of a carbon tax?

  224. JC says:

    a) What does this have to do with the science?

    You mean when Christine Milne keeps talking about noo technologies that will transform the country and how ,if given the chance, solar and wind could be our biggest expert earners in the nest 10 years?

    You mean that sort of “science” prediction? Lol

    Or do you mean like when Bob Brown talks labor economics and tell us that “green jobs’ will be the the biggest growth area in the economy and make us even richer than we are now instead of relying on the hated mining industry.

    Despisis, I take it your totally confident in these two laureates having a serious handle on science on economic matters, yea? I do :-)

  225. JC says:

    (oops damn Ipad)

    Despisis, I take it you’re totally confident in these two laureates having a serious handle on science and economic matters, yea? I do

  226. wizofaus says:

    JC, lack of economic understanding may well be a weakness of many Greens policies and pronouncements (and trust me, that frustrates many of their supporters far more than it would ever frustrate their opponents), but it’s not such a crazy prediction that ‘green’ jobs (depending of course on how it’s defined) may well be the single biggest growth sector in the coming decades – especially when coming off such a small base. Did Bob really say this would make us “even richer”?

  227. desipis says:

    JC,

    Rafe, as far as I can tell is arguing about the science. Hence the opinions of politicans on any side is not particularly relevant to the debate.

    I don’t pay attention to the particular ramblings of any politician. However I support the general idea of a carbon trading based change to the economy. If there are specific parts of the proposed policy that you have a problem with, it might be benefitial to identify these issues so we can talk about them specifically rather just referring to vague assertions at some media appearance.

    In fact, if the opposition (and the media) took their roll seriously of holding the government to account they’d be tackling specific elements of the policy in an attempt to change or remove the most objectionable ones. Instead they’re trying to score cheap political points by painting a simplistic and negative picture of the whole thing, appealing to emotion rather than reason. This creates the (probably false) impression that there’s nothing technically wrong with policy (other than ideological objections).

  228. JC says:

    Rafe, as far as I can tell is arguing about the science. Hence the opinions of politicans on any side is not particularly relevant to the debate.

    I’m not sure Rafe is only ‘arguing about the science”. It would be best to ask him if that is indeed the case.

    And on the contrary, rambling or not, the opinions and rank economic illiteracy on the Greens side is important, as policy is potentially contaminated.

    How we organize ourselves is in some ways more important than the science I reckon.

    A question on related science.

    The Greens refused to condemn the attack on CSIRO property last week where Greenpeace advocates destroyed CSIRO property. It appears the Greens view on such crops is identical to Greenpeace.

    As far as I’m concerned important responses to AGW is partially through things like GM cropping in some ways.

    How do you feel about the attack Desipis?

  229. john walker says:

    Denial of ‘evolution’ and/or the denial of the theory of evolution: Creationism and/or Creation Science, follows a pattern that might be by now, familiar.

    The starting condition is:
    • The text ,the theoretical representation of action, is raised to a primary status ; the text-theory becomes the faith .

    This leads to
    ‘Evolution’ is not literally in line with the words of text= ‘Evolution’ must be false.

    Thus the first response is usually:

    •Flat denial of the existence of evidence for evolution.

    Next step often is:

    • conspiracy theory ; ‘Satan made the fossils to tempt us ,children ,look away’.

    Next is :

    • claims that complex adaptions , flight , eyes, require teleological explanation. Something so complex needs conscious intention and is evidence that evolution theory is not able to explain the evidence.

    And this is were cognitive dissonance can really take flight.
    The fact that so many ‘scientists’ have come to agree about the reality of something that is, by definition, the work of demons becomes proof of invisible conspiracy by demons… And the reality that ‘orthodox’ end churches have no problems with evolution, becomes proof that those churches are not the true faith. And so on.

    Next step of denial is sutler :
    Accept the physical evidence of evolution and to then proclaim a new ‘creation’ theory of evolution , a ‘theory’ that is not out of line with the fixed theoretical faith. And thus claim a right for equal time in science classes.

    Sound familiar?

  230. JC says:

    Sound familiar?

    Nope. I’m thinking you’re watching too many Glen Beck reruns and getting angry.

    You’re a little over board with your equations.

  231. rog says:

    One moment JC argues that it is primarily a technological problem and then argues that the politics is more important than the science.

    Confusing or confused?

  232. Tim Lambert says:

    Rafe, if O’Brien thinks scientists are inevitable corrupted by their funding sources, don’t you think he should have mentioned his own employment as a consultant for the coal industry?

    As for your “thousands of scientists” see here.

  233. john walker says:

    “Angry” no , bored maybe. Strangelove aside ,Global Conspiracy theory’s make for unimaginative surreal plots.

    An early prediction made by the models was for a strengthening of the Antarctic vortex resulting in a shifting of weather patterns in SE Australia to the south.
    Where I live the climate figures over past 30+ years are exactly line with the predictions of the theory. The number of winter SW rain days has fallen from about 30 to about 20 and the number of days of hot NW winds has increased from about 30 to about 50, rainfall has dropped by about 100 mills per year and evaporation has gone up by at least 100 mills per year.
    Last year we did get above average rainfalls ..but nothing like the sort of rain that was until 1983 a fairly regular occurrence ( this area is not much affected by El Ninio) There are paddocks around here that even at the height of the great droughts between 1890 and 1949 were too boggy to even walk across, that you can these days drive a 2wd across.

  234. desipis says:

    JC,

    And on the contrary, rambling or not, the opinions and rank economic illiteracy on the Greens side is important, as policy is potentially contaminated.

    Policy is always potentially contaminated, hence why we should look at it in detail. Now are you going to point out a specific detail of the policy you think is contaminated and problematic or are you going to keep getting distracted by the popularity contest and contribute nothing but non-sequiturs?

  235. john walker says:

    Of course the Greens are awful , the ‘fairy at the bottom of the garden’ image is too complacent- they are far too keen on authority- dangerous.

    But that has no bearing on the truth of the science.

  236. JC says:

    Now are you going to point out a specific detail of the policy you think is contaminated and problematic

    Oh yea. You could start at page 1 of the Greens policy manifesto and work your way through that shambles.

    As for specific policy

    1. Brown Bank.

    2. Refusal to commit any funds to clean coal technology while supporting the two subsidy whores (solar and wind)

    3. supportive of Greenpeace’s attack on science.

    4. Belief that those two renewables (propellers on sticks and plastic panels) could replace a first world world industrialized civilization’s existing and future energy needs

    5. misunderstanding or dishonestly portraying just who are polluters and then demonizing good legitimate industry sectors.

    6. ridiculously suggesting that $50 billion of export income could be replaced by “renewables”

    Need others?

    or are you going to keep getting distracted by the popularity contest and contribute nothing but non-sequiturs?

    Lol. It seems you don’t know what non-sequitur means. Let me help you, so next time you’ll be fully informed.

    Non Sequitur (“It does not follow”). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises.

  237. rog says:

    As I see it the problem with people like JC is that they constantly trumpet the positive attributes of a free market economy ie individual freedom, efficiencies, wealth creation etc but when it comes to an election of government they refuse to meet the market and opt out for some unelectable policy put forward by an unelected political party.

    Underneath all the hoo haa they are just a bunch of poor losers.

  238. rog says:

    To JCs credit he doesn’t dispute the science

    This is what I think. AGW is a big freaking long term problem that will likely become increasingly problematic as time goes on and the emerging economies blow out a storm.

    To his discredit he attacks those who attempt to mitigate those problems.

  239. Joseph Steelman says:

    “A helpful primer on CO2 and plant growth”. Thanks. Much obliged.

    Nicholas do you understand this matter or has it gone over your head? More CO2 emissions mean more food. Do you understand that?

  240. Fyodor says:

    Next step of denial is sutler

    What, you mean more logistical than logical?

    I note with great and baroquely-adorned interest that Hefty Bee has REFUSED to substantiate his slander of Bruce Hornsby, despite the fact that 99.73% of climate scientists endorse his multi-Grammy Award-winning work.

    Why are you anti-science, FDB?

    *points trembling, accusatory finger*

    WITCH DENIER!

  241. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Thanks Joseph,

    No you are right. It has definitely gone over my head. Still, the main issue here is what Andrew Bolt would think of it.

  242. Ken Parish says:

    Joseph

    Dare I suggest that it might actually be a good idea to read the comment thread before posting gratuitously disparaging comments (about Nicholas or anyone else)? Ever since Rafe published his claim about C02 being a fertiliser, lots of others have pointed out that it’s a grossly simplistic and misleading assertion at the very least. “More CO2 emissions mean more food” is a comment that simply fails to engage with the topic in any useful sense. If you wish to make a fool of yourself I suppose that is your right. However if you want to be taken seriously on a forum like Troppo you really need to read the other comments and engage with them in a serious and careful fashion. Even Rafe (for whom discursive engagement isn’t a strong point) has managed to engage with others’ arguments to a greater extent than you.

  243. Paul Bamford says:

    More CO2 emissions mean more food.

    Not so [HT Desipis]. In fact, more CO2 emissions might mean less nutritious food.

    Do you accept the upside of longer growing seasons and more production in colder parts of the world?

    Another Panglossian claim advanced without any supporting evidence. One which totally ignores the downside of increased aridity causing less production in warmer parts of the world (both equally possible and equally likely).

    To finish, a seemingly gratuitous quote from Malcolm Turnbull:

    …the consequences of getting our response to climate change wrong will not likely be felt too severely by us, or at least not most of us, but will be felt painfully and cruelly by the generations ahead of us. And the people in the world who will suffer the most cruelly will be the poorest and the people who have contributed the least to the problem. There is an enormous injustice here. When people try and suggest to you that climate change is not a moral issue, they are wrong. It is an intensely moral issue raising grave moral issues.

  244. rog: you are being generous in your assessment of JC’s view of the science, but you are more or less right on the question of response. His multi faceted approach to climate change over the last few years runs as follows:

    * CO2 and climate change really is going to be a major problem, in the long term: some bloke I trust told me.
    * Climate change skeptic X just said that prominent climate scientist Y was dishonest. That’s appalling!! All prominent climate scientists are dishonest and should be replaced immediately!! They are “beta males”. Then we can start again when we have accurate assessment of the problem.
    * By the way, is it true what skeptic blogger Z just said – maybe that Chilean volcano just emitted more CO2 than humans did over the last umpteen years?
    * Sea level rise by 2100 will only be a piddling 30 cm – the IPCC said so 4 years ago. What are you bedwetters on about? Just build more rock walls on our beaches.
    * You bunch of bedwetters. Technology will save us before climate change becomes a really big problem. Next generation nuclear – it’ll solve it all.
    * I loathe the Greens and this Labor government. Anything they say on the topic will be wrong.
    * CO2 and climate change really is going to be a major problem, in the long term: some bloke I trust told me.

    And repeat.

    Hence, JC hates to see AGW skeptics attacked for their take on the science: partly because he doesn’t bother reading about the science himself (there is no other explanation for his recent musings on volcanoes and sea level rise) and he believes every claim of dishonesty made against those “beta male” scientists, but mainly just because they are culturally on side with him in the loathing of Greens, Labor and environmentalists.

    His policy prescriptions, and assessment of other policy approaches to the topic, have to viewed with all of this in mind.

  245. To those so vehemently attacking JC, observa and Rafe, I will simply observe that to agree with the science does not necessarily mean agreeing with the policy response. I’ll spare you my full analysis, it’s here if you’re interested.

  246. desipis says:

    JC, I should have been more specific that the policy I was interested in was the proposed trading scheme of the government, not any random Greens policy. I’m also not sure what you’re referring to by the term “Brown Bank”, at this stage I’m assuming you’re alluding to something financial proposed by Bob Brown?

    As for your second point I found this

    The Government will also continue a range of existing programs to support clean energy innovation, with committed funding of over $2 billion, on top of the initiatives included in ARENA.

    A number of these programs are encouraging the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. The CCS Flagships program, for example, supports demonstration projects that will capture carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power generation and industrial processes to store them underground in stable geological formations.

    Also, I was using non sequitur in exactly that way. Your comment about some environmentalist attack on the CSRIO does not follow, in any reasonable way, from the conversation about science or economics. The implication that the point in some way undermines a policy argument is a conclusion that does not follow from the premise of the point.

  247. rog says:

    You got at least 2 out of 3 wrong Stephen Bounds; Rafe and Obs don’t believe in agw. As for the other miscreant, it’s complicated.

  248. Ken Parish says:

    Stephen

    There might be a reasonable basis for your negative response to the Troppo discussion if you confine your perusal just to Rafe’s thread, although I must say I’ve found it more productive than I expected it to be, and certainly more productive and mutually respectful than similar discussions on most other blogs.

    However, if you also peruse the discussion thread on my earlier post it becomes even more interesting and productive (in my opinion at least). We even achieved a fairly significant level of consensus starting with Patrick’s comment #42. I wonder how much consensus might exist between the opposed commenters here? Go and have a read if you have time and interest. I think we even achieved a consensus that sounds quite a lot like what I take Stephen B’s position to be.

  249. FDB says:

    M. Bazarov, I merely asked a question of Rafe, vis-a-vis his opinion of M. Hornsby’s creative output. I had thought you an open minded fellow on such things. Just because The Way It Is bombed on the dancefloor at my cousin’s wedding doesn’t mean it’s not a wonderful song, nor even that the right confluence of forces might not find it the very thing to get a bunch of 23-year-olds shaking their booties in 2009.

    I just seek understanding.

  250. Well, Ken, there was a lovely consensus of sorts, amongst a few of you on the other thread, and I would go along with it.

    What consensus do you seriously expect can be reached on Rafe’s topic: Monckton is right on everything he says; to take some examples – it is not a moral issue at all: the temperature rise is only a “possible” one or two degrees over a century, and all that lovely CO2 is not “pollution” as it will feed the world!

    Well, here’s a possible one: Rafe has an ideological driven position on climate change and shows no sign of ever having researched more deeply on the topic than reading or watching the latest post from Jonova/Monckton.

  251. Ken Parish says:

    steve

    Yes I realise Rafe isn’t going to entertain anything other than the Monckton/Bolt denialist idiocy. But I suspect there are others here on both sides of the divide (e.g. yourself and even Joe Cambria) who I would expectwould (or at least might) endorse just about all Patrick’s points (perhaps even with my qualifications). It seems to me that understanding the scope of agreement and disagreement (at least among those with somewhat open minds) is a useful objective. Chantal Mouffe calls it “agonism” as opposed to antagonism. That sort of dialogue fosters mutual respect and allows us to contain disagreement and utilise it constructively. We’ll never reach consensus with our strong opponents, but by understanding where they’re coming from and why at least we won’t demonise them and assume they’re fools or evil or even arguing in bad faith (although any of these may apply to particular participants). Striving for that level of understanding makes it easier to achieve constructive compromise solutions, which might even (as Noel Pearson says in our masthead) lead to “the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles”. And even when it doesn’t, it can lead to entertaining stoushes that aren’t completely unpleasant and depressing to read. In some ways I see Troppo’s mission as fostering “agonistic pluralism”.

  252. Paul Bamford says:

    From Stephen Bounds’s full analysis:

    … The evidence that the earth is warming because of increased CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, and that this is largely due to human activity should stand alone. However, scientists have become increasingly strident in proclaiming that therefore we need to reduce CO2 emissions.

    This oversteps their mark…

    Show me anywhere in the Australian Constitution (or the constitution of any other country) a specific clause excluding scientists from engaging in political debate when their findings have political consequences and I might concede that these “increasingly strident” scientists are overstepping their mark.

  253. Joseph Steelman says:

    “To those so vehemently attacking JC, observa and Rafe, I will simply observe that to agree with the science…”

    “the science” is pretty careless terminology. In reality there is no science behind the global warming movement. The whole thing is a violation of well established laws. Not excluding the 2nd law of thermodynamics. No-one can show me a situation where the greenhouse effect actually works. Least of all in greenhouses.

  254. Ken Parish says:

    Oh right. Another wingnut to be ignored.

  255. JC says:

    Steve;

    May I?

    I raised the volcano question one time as I read about it. I simply raised a question. It went something like this… “There is this vulcanologist who is suggesting one eruption could emit as much C02 as humans. Anyone know about this? Is this true”?

    Unfortunately you were the first to answer and as you’re aware I don’t really take you seriously, so you are confusing things a little here.

    * CO2 and climate change really is going to be a major problem, in the long term: some bloke I trust told me.

    Not quite. A fellow trader I buy an annual service from does really excellent weather related forecasts during what I call, the-annual-end-of-summer-oil-rig-bingo in the Mexican Gulf hurricane season. It’s really first rate stuff as you can trade the oil rig, rig repair stocks depending on individual hurricane severity etc. It’s a little seasonal earner that helps keep the debt collection agency away. Anyways this dude was in the last bit of a PhD at Harvard in climate science spent some time explaining AGW to fellow traders in lingo we understand, no nuance, just black white facts, which is the way people like me like it. Since then it has had me go to some of other guys in the field who I think are first rate scientists and educators. Call it kinda like an email based, individualized climate science education program. I won’t mention their names but but they are pretty well known climate scientists in Oz (not sceptics) who were on the IPCC as authors etc. So when I have a question, I just email them and they are really kind enough to respond. This may get you down a little, but I sent that question about Volcanoes to one of them and he answered it for me. They’re really good, smart guys, so sorry if I don’t take your word for it.

    As for.. “do I dislike warmers”… No not really. You’ve noticed of late I’m sure that i have always been supportive of Turnbull because I do like him and think he has a first rate mind.

    You shouldn’t confuse my tolerance with your intolerance. I don’t really give much of a toss what other people think about AGW. I don’t really care if Rafe cares about it or not.

    Despisis

    JC, I should have been more specific that the policy I was interested in was the proposed trading scheme of the government, not any random Greens policy.

    Yes, being specific hasn’t been one of your strong points, has it?

    I’m also not sure what you’re referring to by the term “Brown Bank”, at this stage I’m assuming you’re alluding to something financial proposed by Bob Brown?

    It refers to the agency/bank that will fund around $10.5 billion that the Bobster was boasting about having negotiated in the multi-party thingi. From what I recall he said that part of the program would not fund clean coal techology. Don’t take that to mean I support any part of this gravy train. It’s the selective stupidity and anti-science bigotry that is upsetting.

    Your comment about some environmentalist attack on the CSRIO does not follow, in any reasonable way, from the conversation about science or economics. The implication that the point in some way undermines a policy argument is a conclusion that does not follow from the premise of the point.

    Not at all, Rafe has been receiving a beating from people that may not be exactly the science “renaissancists” they are portraying themselves to be. Any Australian Greens supporter would be in a bit of a bind here.

  256. haiku says:

    The moniker ‘Joseph Man of Steel’ didn’t give it away straight off, KP? :-P

  257. Paul Bamford says:

    Ken @ 257:

    What else would you expect from a commenter whose cognomen is just a transliteration into English of the assumed name of the political leader formerly known as Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili?

  258. Ken Parish says:

    Gummo

    I don’t take Stephen Bounds as arguing that scientists have no democratic right to argue for emissions reductions. At least as I read his argument, he’s simply saying that the overwhelming scientific evidence that AGW is occurring and is a real and serious danger does not necessarily mandate direct emissions reduction as the only sensible policy response. And possibly that, to the extent that some scientists employ the authority of their positions/expertise to give that impression that claim of authority should not be accepted without question.

    Of course this is a valid policy option; but there are at least two other broad approaches: (1) do nothing and implement adaptations to the warmer conditions, or (2) use geoengineering to counter the warming effect of CO₂.

    It seems to me that Stephen’s observation is clearly true as a matter of logic. Paul Frijters here at Troppo has advanced similar arguments. Of course the persuasive counter to that argument is Malcolm Turnbull’s point you quote at #247 which is also manifestly true. However, if it becomes obvious that a workable international carbon pricing regime just isn’t going to be achieved in the foreseeable future, then as Australians we would not only be helping ourselves but the third world as well by investing in geo-engineering research as a priority ahead of carbon pricing or “direct action” to reduce emissions.

  259. JC says:

    But I suspect there are others here on both sides of the divide (e.g. yourself and even Joe Cambria) who I would expectwould (or at least might) endorse just about all Patrick’s points (perhaps even with my qualifications)

    I presume that related to comment 42 above.

    I agree with all of Patick’s points however with one big qualifier, ken. I actually think a well designed carbon tax that is 100% income neutral for everyone with corresponding income tax cuts and removal of subsidies would be actually a big net positive for the economy. It could reduce inefficiencies and move taxation away from income to consumption. It could be used to rid the economy of the rigidities of really evil shit like payroll tax etc.

    As for reducing emissions, that will only come from serious technologies perhaps like the thorium reactors that Barry Brook keeps pushing and when not if the cost of production falls through cost of coal derived energy. (It could even be geo-thermal/clean gas?).

  260. wizofaus says:

    …”in lingo we understand, no nuance, just black white facts, which is the way people like me like it”

    Unfortunately for you (and, may I say, for many tenets I’ve observed of your apparent ideological persuasion) very few facts about the real world are ‘black white’.

  261. JC says:

    Wizo

    What did I say to illicit that sort of response?

  262. Nicholas Gruen says:

    I agree, Patrick is a nuisance around here – sane, basically reasonable, able to disagree without rancour.

    No place for him really.

    Still we like to call Troppo a home for all sorts.

  263. Ken Parish says:

    JC

    Elicit?

  264. JC says:

    yes. Thanks, Ken.

    I ought to proof read.

  265. Paul Bamford says:

    Ken,

    I don’t take Stephen Bounds as “that scientists have no democratic right to argue for emissions reductions”. I think he takes a more nuanced position: that scientista have that democratic right but that they should avoid being too strident in its exercise. And that when they do get strident, the rest of us should treat their pronouncements with scepticism:

    … scientists [fail] to recognise their own bias. It is well established that academics are largely a left-leaning lot and consequently tend to be pro-green.

    This does not mean that the scientific research on climate change is flawed (after all, the scientific method largely evolved to minimise these kinds of bias) but that the scientists’ preferred response to the findings of the science appears to have been coloured by their ideology.

    I have to take my hat off to that passage: it’s a virtuoso performance of sweeping generalisation (“It is well established that academics are largely a left-leaning lot and consequently tend to be pro-green”) and damning with faint praise (“This does not mean that the scientific research on climate change is flawed (after all, the scientific method largely evolved to minimise these kinds of bias)”). Very deft.

  266. Fyodor says:

    M. Bazarov, I merely asked a question of Rafe, vis-a-vis his opinion of M. Hornsby’s creative output. I had thought you an open minded fellow on such things. Just because The Way It Is bombed on the dancefloor at my cousin’s wedding doesn’t mean it’s not a wonderful song, nor even that the right confluence of forces might not find it the very thing to get a bunch of 23-year-olds shaking their booties in 2009.

    I just seek understanding.

    Soft.

    As the barman said to the transsexual: “Mate, you’ve changed.”

  267. Ken Parish says:

    “Mate, you’ve changed.”

    Hanging around Troppo can generate flaccid metrosexualism …

  268. Ken at 262: the thing that is nearly always forgotten about the suggestion that maybe adaptation or geo-engineering are the better ways to go is that neither address ocean acidification.

  269. desipis says:

    JC,

    It refers to the agency/bank that will fund around $10.5 billion that the Bobster was boasting about having negotiated in the multi-party thingi. From what I recall he said that part of the program would not fund clean coal techology. Don’t take that to mean I support any part of this gravy train. It’s the selective stupidity and anti-science bigotry that is upsetting.

    I take it you mean the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which as far as I can tell is an independant government investment corporation limited to dealing with renewable energy. The reason for excluding CCS is:

    The Corporation will not invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which is supported through existing programs, including the CCS Flagship Program and the Global CCS Institute.

    It seems that (apparently) there’s already significant support for CCS. Including it in the new finance corporation would have been doubling up (i.e being selective) on one technology would it not? Perhaps it would be better to roll in existing CCS support into the one system, although I’m not sure what that decision would have to do with ‘anti-science’.

    Any Australian Greens supporter would be in a bit of a bind here.

    Are you able to have a discussion about this topic outside the frame of the pro/anti Greens Party divide?

  270. Ken Parish says:

    steve

    I’m not saying they’re better ways all things being equal. Obviously as long as there’s a reasonable hope of a reasonably global carbon pricing regime then that’s the best way to go. But if it becomes apparent that that simply isn’t going to occur, then it doesn’t make sense to keep throwing good money after bad in an exercise in futility. In that situation we’d be better advised to minimise the downside by the sorts of measures to which Stephen B alludes (and Paul Frijters – read his post).

  271. JC says:

    Desipis:

    I take it you mean the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which as far as I can tell is an independant government investment corporation limited to dealing with renewable energy. The reason for excluding CCS is:

    Yep that’s what I was talking about. You actually use the word independent with a straight face and think that should mollify everyone about the socking $11 billion in the venture capital business with every rent seeking rodent nose up, able to smell the cheese from 100 miles away?

    Do you know anything about the VC business and angel investing to the point where you can confidently say the government can succeed and not lose all our money?

    If you think it’s a great idea, I’m not going to try and change your mind, as it would be a pointless exercise.

    Tell me, desipis, do you know if it’s going to be headquartered in Silicon Valley or Vegas because if it’s Vegas they may be better off just sticking a big lick on the red?

    Here’s what you do to create “independence” without me lending support to this atrocity.

    If you really want to fund new energy technology arrange for an I-bank or professional fund of fund allocators to select venture capital firms which specialize in that sector and ask them to blow the money that way hoping that a one in 20 transaction makes money. Otherwise the so-called independence is nonsense.

    It seems that (apparently) there’s already significant support for CCS. Including it in the new finance corporation would have been doubling up (i.e being selective) on one technology would it not? Perhaps it would be better to roll in existing CCS support into the one system, although I’m not sure what that decision would have to do with ‘anti-science’.

    It’s pretty clear who owns this baby, no? Ask yourself why the other funds aren’t prevented from investing in other technology but this one is.

    Are you able to have a discussion about this topic outside the frame of the pro/anti Greens Party divide?

    I might give it whirl next time, desipis, but no promises. Now lets think of what i can get in return from you? Put your thinking cap on and come back to me with an attractive offer.

  272. wizofaus says:

    Steve @272, not necessarily true if you include geo-engineering solutions that extract CO2 from the atmosphere, and further, half a solution is still a good deal better than none at all. I’m willing to bet a huge amount of money will be spent on geo-engineering solutions of one sort or another in the coming decades, if for no other reason than the fact that it’s easier to convince people to pour money into a “let’s build this amazing thing that does such and such and will be an astonishing feat of human engineering”-type project than a “let’s tweak our tax system a little so that activities that result in a bit less invisible gas in the atmosphere are rewarded over ones that produce more invisible gas” scenario. Hopefully some of them might actually work, without causing worse problems than they were designed to solve. But you can bet they’ll involve expenditures of taxpayers’ money that go way beyond anything anybody has proposed so far.

  273. Ken Parish says:

    For what it’s worth, I’m 110% with Joe on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation front. It’s an egregious waste of public money that will make pink batts and extortionately over-priced BER school tuckshops look like the epitome of fiscal prudence. But the same is true of Abbott’s winner-picking garbage. The only redeeming feature of Abbott’s “policy” is if it turns out that everyone who is assuming that it’s utterly insincere is correct. Hopefully he’ll get into government and adopt the time-honoured dodgy escape tactic of finding a budget “black hole” that justifies jettisoning expedient but inconvenient policies. “Tone-liar” doesn’t quite have the same ring though, does it?

  274. . says:

    Anyone who thinks what Gillard and Abbot have offered up is palatable nay attractive needs their head checked.

    They are utterly woeful policies. They are awful in so many ways.

    What they are spending the money on is nuts. They would be better off planting trees and iron seeding. Iron seeding was banned under the “precautionary principle” even though it occurs naturally and can be used to revive ecologically dead areas of the ocean. No consideration is given to the precautionary principle as to what happens if we cut back emissions…

    Mitigation doesn’t pass a CBA. Stern double counted – he didn’t subtract preferences away from the opportunity costs of lower investment, he said the value of the preferences was the discount rate.

    Can you imagine insisting that you should get a home loan at the discount you get in the honeymoon period as the mortgage rate rather than the actual rate it is discounted from?

    A competent analysis would see a discounting rate maybe four times higher or more.

    The climate models do not backtest properly and positive feedback effects which are assumed cannot be grounded in theory.

    The models are not built upon the statistical evidence. Properly analysis of the climate data reveals there is some cointegration and the one degree we were apparently responsible for drops to half when a spurious regression is not made.

    Well hey there is warming but we aren’t responsible for all of it and the absorption of thermal energy by CO2 accumulation begins to decrease after a certain point. We’re past that already.

    So we may have a small problem on our hands that isn’t worth dealing with. If we insist on an insurance policy, the best is to in any instance allow more nuclear and hydroelectricity and get rid of all other subsidies etc – and give multiple decadal tax exemptions for the entire tax bills persons and firms pay to the proportion they are carbon neutral, and failing that arrange a flat carbon tax with hypothecated income tax cuts and transfer payment boosting – make it revenue neutral.

    Recognising carbon neutrality and rewarding productivity is a good idea. Sustainable farming can sequester a massive amount of carbon and ensure water security.

    Forget this stuff for a while. There are some in the Greens who are deep green and there are some socialists who don’t give a damn about emissions or increasing incomes – only relative welfare and envy. Some deep greens will always complain. People have complained about solar updraft towers for “creating microclimates”. Think about the implications of such a principle. Does the foundation of your house create a microcliamte?

    Why should we listen to these nasty and brutish misanthropes? Why does Clive Hamilton get a pass for his “suspend democracy!” line of thinking?

    We should go nuclear. Costs of electricity all go down to scalability basically. Nuclear wins basically because of ‘energy density’. All the other options seem redundant. We have thousands of years of nuclear energy supply. The entire stock of nuclear waste could power all current energy demand. New designs use “nuclear waste” as fuel. Nuclear energy cannot really be used for proliferation and is no more useful for a dirty bomb than any biological or chemical toxin. There is no such thing as nuclear waste with the new breeder reactors which use “waste” as fuel.

    Coal should be eschewed because of radiological pollution and solar creates awful chemical waste. Wind simply isn’t good enough and ends up creating more emissions as it is backed up by irregular coal fired power. The story out of Denmark is a bad joke. 20% of their power? At what cost? What is their carbon emissions vs France?

    Renewables except for hydro power and geothermal are too costly. Dams can be built with consideration of fish ladders etc, but that will be ignored in the noise. Geothermal will take a long time to get up and doesn’t have energy density or the dual utility of water storage and supply.

    Simply not banning certain types of power generation, cutting subsidies and cutting and reforming the tax code under the aegis of a balanced budget would see growth in geothermal, nuclear and hydro. It’s what needs to be done if you want a better life for everyone now and into the future. It would deliver cheap clean power without the impost of further taxation.

    I believe that’s a polite, reasonable, informed and libertarian set of reasons to reject the bad policies Abbot and Gillard are shafting us with.

  275. Rafe says:

    Re Tim # 236

    “Rafe, if O’Brien thinks scientists are inevitable corrupted by their funding sources, don’t you think he should have mentioned his own employment as a consultant for the coal industry?”

    Did I claim that scientists are inevitably corrupted by their funding sources? It is a tendency, not an irresistable force. O’Brien would have resisted it because he was independent enough to make a judgement call on the merits of the case as he saw it.

    In any case Brian Martin wrote

    “I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.”

    Tim, how come you neglected to tell as about this in the first instance?

  276. hc says:

    Commentary on this idiotic post serves no purpose. I really want to unsubscribe to the “followup comments” option that Troppo offers and which I stupidly invoked when I made comment #4 – 270 subsequent emails are just too much. When I go to the relevant Troppo page to change my options to subscribe to comments it is blank. The nonsense keeps recurring like a nightmare.

    Really Ken you are now twisting and turning towards endorsing the half-cocked nonsense of Paul Frijters. This is a pathetic display by Troppo. There are better things to discuss than climate change issues with people such as Rafe and JC and doing so leads to foolish endpoints.

    Commenters such as rog, mel and FDB – you know what the Catallaxy crew are about. Why bother?

  277. Ken Parish says:

    Harry

    I’m not sure myself how one goes about unsubscribing. I suspect this thread is probably reachng a natural end-point. But if you want I’ll email Jacques and ask him to have a look at it and advise.

    BTW I don’t see myself as ” twisting and turning” at all. The agonistic pluralsim thing really is a central broad value as far as I’m concerned, and on the specific AGW issue I think asking “wotif” a broad-based nternational carbon price proves impossible is a legitimate and even necessary thing to consider. I think Nicholas Gruen’s position is not dissimilar, and it appears that moderates on both sides can sign on to most of the propositions we’ve been discussing of late. Surely that isn’t a bad thing? People aren’t “twisting and turning” just because they don’t exhibit 100% agreement with your own views.

  278. Ken Parish says:

    .

    I agree with most if not all of your points on nuclear options. But I also agree with JC (and inferentially John Humphries) on the desirability of an appropriate carbon tax minus the “direct action” garbage:

    I actually think a well designed carbon tax that is 100% income neutral for everyone with corresponding income tax cuts and removal of subsidies would be actually a big net positive for the economy. It could reduce inefficiencies and move taxation away from income to consumption. It could be used to rid the economy of the rigidities of really evil shit like payroll tax etc.

    What fundamental objections do you see in combining nuclear embrace with that sort of carbon tax, but with all direct action policies (except possibly subsidising closure of Hazelwood etc by tender) permanently rejected?

  279. . says:

    My objection is that we may not need a carbon tax if nuclear wasn’t implicitly banned – but my reason is that mitigation doesn’t pass a CBA. But if you insist…

    Well if I was offered to swap payroll tax for a consumption tax that wasn’t excessive I’d find it hard to refuse.

  280. rog says:

    Bringing in nuclear power should extend the thread by another 283 comments.

  281. Paul Bamford says:

    Did I claim that scientists are inevitably corrupted by their funding sources? It is a tendency, not an irresistable force. O’Brien would have resisted it because he was independent enough to make a judgement call on the merits of the case as he saw it.

    Perhaps you’d care to name some examples of scientists who lacked the independence to make such judgement calls and fell victims to the tendency to be corrupted by their funding sources. How about we settle on Andrew Bolt’s standard of 10 such scientists?

  282. Rafe says:

    Hey Tim, how come the link to Brian Martin has changed since you first posted it?

    The current link does not have the crucial information that O’Brien formed his opinion on climate change before he worked for the coal board.

  283. Rafe says:

    Paul I don’t have the names but you could start with the 65 researchers who depended on funding for climate change research, despite the Professor’s views.

    As reported by Brian O’Brien.

    “But the funding for climate change research was only going to what you’d call ‘true believers’, when that happens you inevitably you get a bias. The sad situation a of professor of physics told me “Brian I completely support what you’re saying, but I have 65 researchers in my laboratory and the only funding I can for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or wherever”.”

    In the wake of Thomas Kuhn’s work I was not aware that it is controversial to note that normal science is driven by funding and fashions more than intellectual curiosity or scientific merit.

  284. Paul Bamford says:

    I don’t have the names but you could start with the 65 researchers who depended on funding for climate change research, despite the Professor’s views. (My emphasis)

    Well, you’ll just have to get the names, won’t you? Otherwise I’m entitled to conclude that these 65 non-entities simply don’t exist. It’s your claim, so it’s up to you to provide the evidence.

  285. Rafe says:

    Paul, everyone can make up their own minds. If you want to claim that O’Brien is a liar…

  286. JC says:

    Hey Rafe

    As you know I don’t swear often (Lol) but that’s is absolutely freaking extraordinary. I read that comment in Lambert’s link earlier this afternoon , when he posted it in fact.

    This is what I’m referring to.

    “I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.”

    I thought to my self… okay this O’Brien may not have disclosed his interests… and then reading down a few paras I also read the above comment and i thought to myself, well yea he couldn’t disclose anything because he had no association with the industry.

    But you look now and phff, it’s gonsky. The sentence has disappeared right out of the body of the text in the link… stolen like a Bedouin in the night.

    I have never seen anything like that before. Just freaking extraordinary.

  287. desipis says:

    JC,

    Do you know anything about the VC business and angel investing to the point where you can confidently say the government can succeed and not lose all our money?

    No, I don’t. However:

    a) I get the impression from the policy that the goal isn’t to simply provide VC for the industry (and hence compete against existing VC) but rather to leverage the existing VC to maximum public effect. This goal is somewhat different to the normal goal of venture capitalists who are focused private gain, so I imagine the strategies employed will differ as well.

    b) I don’t automatically assume the government is inept at spending money. Results from government programs are a mixed bag, and I prefer to examine details rather than leap to conclusions based on ideology.

    If you think it’s a great idea, I’m not going to try and change your mind, as it would be a pointless exercise.

    I don’t think “it’s a great idea”, but I’m not prepared to dismiss it without some sort of rational argument against it. If all you’ve got is ideological assumptions, then you’re probably right and we won’t get any further.

  288. Ken Parish says:

    I’ve got this great little idea (patent pending) for ultra-high efficiency solar cells made from compressed mung bean waste and cannabis stalks. The pilot plant at Nimbin is struggling a bit. Maintaining productivity isn’t easy when you can’t keep the workforce straight until morning tea time. But I reckon with a cool 30 million or so from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation we could automate the whole shebang and leverage the existing VC to maximum public effect. The staff are all long-term ex-unemployed and indigenes recruited under Twiggy Forrest’s public-spirited scamscheme, so we’ll have to find something vaguely useful for them to do, I suppose. Maybe another 20 mill or so to develop strategies for commericalising innovative soil carbon technologies in between harvesting the crop. Burning the plants after picking the heads should create a fair bit of soil carbon, I reckon, not to mention destroying the evidence before the cops arrive. Are ya with me, as Sir Les Patterson would put it?

  289. Rafe says:

    Another take on the precautionary principle.

    The precautionary principle has been invoked to insist that the imminent danger of catastrophic climate change demands immediate and drastic action. Some seek to heighten the alarm by saying it may be too late!

    It appears that we have had about one degree of warming in the last century or so, with the prospect of more to come, maybe a degree or two over the next century, maybe three to five degrees, depending on the sensitivity of climate to changing CO2 levels.

    The demand for drastic action is based on the assumption of consensus regarding the amount of warming and the claims for catastrophic consequences to follow. I think that there is no such consensus regarding the rate of future warming and I am not aware of a consensus on the amount of adverse consequences of the modest amount of warming in recent decades.

    Under these circumstances the precautionary principle would appear to demand more evidence of harm and more evidence on the rate of warming before undertaking drastic action, apart from moving towards nuclear power to take care of future power requirements without burning coal.

    We could allow a decade or two to elapse to find whether the trend of warming, assessed by measurements rather than predictions from models, is near the one or two degrees per century or some higher figure. That amount of time would also give us a much better fix on the actual consequences of warming – both positive and negative.

    What damage would be done over a decade or two, even at the higher estimates of warming? That would still leave eight or nine decades of a century to put in place the necessary CO2 reduction strategies. Indeed if we put some nuclear power stations on line during that time the reduction could be achieved without accelerating the destruction of the coal industry, the rush to renewables, the politically divisive debate, the incredible regulations, bureaucracies, scams and bungling that are bound to accompany the schemes that are proposed at present.

    Why the rush?

  290. desipis says:

    We could allow a decade or two to elapse to find whether the trend of warming, assessed by measurements rather than predictions from models, is near the one or two degrees per century or some higher figure. That amount of time would also give us a much better fix on the actual consequences of warming – both positive and negative.

    We already have.

  291. rog says:

    KPs mention of “great little ideas” reminds me of geo engineering, an issue favoured by some.

    Once everybody has painted their roofs white we might need another gli to figure out how to heat these now chilly structures.

  292. rog says:

    Who is rushing?

    The topic has been in the public domain for several decades.

  293. Paul @269:

    I’ll stand by “left-leaning” (eg this Chris Mooney article cites a 2009 survey of American academics where around 80% described themselves as Democrat or Democrat-leaning). But possibly the link to being pro-green was a bridge too far.

    On further reflection, a more prosaic reason would be that after studying anything for 10, 20, 30+ years you tend become very protective of it (and don’t like the idea of self-interested and stupid humans having such a devastating effect).

    I wasn’t damning with faint praise, either. All people need to constantly be aware that they are biased, and the scientific method has evolved over hundreds of years to try and guard against this innate bias. It’s a tried and true system. But again: science is not policy.

    Scientists have every right to their own opinions and to state them if they wish. However, I still feel that by advocating a particular policy position scientists can:

    – undermine their own science by presenting conclusions that are not justified in the context of their experiments
    – step outside their area of expertise and suggest methods of execution which may be seen to be naive or idealistic
    – risk being seen as having a biased agenda, which invites dismissal of their claims as being self-justifying from those with an opposing bias

    This is a purely pragmatic stance. I believe it is better for scientists to say “I’m not telling you what to do, just how things are” and let others take on the advocacy role.

  294. James Rice says:

    Bruce Hornsby fan, Rafe?

    You can almost imagine Rafe in the shower, focusing on one degree over the next century and singing to himself “that’s just the way it is, some things will never change…”

    “We could allow a decade or two to elapse to find whether the trend of warming, assessed by measurements rather than predictions from models, is near the one or two degrees per century or some higher figure. That amount of time would also give us a much better fix on the actual consequences of warming – both positive and negative.”

    We already have.

    Has a non-stop weekend binge on Bruce Hornsby left Rafe thinking it’s still the 80s?

  295. JC says:


    desipis

    I don’t think “it’s a great idea”, but I’m not prepared to dismiss it without some sort of rational argument against it. If all you’ve got is ideological assumptions, then you’re probably right and we won’t get any further.

    The government is in the “business” of receiving money derived from taxation and distributing it through programs etc.. Getting in to the VC is silly as it has no expertise and is unlikely to attract good VC people if it begins to hire VC’ers for the bank. The good ones are paid really handsomely and I honestly can’t see the government dealing with the sort of comp those people (the good ones) expect and demand.

    The VC business is fraught with risk and you really have to know and understand the sector you wish to take punts in, which is why I suggested that it would be better if they handed over the money to asset allocators. They would do the job for government in finding VC firms sorting for the sector specialists and allocate funds along with tailor provisions on how far up or down the VC investment chain they wish to invest in.

    If the bank, as seems likely, is precluded from investing internationally we’ll end up in a far bigger mess, as start-ups seeking funds for new energy technology is very global and national border limitations would hamper investment potential.

    You can choose to call it an ideological difference. I call it common sense when attempting to maximize risk-taking from VC investments, so it’s not an ideological difference as you suggest.

  296. Nicholas Gruen says:

    300

  297. Yobbo says:

    I’ve got this great little idea (patent pending) for ultra-high efficiency solar cells made from compressed mung bean waste and cannabis stalks. The pilot plant at Nimbin is struggling a bit. Maintaining productivity isn’t easy when you can’t keep the workforce straight until morning tea time.

    Just quoting the nonsense post that Ken came up to change the subject with -immediately after JC linked to proof of Lambert doctoring his links to cover up uncomfortable facts.

    Coincidence, I’m sure.

  298. rog says:

    Thanks to various grassfires this thread has IPA/Lavoisier DNA all over it

    – There is no evidence of global warming.
    – If there is evidence of global warming, then it is not due to human activity.
    – If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, then it is not going to be damaging.
    – If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, and it is going to be damaging, then the costs of avoiding it are too high, so we should do nothing.

  299. Ken Parish says:

    Yobbo

    If you’ve actually been following the thread (not that I could blame you if you haven’t), you would have noted that I’ve mostly been ignoring Rafe’s conversation (because I don’t think it’s useful to argue with someone who has a closed mind) and focusing on exploring to what extent it might be possible to achieve agreement or at least understanding on AGW policies with people from diverse viewpoints who are willing to engage sensibly with the issues. The silly solar panel idea was a response to desipis at #291 and was intended to suggest some of the problems with governments getting into the venture capital business with renewable energy technologies i.e. it’s a comment with which I would have exepcted you to agree.

    Interestingly it seems it IS possible to achieve quite a high level of consensus, at least among Troppo readers. Have a look at the other thread from Patrick’s comment #42 and see what propositions you agree with. And have a look at comment #282 here and see if that’s an AGW policy you could accept.

    As for Tim Lambert, it’s up to him to explain, defend or ignore his apparent action in changing a link in his comment. For myself, I have very little interest in whether a denialist scientist first expressed anti-AGW views before or after he became a coal industry consultant. It’s in the same silly ad hominem abuse category as rafe’s stuff about how pro-AGW scientists are prostituting themselves for government research grants. Mind you, it’s less obvious why governments of all political persuasions would fund only pro-AGW research than it is to see why fossil fuel companies would fund only anti-AGW research.

  300. Yobbo says:

    Mind you, it’s less obvious why governments of all political persuasions would fund only pro-AGW research

    Really?

    Let me spell it out for you – because all that research ultimately results in recommending more government control.

    For the same reason that every leftist in the world has jumped on the AGW bandwagon despite there really being no definitive proof that warming is caused by co2- It’s a great excuse to increase government of control over businesses, something that they have always wanted.

    You can tell that they don’t really give a fuck about the temperature of the earth by their persistent opposition to Nuclear and Hydro energy. They aren’t interested in finding working alternatives. They are primarily interested in punishing businesses for making money. And some on the far left are actively trying to reduce the size of the economy because of their hatred of capitalism.

    I think John Humphries is half right. Reducing income tax and removing subsidies are excellent ideas.

    But bringing in any form of tax on carbon dioxide emissions is idiotic as long as the same people insist on banning the only reasonable alternatives to burning coal.

  301. wizofaus says:

    Yobbo, that’s patently absurd. America is the only country where conservatives consistently pour scorn on AGW because of supposed worries about increased government control – around the rest of the world right-wing governments have often been more forward in pursuing carbon abatement policies than their left-wing counterparts. Margaret Thatcher and John Hewson were two of the first politicians I know of to take the problem seriously.

    As it is, as I’ve stated clearly enough, a) we don’t need any *more* government control, mostly just adjustments to what and how we tax things and b) if we don’t do something now, we’re setting ourselves up for a future where highly elevated governmental control and spending will become unavoidable.

  302. . says:

    If it’s truly absurd Wiz then why are there so many ex Communists in the Greens, why do they make up spurious ecological reasons to oppose renewables like solar updraft and why do they want to use the least cost effective alternatives with no regards to economic welfare? It’s a game of three card monty, after they first justify themselves by criticising the right and centre for not caring about the economic welfare of future generations.

  303. Rafe says:

    wiz, we may not need more government control but tell that to the people who are putting in place the legislation, regulations and thousands of inexperienced, content-free bureaucrats to administer the scheme.

  304. wizofaus says:

    “.”, I never suggested for a moment there wasn’t an association between environmentalism and left-wing ideology. But overwhelmingly (and thankfully) the world is moving towards market-based mechanisms for reducing CO2 emissions, which is hardly in line with the sort of thing many of the arguably “less sophisticated” lefties typically prefer.

    And the most notable politican in Australia who recently made a point of the impact of climate change on the ‘economic welfare of future generations’ was of course that notorious ex-communist and rabid greenie, Malcom Turnbull.

  305. wizofaus says:

    Rafe, have a read about the carbon tax scheme in B.C. that’s been operating for many years now and tell me how many thousands of ‘inexperienced content-free bureaucrats’ have been necessary to administer the scheme (which, even it were true, I wouldn’t really consider to be an increase in ‘government control’ anyway).

  306. Ken Parish says:

    Rafe

    The multitudes of bureaucrats are needed to administer the winner-picking, direct action aspects of the Gillard policies, which in turn are very similar to Abbott’s professed policies. As far as I can tell, most Troppo readers from a variety of philosophical viewpoints seem agreed that the direct action policies are a bad idea. There’s no obvious reason why a fixed price carbon tax should require significant numbers of additional bureaucrats. That’s one reason why it’s clearly the best option, with all the other direct action frippery (except subsidising closure of Hazelwood etc) stripped away. As several libertarians have observed, further shifting of the tax mix towards consumption tax (on carbon) with corresponding reductions in income tax, payroll tax etc is arguably a good thing itself quite separately from whether and to what extent AGW is real or significant. Do you agree with that? If not why not?

  307. . says:

    Let’s see what happens if Mal travels to the Marrickville Greens branch to spruik clean and cheap Gen IV nuclear power…

  308. Rafe says:

    Ken, I don’t see any reason for a tax on carbon. If we want to shift the tax mix towards consumption, increase the GST and reduce income tax, payroll tax and any other taxes you like.

    Above all reduce government expenditure and regulations which lower productivity.

  309. Yobbo says:

    As several libertarians have observed, further shifting of the tax mix towards consumption tax (on carbon) with corresponding reductions in income tax, payroll tax etc is arguably a good thing itself quite separately from whether and to what extent AGW is real or significant. Do you agree with that? If not why not?

    This isn’t the plan that we’ve been given though, is it? The Gillard carbon tax plan increases marginal income tax rates while also levying the carbon tax.

    The left doesn’t care about AGW. It’s just a convenient excuse for them to punish the rich. The same old story for more than 100 years. Yawn.

  310. wizofaus says:

    Well there’s a non-sequitur for you…

    (As it is, nuclear power is dead politically for some time now anyway – yes, it’s silly that the Greens oppose on it on principle, but in practice it’s not going to make any difference).

  311. Ken Parish says:

    .

    We were talking about the plausibility of the proposition that government of all persuasions have funded only pro-AGW research as an explanation for the fact that the science overwhelmingly shows that AGW is a real and serious problem. The fact that Green groups may contain lots of ex-Commies and have minds as closed as rafe’s 9though in the opposite direction) is simpyl not relevant to that issue.

    wizofaus has pointed out that numerous conservative leaders and governments (e.g. Thatcher, Hewson have taken the issues seriously, as currently do many right-leaning governments e.g. the current UK government.

    It is also the case that much of the AGW research that has led to the current scientific consensus was undertaken and funded by the Bush government in the US, the Howard government in Australia etc. Is it really plausible that they deliberately distorted their research funding to produce a spurious justification for greater government control? Surely it’s much more probable that they funded soundly-based research to genuinely find out whether AGW was a problem and to what extent, and it has overwhelmingly returned results telling us that it IS a serious problem.

    The real issue now, as people like JC (and Stephen Bounds) suggest, is what policy prescriptions should now be adopted. The interesting thing about this thread is that it seems that all but the the most ideologically hidebound particpants have been able to converge on a modest fixed price carbon tax stripped of direct action elements, and “debanning” nuclear power, as a soundly based set of policies they could support (along with the proposition that we should move to funding adaptation ad/or geo-engineering solutions if a genuinely international carbon pricing regime doesn’t emerge in the next few years).

  312. Ken Parish says:

    “The Gillard carbon tax plan increases marginal income tax rates while also levying the carbon tax. ”

    What it actually does is increase the tax-free threshold while slightly increasing the bottom two marginal rates. The net effect of that (in general terms) is to deliver a tax cut to people on incomes below about $80,000 pa, although only those below $50,000 come out in front in net terms after allowing for price increases flowing from the carbon tax. The Gillard package neither increases nor decreases the net tax paid by people on incomes over $80,000 pa.

    Thus the package is “ideological” in that it delivers tax cuts to the low paid and allows the top 10% of income earners to absorb the 1% carbon tax-generated increase in the cost of living (or make tiny adaptations to their lifestyles to avfoid paying any extra at all, as most will probably do). Labelling this as “punish[ing] the rich” is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think?

  313. john walker says:

    This talk about the return of international socialism and the green/left, without mentioning the return of ‘black jack’ agrarian socialism is a bit ‘unbalanced’
    .
    The full retro decor requires a few posters of Black Jack” McEwen in the club house

    Agrarian/right socialism was after all much more successful, for much longer.

  314. Rafe says:

    Ken, please stop citing Maragaret Thatcher as a climate alarmist. She turned on that!

  315. . says:

    The fact that Green groups may contain lots of ex-Commies and have minds as closed as rafe’s 9though in the opposite direction) is simpyl not relevant to that issue.

    I disagree.

    I think you ought to look here, what you are saying about tax cuts is incorrect:

    http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2011/07/10/carbon-tax-compensation/

  316. Ken Parish says:

    .

    I regard Peter Whiteford’s analysis here at Troppo as much more authoritative and I based my comment on his analysis. See http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/18/the-clean-energy-plan-compensation-or-redistribution/ . Peter is a generally acknowledged expert on this sort of stuff.

  317. Rafe says:

    Ken, do you claim to have enough understanding of the science and the anti-alarmist literataure to defend “the fact that the science overwhelmingly shows that AGW is a real and serious problem”?

    The fact of neo-communist involvement in the Greens is not relevant to the science but it is highly relevant to the kind of strategies that are proposed and are on the table for implementation right now.

  318. KB Keynes says:

    This is why Rafe has problems here.

    Ken Parish discusses Afghanistan concerning Abbott and Gillard re-visiting there.
    Note Ken is told he is inaccurate.He then checks and corrects the article.
    Sinclair Davidson writes about the same topic and makes the same inaccurate claim. However he bans any further comment from the person who had the temerity to point out his inaccuracy and then misleadingly links the wrong Coorey article.

    Here are three further examples of what Rafe is used to.
    Judith Sloan writes about Bernie Fraser.
    She gets all three accusations wrong. She doesn’t know that it was under Fraser the Budget had the greatest turnaround from Deficit to Surplus. It was under Fraser that interest rates rose to 18% and it was Fraser who declined to cut rates before the 1996 election which he could have done but waited until After the election.

    Steve Kates writes how Conley and Duper show how the US stimulus destroyed jobs in the private sector. The only problem is that their confidence level is 90% in other words the study findings are statistically insignificant.

    Sinclair Davidson embarrassingly alleges A Garnaut black hole but in fact Peter Whiteford shows Sinclair has the black hole.

    In all three examples neither the writer nor any of the Catallaxy ignoranti have much idea of what they are writing about nor commenting about.

    That is the major difference between Catallaxy and Troppo.

  319. KB Keynes says:

    Ken,

    I just tried to use my newly acquired hyper link skills but the comment went into the ether.

    how come.

    The only way nuclear energy van be competitive here is with a carbon tax /ETS.

    No ETS No Nuclear energy. Ziggy wrote about it for Johnny a while ago.

    I would link it but Troppo stops me.

  320. . says:

    Peter isn’t wrong but Clinton went into more detail specifically regarding the tax scales. His analysis is praiseworthy.

  321. . says:

    The only way nuclear energy van be competitive here is with a carbon tax /ETS.

    This is untrue. All that matters is scalability. Shale oil can become cheap etc.

    Unless the report prepared for Howard considered fourth generation nuclear power, it is redundant and obsolete.

  322. Ken Parish says:

    Ken, do you claim to have enough understanding of the science and the anti-alarmist literataure to defend “the fact that the science overwhelmingly shows that AGW is a real and serious problem”?

    I don’t claim to be a scientific expert, but I know that the refereed and government research overwhelmingly shows that. I also know that the so-called “anti-alarmist” literature consists almost entirely of canards that have been conclusively debunked but which spivs like Monckton keep repeating anyway. I’m not interested in (or willing to) engage in a rehash of those tired arguments here (which seems to be what you’re inviting me to do).

    The fact of neo-communist involvement in the Greens is not relevant to the science but it is highly relevant to the kind of strategies that are proposed and are on the table for implementation right now.

    I actually agree with this statement. It is clear that Gillard was forced to adopt the direct action aspects of her policies mostly as the price of keeping the Greens onside. They don’t make any sense in themselves. Sonmewhat ironically, Abbott’s policies would be even more socialistic in outcome were they ever actually adopted. OTOH Had Malcolm Turnbull remained as Coalition leader we would have had a much closer to optimal set of policies.

  323. Ken Parish says:

    Homer

    I suspect the spam filter blocks comments with 2 or more links in them. You should be able to post a comment containing a single link without trouble.

  324. Yobbo says:

    This talk about the return of international socialism and the green/left, without mentioning the return of ‘black jack’ agrarian socialism is a bit ‘unbalanced’

    There’s only 1 kind of socialism, whether it comes from Bob Brown or Bob Katter. They are just as bad as each other and Katter and his mates are largely responsible for the upcoming biggest socialist boondoggle in Australia’s history – the NBN.

  325. Yobbo says:

    Might I add that for the cost of the NBN we could build 10 snowy mountain schemes.

  326. john walker says:

    The costs of building ‘heavy engineering’ have gone through the roof over the past 5 years – in particular steel prices have gone up massively ,well above inflation.
    Comparing a project done in the fifty’s and sixty’s, with lots of relatively cheap labor and materials costs with a project done in 21C, seems potentially a tad misleading . The snowy would these days cost , in real terms , far more than it did- just think of the costs of consultation, cakes , tea and visioning of Mr Jones alone.

  327. I just tried to use my newly acquired hyper link skills but the comment went into the ether.

    how come.

    In a word: Akismet.

  328. A note to everyone drowning in email subscriptions: we’re aware of the issue and I’m working on it now. We will probably have to disable the plugin entirely.

  329. wizofaus says:

    (Off topic I know, but yes, Yobbo – the NBN as proposed does seem absurdly expensive and it is hard to understand why it has the support of so many over at LP, for instance, given what else could be done with the money, including, as you suggest, schemes that could substantially help to decarbonise our economy*. But it’s easy to find examples of wasteful spending from governments of both sides of politics over the last few decades – I’m not convinced that the worst of it is due to ‘socialist’ spending, which by your definition appears to include infrastructure investment).

    * In principle the NBN could help with this too, but I’m not holding my breath just yet.

  330. john walker says:

    Jacques

    Fire fox / stop script identifies your web page as an “attack page”– could there be some sort of infection going on?

  331. KB Keynes says:

    Ken,Jacques

    My comment is now in moderation wheres it had vanished previously.
    Thanks to both

    If you wish to comment on a report then read it. This is Troppo not Catallaxy however I do know Harry Clarke has been saying this for ages at Catallaxy on the economics of nuclear power but it still hasn’t sunk in.

  332. My comment is now in moderation wheres it had vanished previously.

    Your comments were swallowed whole by Akismet. When this happen no feedback is given that distinguishes an accepted comment from a spam-binned one, because it gives a clue to spammers as to what is currently passing and failing.

  333. john walker says:

    Wizofaus essentially is it not the price we are paying for not splitting Telstra before we sold it , for more than it was worth as a non monopoly??

    Ps the Idea that wireless is a competitive substitute for fiber is not an idea that has much support amongst those who have to make do with wireless.

  334. Ken Parish says:

    I have approved Homer’s multi-hyperlink comment and it now appears at #322.

  335. Tim Lambert says:

    I didn’t respond to Rafe’s charge because it was obviously ridiculous. I have no way of altering links in my comments here. This was the point where I decided that Rafe was delusional and decided to ignore him.

  336. I am now disabling the subscribe-to-comments plugin until we can find and fix the issues with it. This will be the last comment you receive by email from this thread or any other thread to which you are subscribed.

  337. . says:

    Steve Kates writes how Conley and Duper show how the US stimulus destroyed jobs in the private sector. The only problem is that their confidence level is 90% in other words the study findings are statistically insignificant.

    If Homer is right, then we should dismiss the work of the IPCC.

    QED

  338. KB Keynes says:

    okay read the report here especially chapter4 maybe even go to page 55 where it says “Nuclear power could become economic even
    with conventional coal-based electricity at low
    to moderate prices for carbon emissions —
    at approximately A$15–40/t CO2-e.29”

  339. KB Keynes says:

    Mark you 9and the rest) supported a paper where there NO significant finding at all.

    I might add the Authors have since changed their findings.

    Again this is one of the large differences between Catallaxy and Troppo.

  340. wizofaus says:

    “.” – a similar thought occurred to me…90% sounds like a pretty good confidence level, unless of course the numbers of jobs being considered is rather small.

    ‘Homer’ is probably also not entirely correct claiming that nuclear can’t be cost competitive with coal without a carbon price – I imagine if you let, say, the Chinese come in and build a nuclear power plant in the state with most expensive coal (WA?) with minimal safety regulation and insurance requirements, they could make it reasonably competitive. Good luck trying to get that idea included in any party platform though.

  341. . says:

    Homer the report is nearly five years old and doesn’t consider Gen IV reactors. It is obsolete and the information is irrelevant.

    A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance, I wonder if you are an ESL?

  342. KB Keynes says:

    Marky,
    Ziggy is saying the same things at present and he knows more about it than you do.

    I will leave your last sentence. It entirely sums you up

  343. . says:

    Ziggy is saying the same things at present and he knows more about it than you do.

    Gibberish Homer. The study is out of date and you know it. Stop the condescension because you are the least qualified to indulge in it. If “Ziggy” wants to quote out of date analysis, that’s his prerogative.

    Rather than say “95% confidence is better than 90%” you say “90% confidence means there is no evidence”. Only someone who is ESL or dishonest would say such a thing.

    Of course you wouldn’t know the nuances of these things because you’ve never done any research.

    At the same time, you demand “action” on climate change given that AGW has the same confidence level as the labour market study you criticise.

    Your duplicity knows no bounds.

  344. Ken Parish says:

    I don’t know much about Gen IV reactors, but a quick Google turned up a Wikipedia page suggesting that Gen IV reactors are not expected to be commercially deployable until at least 2030. Thus the aren’t really terribly relevant to the current debate and choices available to power generators in light of the currently propsoed carbon tax regime.

    The article Homer linked is more interesting in that it suggests that with current and soon to be available reactor types we’re looking at prices of A$40–65/MWh (depending on discount rate), which is a bit higher than coal but not as much of a cost differential as I had previously understood to be the case. See this Wikipedia page comparing costs. That’s where Homer’s quote comes in suggesting that nuclear becomes cost-competitive at carbon tax rates between $15 and $40 per tonne. If that’s correct we could probably expect energy companies to begin deciding in favour of nuclear as soon as the current Fukushima hysteria dies down, as long as the government of the day hasn’t banned it as an option. Of course Labor isn’t going to do that in the near future nor, as a cynical arch-pragmatist, is Tony Abbott. Thus for the next few years it is pretty certain that gas will be the fuel of choice for generators looking to replace old plant. It’s cheaper than nuclear and much less controversial, and reduces CO2 emissions by 1/2 to 2/3 depending on whether you’re converting from black or brown coal generation.

  345. KB Keynes says:

    Marky,

    Ziggy is singing from the same songsheet now as is every economist.
    your research skills are still going well.

    no a 90% confidence level is not <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance&quot;.statistically significant at all.

    Even the authors admit that when they now say
    “Our benchmark point estimates suggest the Act created/saved 450 thousand government-sector jobs and destroyed/forestalled one million private sector jobs. The large majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs are in a subset of the private service sector comprised of health, (private) education, professional and business services, which we term HELP services. There is appreciable estimation uncertainty associated with these point estimates. Specifically, a 90% confidence interval for government jobs gained is between approximately zero and 900 thousand and the counterpart for private HELP services jobs lost is 160 to 1378 thousand. In the goods-producing sector and the services not in our HELP subset, our point estimate jobs effects are, respectively, negligible and negative, and not statistically different from zero. However, our estimates are precise enough to state that we found no evidence of large positive private-sector job effects. Searching across alternative model specifications, the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government. It appears that state and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases (Fig. A) rather than directly boost private sector employment (e.g. Fig. B).”

    your ignorance knows no bounds. As for duplicity Sinclair is pretty good at that as I have convincingly showed.

    How Rafe can you give a demonstration of how Tim Lambert changed his comment?

  346. KB Keynes says:

    bugger stuffed it up.

    Victor where are you when I need you?

  347. . says:

    no a 90% confidence level is not <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance&quot;.statistically significant at all.

    Gibberish.

    A set of observations or a relationship is statistically significant or not given an assumed confidence level.

    A confidence level in itself is not “statistically significant”.

    I’m not going to be insulted by someone who is functionally illiterate.

  348. Rafe says:

    # 340 Tim, are you saying it is not POSSIBLE to edit a comment after it is posted?

  349. . says:

    I don’t know much about Gen IV reactors, but a quick Google turned up a Wikipedia page suggesting that Gen IV reactors are not expected to be commercially deployable until at least 2030.

    The people who wrote that article are misinformed and have chosen rational ignorance to pimp their agenda. The Hyperion modular units are set for export and delivery in 2013.

  350. KB Keynes says:

    the authors said

    “..our point estimate jobs effects are, respectively, negligible and negative, and not statistically different from zero.”
    but our Marky says no they wrong.

    I merely leave to to others to observe how ‘honest’ our Marky is.

    The link should be
    statistically significant,/a> at all.

    That’s our Marky statistics is merely gibberish

  351. KB Keynes says:

    yipes stuffed it up Again.

  352. Ken Parish says:

    Re Tim Lambert’s comment. I have to say I was surprised to learn that commenters somehow had the capacity to edit their comments after posting, unless the commenter is the post author or a moderator on that blog. Tim L is neither of those things at Troppo. In fact he’s not even a subscriber as far as I can see. It was the first I’d heard that commenters could edit their own comments after posting and certainly not my experience when commenting at other people’s blogs.

    Is Rafe actually claiming that the link in Tim’s comment originally pointed to another page than the one it now does? Or merely that he (Rafe) found another page on the same topic by the same author which contained the additional information that this Brian O’Brien bloke claimed to have expressed anti-AGW views before being employed as a coal industry consultant?

    The exchange reads as if Rafe is making the former charge, and certainly Sinclair Davidson has happily jumped on the bandwaggon and interpreted it that way. Perhaps Rafe would like to clarify.

  353. JC says:

    I didn’t respond to Rafe’s charge because it was obviously ridiculous. This was the point where I decided that Rafe was delusional and decided to ignore him.

    Tim, sorry but I saw the quote too. I learnt to read your links as they often suggest the opposite of what you say they do.

    I have no way of altering links in my comments here.

    hahahahhaa Nice diversion. A bit sophomoric but nice try anyway.

    No one is suggesting you changed the link (of course) or anyone here at the Trop, but perhaps you asked Martin (the Author) to do so at his end? What exactly happened to it, as you obviously know?

    I have a time stamped copy showing the time when the quote was there in (the text), which then disappeared and a new link showed up no longer containing the quote that clearly destroyed your infantile assertion.

  354. JC says:

    Ken

    The original story that Lambert linked to had this sentence which subsequently destroyed his assertion:

    “I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry”

    I saw it and actually emailed it to myself to remind me to use it in a reply to lambert, so I have it time stamped.

    It later disappeared and my thinking was that author, who Lambert linked to, replaced the link with text that didn’t damage Lambert’s charge against Rafe.

    Frankly at no stage did I even think anyone here at the Trop would change the link as I honestly thought it was changed at the author’s point.

    Having said that, the link was clealy changed and of that I have no doubt. There is no way I would have known about that sentence in the body of the text unless I saw it.

    And I repeat, I never once considered the change was ever made here.

  355. . says:

    Yes Homer Paxton you giant twit I never disagreed with the authors. I said if you criticise them in the same way then we must ignore the studies of the IPCC on the exact same grounds.

    Now you are saying they are right because they agree with you and that they say their findings are no statistically different to zero. Previously you said their confidence levels were too generous and they were incorrect.

    You multiple personalitied galoot.

  356. Ken Parish says:

    JC

    The page Tim lambert linked and the one Rafe later pointed to are two different pages with two different URLs, albeit dealing (in part at least) with the same subject.

    The page to which Tim L linked is http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92habitat.html whereas the one rafe later linked to was http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ss4.html .

    I note that Rafe’s original comment did not assert that Tim L had changed the link address in his comment, just that he had conveniently linked to a page that failed to mention that information. From memory it was your later intervention which first asserted that Brian Martin’s page had somehow been changed. Sinclair Davidson in his usual inimitable way then picked the claim up and ran with it, but realised that they were in fact two separate pages, and so substituted an assertion that the link address in Tim L’s comment must somehow have been changed. All I can say is that Tim L has no editing/moderating access to Troppo. The only people with moderator rights are Nicholas, Jacques and myself. I certainly didn’t change anything in Tim’s comment and I’d be pretty sure Nicholas and Jacques didn’t either. Hopefully Rafe will soon clarify. The implication behind the claim (especially Sinclair Davidson’s post) is pretty clearly defamatory. I’m not in the habit of threatening to sue people (apparently unlike rafe’s mate Brian O’Brien) but I also don’t appreciate being gratuitously and falsely slurred. Let’s see whether Rafe and Sinclair are capable of exhibiting a modicum of basic honesty and common decency.

    Update – While Rafe didn’t initially claim that the link had been changed in Tim’s comment (see#279) he later made that claim expressly at #286. Unless either Nicholas or Jacques changed it, the claim is clearly false. I can only assume that you (JC) followed the link in Rafe’s comment #279 but have subsequently misremembered your browsing sequence (given that you didn’t comment on the issue until #290). The paragraph of Brian Martin’s that youn quote in your comment #290 is still there in the second of the documents I link above. Neither Martin document has been altered, and to the best of my knowledge nor has the link address in Tim L’s comment.

  357. wizofaus says:

    JC, from what I can tell, Rafe’s link is to a different version of the same paper. The one Tim linked to at http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92habitat.html does not have the text in question, the one Rafe linked to at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ss4.html does.
    I can’t find any evidence that the former page was changed after Tim linked to it, which would be, as you suggest, rather extraordinary, especially because Brian Martin himself stated in Rafe’s version that the email reply “does not affect [his] assessment of the case”

  358. I don’t edit comments except to fix formatting errors. I observe the same policy with posts.

    I don’t want to get into the business of being a censor, gate-keeper and magnet for law suits, thankyouverymuch.

  359. Mel says:

    Rafe Champion on Tim Lambert at Catallaxy:

    “rog. Lying by ommission. TL put up a link that shot him in the foot so he substituted one that was “clean” because it did not give essential information.

    Sorry, 28 words if you count TL as one word.”

    Rafe Champion and Sinclair Davidson are throwing around some serious and potentially defamatory allegations. Is Club Troppo and/or Tim Lambert guilty or not?

  360. JC says:

    Ken:

    I never even thought that the Trop would have changed the link. It never even entered my mind.

    What I can say did though (later) was that I thought the author may have possibly done so by substituting the link from one text to another. That’s what I thought as the only possibility.

    Wizo

    This is exactly what happened. I read Lambert’s link and saw that sentence basically wrecked his last accusation against Rafe. I didn’t have time to post it so I saved it in my email box with a time stamp at 4.04:11. At time Lambert’s link contained that sentence. Later on I went back to it to see what other goodies might be there and didn’t find the original sentence in the link which I had used (by again going back to Lambert’s original link on this page). Even when I couldn’t find it (the sentence) I thought the sentence had been removed and at no time did I realize the entire text was different, as I had nothing to match it to and really couldn’t recall the old text.

  361. I think at this stage we can deduce that it was Colonel Mustard, in the Parlour, with a lead login pipe.

  362. KB Keynes says:

    No comments necessary.

    Marky says this
    “A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance,”

    Then says this
    “I never disagreed with the authors”

    and of course he is now saying an increase in the price of carbon is not necessary for the Gen iv reactors except they are not around until when?

    now more evidence of duplicity at Catallaxy. My young friend told me no-one can change their comments alah Ken’s comment. Another example of Catallaxy writing about something they know nothing about.

    That’s now makes five examples. wow

  363. Ken Parish says:

    JC

    Your recollection appears only to be consistent with the proposition that someone changed the URL behind Tim L’s link the comment on this page at Troppo. The problem is that I can’t see how that could have happened. I suppose it’s theoretically possible that this Brian Martin chap changed the text of his page at University of Wollongong between 4:04 when you first read it and 8:03 when I read it for the first time after rafe claimed skullduggery had occurred. The passage you quoted certainly wasn’t in the UOW page at that time but WAS in the other page (and still is). However that isn’t what Rafe and Sinclair are claiming. They’re claiming that the link at Troppo somehow got changed.

    The irritating thing is that I think the issue is utterly irrelevant to anything of any importance in the real world, except that we are implicitly being accused of being complicit in some sort of conspiracy with Tim Lambert to mislead Troppo readers.

  364. wizofaus says:

    JC, if the text of that page had changed so recently, Google’s index would almost certainly still have the original text. It does not. I’d humbly suggest most likely what happened is that you at some after starting to read the page Tim originally linked to switched over to reading the other version without recalling that you had done so.

  365. . says:

    Marky says this
    “A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance,”

    Then says this
    “I never disagreed with the authors”

    Huh? You stupid prat, this is no “gotcha’ moment you dummy, any researcher can pick any confidence level they are fine with. 95% is used these days because of improved statistical and specialised analytical techniques available.

    Don’t confuse my clarity with your multiple personality levels of confusion. Previously you criticised them for not using a low enough level of non rejection. THIS IS YOUR MISTAKE, NOT MINE.

    and of course he is now saying an increase in the price of carbon is not necessary for the Gen iv reactors except they are not around until when?

    Exactly, it has got nothing to do with it you mentally defunct imbecile, the conundrum is a creation of your own mouth foaming level of intellect. Gen IV reactors will be commercially available in 2013 (Hyperion), despite what another person has posted on a pro “renewable” energy page on wiki they most likely edit themselves. If 90% confidence isn’t good enough, as the IPCC has used, then we shouldn’t even waste out time discussing mitigation.

    Another example of Catallaxy writing about something they know nothing about.

    At least we’re sane. Don’t make me bring up the embarrassing shit list of your stupidity where you “rewrote the book” on retail, law, ethics, history, corporate finance, business management etc and were proven wrong by experts in everyone of those fields.

    To third parties: I have tried to stay on topic, Homer has been a dick. I will endeavour to stay on topic but if this means letting his asinine, misinformed and feeble minded for him the light of reason dimly burns sniping go through to the keeper, I won’t truck with that.

  366. desipis says:

    Gen IV reactors will be commercially available in 2013

    Is there a demonstration plant for this technology operational somewhere?

  367. wizofaus says:

    Further JC, google most definitely finds words/phrases (e.g. ‘earthworm’) in the version Tim linked to but not in the version Rafe linked to. Unfortunately for some odd reason the google cache link is not working, so I can’t see what date it was scanned, but the chance of it being after you first opened the link is highly remote.

  368. JC says:

    Your recollection appears only to be consistent with the proposition that someone changed the URL behind Tim L’s link the comment on this page at Troppo.

    Actually that never really even entered my head. It’s not because I’m saying that now to defuse it in some way. I honestly never even considered it. I thought the most likely explanation was that Author changed the stuff as I said.

    Wizo

    Here’s the link on my email. This is the exact dame link that I copied and pasted from Lambert’s comment at the time (4.04:11)

    How would I have found the sentence in the first place when i simply linked to it straight from Lambert’s link? Itwas as though I was swishing around martin’s site, as the piece looked like a boiler plater to me.

    Anyways.. enough.

  369. JC says:

    oops.. it wasn’t as though…

  370. . says:

    Is there a demonstration plant for this technology operational somewhere?

    Hyperion reckon they can ship them out modular reactors at that date.

  371. KB Keynes says:

    Yes Marky you are sane. I merely let your ‘thoughts’ speak volumes for you.

    We all have evidence of it now as we have of catallaxy and truth.

  372. . says:

    Homer,

    For the last time, stop confusing your illiteracy and forgetfulness as “proof” that other people are dishonest.

  373. JC says:

    Is there a demonstration plant for this technology operational somewhere?

    nuclear “battery packs” will also be available.

    http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

    You dig a hole, stick this little sucker in the there, have a lead coming out and you’ve got enough power for a smallish city for 10 years. When it’s done, dig it out and stick in a new one.

    I want one for my home and sell the extra power to the grid at the 60 cents solar panels receive through the feed scam deal.

    I once figured you could make something like 4 million a year at the feed in rate over and above the cost of the nuke. That’s clear in your pocket!

    There may be also nuke batteries to power cell phones. Wouldn’t that be neat? Mini nukes take on a whole new meaning.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/10/12/a-penny-sized-nuclear-battery-could-keep-going-and-going/

  374. Mel says:

    Sinclair Davidson:

    “Jacques – I’m happy to believe neither you nor Rafe edited the link and that Tim Lambert didn’t hack the site. That does leave unexplained why the link is different now to what it first was.”

    Sinclair Davidson, through a process of elimination, now alleges Ken Parish and Nick Gruen are the most likely perpetrators of Tampergate. Conversely, Rafe is still blaming Tim Lambert.

    Is this truly a vast left-wing/ radical-centre conspiracy or are the Oz blogosphere’s favourite right-wing drama queens having a meltdown?

    Cue Twilight Zone spooky music.

  375. Ken Parish says:

    “Let’s see whether Rafe and Sinclair are capable of exhibiting a modicum of basic honesty and common decency.”

    Judging by Sinclair’s latest comment despite Jacques drawing the facts to his attention, he possesses neither basic honesty nor common decency, nor honour or integrity. Can’t say I’m really all that surprised, but certainly disappointed.

  376. Paul Bamford says:

    @379:

    Well, that’s the free market of ideas for you Ken.

  377. KB Keynes says:

    Marky ,

    1) Come back when you understand that something that is statisitcal insignificant cannot be statistically significant.
    2) We can all judge now how honest catallaxy is.

  378. desipis says:

    Hyperion reckon they can ship them out modular reactors at that date.

    I’ll take that as a no. Which means your proposed ‘energy policy’ is based on unproven technology.

  379. It’s just a simple mistake IMO. They happen all the time. I think everyone should calm down and get back to questioning each other’s intelligence and/or parentage, as opposed to their honour.

  380. Last comment was addressed to Ken.

  381. . says:

    I’ll take that as a no. Which means your proposed ‘energy policy’ is based on unproven technology.

    This is the shit train of lies and dishonesty the nuclear industry has to put up with. I am sick of being civil about this.

    Come back when you understand that something that is statisitcal insignificant cannot be statistically significant.

    I never said that Homer so fuck off.

  382. Mel says:

    Dot. This isn’t Catallaxy. Manners please.

  383. . says:

    I forgot the maxim – never argue with a fool on Clonazepam, they bring you down to their black hole of levels of rationality.

    Sorry Mel.

  384. desipis says:

    This is the shit train of lies and dishonesty the nuclear industry has to put up with. I am sick of being civil about this.

    So you can provide information about a working demonstration of this technology? (I had a look at the site and couldn’t find anything about them actually having something demonstratable)

    Just to be clear, I’m not anti-nuclear energy, I just don’t have confidence in unproven technology being delivered on time (or on budget).

  385. Rafe says:

    If it is true that the link in the post contained text that is not in the link at present, then either the link was changed by someone with access to do so on Troppo or the text in the link was changed by someone with access to Martin’s electronic archive. Is there a third option?

    The document with the offending text is indeed a different one from the current link. It came up by googling Brian O’Brien+coal industry.

    I only looked for it because I was advised that the comment contained some text that demolished Tim’s slur on O’Brien, re working in the coal industry.

    Is there a log to indicate whether the comment was edited after it was first posted?

    On Troppo the comments can apparently be edited by the site administators and the author of the original post (myself). I presume that we all deny that we did so.

    I withdraw any suggestion that Tim Lambert edited the comment.

  386. KB Keynes says:

    Come back when you understand that something that is statisitcal insignificant cannot be statistically significant.

    I never said that
    ‘A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance’

    “I never disagreed with the authors”

    the Authors said

    ‘“..our point estimate jobs effects are, respectively, negligible and negative, and not statistically different from zero.”

    As usual when Marky gets caught out he starts swearing. typical and very catallaxian

  387. Paul Bamford says:

    Is there a third option?

    Yes: someone cut and pasted the wrong link.

  388. . says:

    You stupid git Homer I never disagreed with the authors.

    I said that from your sliming of them, we should also reject the work of the IPCC out of hand.

    Somehow, in your demented mind, you went from sliming the authors, to botching a tutorial you tried to give to me how significance levels themselves are significant (WTF?) and then concluded that the authors were right.

    Somehow this proves I’m a bad researcher and that we ought to listen to the IPCC.

  389. Ken Parish says:

    Rafe

    Both Jacques and I have indicated unequivocally that neither of us edited the post or comment. I hereby seek your unequivocal indication that you accept that this is the case.

    I have no idea whether there is a log somewhere in the backend of WordPress that would enable an expert like Jacques to know whether a comment has beene dited after posting. I’ll email him and ask.

  390. JC says:

    I’ll take that as a no. Which means your proposed ‘energy policy’ is based on unproven technology.

    There was a piece about the reactor in the Wall Street Journal a few months back highly critical of the Dept. Of Energy’s delays in giving the green light on time

    As far as I could ascertain the nuke is ready to go, but what they are waiting on is final approval from the DOE.

    Please don’t ask for a link. You can go look for the piece yourself.

    Anyways if I posed a link it may end up being to a porn site or something so I don’t wanna take the risk..

    (hahahhahahahahah just kidding on the last bit).

  391. KB Keynes says:

    Marky,

    The authors in the article I linked from Steve Kates claimed the stimulus programs destroyed jobs however this was at the 90% level.

    After the loud outcry over this they then recanted and said their study did not produce statistical significant results.

    A person with very basic english skills could understand this.

    you either do not wish to or simply want to cover up your statistical inadequacies.

    go swear somewhere else.

  392. Ken Parish says:

    Jacques advises:

    There is no such logging facility. WordPress tracks changes to posts but not comments.

  393. JC says:

    Desipis

    Go to Barry Brook’s site here.

    He’s the go to guy for anything nuclear and discusses costs and likely scenarios. Anything radioactive and he’s the go to man. I love the guy as he’s straight down middle realizing how we need large chunks of energy while emissions endanger the atmosphere and he’s a serious top flight scientist winning a large number of science awards.

  394. Ken Parish says:

    JC and Mark

    The FAQ at Hyperion say:

    When will Hyperion modules be available for sale?
    HPG can begin discussions with interested parties for sale and installation at any time. Actual delivery is still a few years away.

  395. . says:

    Marky,

    The authors in the article I linked from

    Big deal Homer. This does not explain the psychotic episode you just had.

    you either do not wish to or simply want to cover up your statistical inadequacies.

    Dude…you reckon that significance levels are in themselves statistically significant. You don’t know what you are talking about.

    A person with very basic english skills could understand this.

    Not after you’ve had your way with it.

  396. . says:

    HPG can begin discussions with interested parties for sale and installation at any time. Actual delivery is still a few years away.

    DIDN’T I JUST SAY THAT?

    Anyone who thinks that this means it is an “unproven technology” is off their head. You may as well call every unique, highly engineered commercial or institutional structure “an unproven technology”.

    It’s a bogey-strawman argument.

    We can buy wind power and it can cause a net increase in emissions at a very high cost. Wind has been proven to be a stinking turd.

  397. Ken Parish says:

    Of course, there’s also a fourth option, namely that Rafe himself made the alteration. After all it is his post so he by definition has editing access not only to the post but comments on it. Thus he had both motive and opportunity. He makes no secret of his opinion of Tim Lambert. The fact that he has to date lacked either the integrity or good manners to unequivocally indicate his acceptance that neither Jacques nor I did so is what has caused me to raise the possibility. The fact that both he and Davidson are clearly happy to perpetuate this baseless slur suggests that this is a less remote possibility than I had imagined.

  398. KB Keynes says:

    Marky go anywhere and say something that has 90% level is significant different from zero.

    you really will say anything after you have been taken apart.

    All you had to say in the beginning was no I hadn’t read the paper and I was mistaken about the report’s original findings.

    no that is far too hard for you to do. bluster and swearing is your tools of trade.

    you are typical of catallaxy

  399. Rafe says:

    # 401 Call me paranoid, but I could feel that coming.

    I am making no more public statements until I have taken legal advice and also obtained a hard copy of the relevant Martin paper (pre yesterday) to see if there is a recent change in his text.

  400. Ken Parish says:

    Rafe

    You are contemptible. Your conduct speaks for itself. I am immediately asking Jacques to remove your authoring access to Troppo. Tell your lawyer that I’ll see you inc ourt. I have no intention of wasting my time suing someone of your ilk, but be assured I’ll couterclaim if you commence proceedings (not to mention defending my own comments on bases including truth and fair comment).

  401. . says:

    Marky go anywhere and say something that has 90% level is significant different from zero.

    I never said that. From that, I said we should reject the work of the IPCC.

    Somehow you concluded that I both disagreed and agreed with the authors during the resulting discussion, and that they were both correct and incorrect. You forgot what the hell it was you were arguing.

    You’re not mentally competent to have a conversation.

  402. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Oh right. Another wingnut to be ignored.”

    No in fact Ken you have no understanding of this subject. Not one of you can prove an example of the so-called greenhouse effect working anywhere. Least of all in greenhouses. This is not consensus science. This is nonsense and wrong theory that goes against consensus physics. Thats just a fact.

  403. Joseph Steelman says:

    Can someone here tell me if Ken Parish is a scientist. I can tell you for a fact that he is no physicist.

  404. rog says:

    Just to clarify, the *alleged* missing phrase is in another of Martin’s docs, here

    The first had the phrase

    O’Brien has now issued proceedings against both Diesendorf and the ACF.

    The subsequent doc had the result of the action

    O’Brien has now issued proceedings against both Diesendorf and the ACF…etc

    A simple matter of checking the facts.

  405. rog says:

    The second quote should read

    O’Brien responded by suing Mark and the ACF for defamation but not, interestingly, the newspapers that had reported Mark’s comments…

  406. rog says:

    JC has his phantoms at work

  407. KB Keynes says:

    clear and unequivocal evidence that Catallaxian loopiness just does not gel at all in the real world.

  408. Paul Bamford says:

    Uncle Joe @ 406 & 407:

    I doubt that you’re a physicist either – or at least you’re not a competent physicist. All of the laws of thermodynamics are based on the concept of a closed system. The universe is the only such system. Earth and it’s atmosphere are both open systems for thermodynamic purposes, able to accumulate energy and thereby heat up provided there is a conveninet energy source within cooee. Like that bright thing that appears on the Eastern horizon every morning and disappears over the Western horizon every evening – the one we call the Sun.

  409. . says:

    This is not consensus science. This is nonsense and wrong theory that goes against consensus physics. Thats just a fact.

    I think we all know who this is…

  410. Joseph Steelman says:

    No you are just handwaving champ. You cannot find a situation where the 2nd law has been broken, nor where greenhouse has been proven. Go ahead. Now lets be clear about this. Perhaps the second law can be broken. But lets have a few trumpets prior to you finding out where that is.

  411. Joseph Steelman says:

    Seeing you are all so sure of yourself in the science department, can anyone tell me if they know of any incident or experiment where the 2nd law has been broken in the laboratory?

  412. KB Keynes says:

    I think we have physics clashing with fractional reserve banking

  413. Ken Parish says:

    It can’t be Bird can it? The comments are too quasi-literate.

  414. Joseph Steelman says:

    “It can’t be Bird can it? The comments are too quasi-literate.”

    Is that a scientific argument? Ken Parish. You are concerned about climate change are you not? Or was that “global warming”. Or was that “carbon pollution”? So you ought to know about the science.

    Now there is no proven case of any greenhouse effect anywhere. The greenhouse effect is a fantasy effect. A fantasy effect that goes against the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics. This is a law that may be broken. But neither of us know any instance of this happening in the lab, or anywhere else. So you have staked a lot of skin on a rebellion against authentic physics.

    How does that make you feel? And why are you purporting to make judgments on matters that you have no capacity or inclination to learn anything about?

  415. Fyodor says:

    Uh-oh. Rafe lawyers up and gets Masson’d.

    Shit just got real.

    Just wanna say: Best. Troppo. Thread. In. F’n. Ages.

    P.S. Hi, Turkey!

  416. Mel says:

    That’s Bird alright.

  417. Paul Bamford says:

    The greenhouse effect is a fantasy effect. A fantasy effect that goes against the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics.

    Since you are so certain of this, perhaps you can explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics is broken by the greenhouse effect.

    IIRC (AID), the second law states that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase. So, if a system (such as a human body) shows no increase in entropy, it’s not closed – it’s getting energy from elsewhere to make up for the entropy*.

    Similarly the atmosphere warms by accumulating energy from elsewhere. Eventually that energy has to escape from the system, to maintain thermodynaimc equilibrium. But there’s nothing in any of the laws of thermodynamics which requires the system to remain static; changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere, for example, can shift the equilibrium to one where the average temperature is higher – i.e. create global warming.

    * On Joe Steelman’s unique interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he wouldn’t even be alive to misinterpret the Laws of Thermodynamics. Some might consider this a good thing.

  418. JC says:

    This thread is like ground hog day.

    As an old boss of mine used to say when I was young and snappy arriving in the morning fresh and bushy tailed.

    “same game, different set of numbers”.

  419. JC says:

    The greenhouse effect is a fantasy effect. A fantasy effect that goes against the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics

    Hey Trot, why are you arguing with Birdie? What do you hope to achieve: the formula to liquified coal?

  420. Paul Bamford says:

    Hey Trot, why are you arguing with Birdie? What do you hope to achieve: the formula to liquified coal?

    Didn’t know I was arguing with Birdie, JC. Well, not with 95% certainty, anyway. Might as well stop now – after all this is the same guy who accused Einstein of imposing an arbitrary speed-limit on the universe.

  421. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Since you are so certain of this……”

    Oh right. You dodged that bullet did you? Give me one example of greenhouse effect in action. Don’t throw it back onto me when its you that knows nothing but wants to impose penalties on everyone just the same.

  422. Hey JC, I think your involvement in the whole “who changed the link” kerfuffle ended up contributing much more to Rafe’s ban than my mere complaint that I saw no value in his posting the same stuff here that he does at Catallaxy.

    Funny that, hey…

  423. john walker says:

    Joseph

    example – the antarctic vortex has definitely strengthened

  424. Joseph Steelman says:

    Lets look at the direction of thermal energy transfer on Venus according to the greenhouse rebellion. On Venus we get 2% of the suns light making it to the surface? Or is that 4%? Well its 0% on the night-time side. Now greenhouse claims that the extra heat comes from backradiation.

    Now look at the direction of thermal energy transfer in this fantasy. 95%+ is knocked out before the surface. Only <5% making it down. Then the whole place is supposed to be a furnace on the basis of backradiation. So a cold surface is heated up by air above it. The tiny remnant of light is supposed to go up and be scattered back down to the surface by the gases above. In such a way that the surface is heated hotter than the gases above.

    This is just nonsense. This is anti-consensus physics. Its just silly. It as if you open the refrigerator and expect it to set your shirt on fire.

    Now how does the greenhouse effect work on the dark side of Venus? No light from the sun gets down to the surface. Yet the heat from the surface is supposed to be scattered back to the surface from the colder gases above the surface. This is just such a stupid idea. But most of all its anti-consensus physics. Physicists find that they can continue to get considerably more pay than the minimum wage by shutting up about this nonsense.

  425. JC says:

    Steve

    My involvement as a distant spectator? Not eggsactly.

    But nice of you to dredge this out again instead of letting sleeping dogs lay. You are aware that waking up a dog can usually result in not so nice bite wound, don’t you? You’re welcome to wake my dog up any time steve, as long as promise to keep one of your hands is close to his mouth.

  426. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Joseph

    example – the antarctic vortex has definitely strengthened”

    Example of what? Blazing trumpets. Someone thinks he’s found a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well of course the suspense is building and we are all gathered around waiting for you to explain more fully this wonderful scientific inference. Keep going. I’m more than interested.

  427. Ken Parish says:

    I’m not absolutely certain it’s Bird either, but Mel usually knows these things. And a quick browse reveals that Birdie has indeed been musing (if that’s the right word) about greenhouse and thermodynamics of recent times. 95% certainty I reckon.

  428. Joseph Steelman says:

    Are you making a scientific argument Ken? Denial is not just a river in Egypt Ken. Its just amazing how you guys will so obsessively ruin everything, while making sure you know nothing.

  429. Joseph Steelman says:

    Do we have any proven example of greenhouse actually working? On what planet? In which greenhouse?

  430. rog says:

    JC has turned this whole Monckton madness thing into something he is more comfortable with – JC’s madness. As for Rafe? phhhhtt, another useful idiot from Catallaxy. Sinclair, ditto.

    The main game is where JC’s psychosis gets to play centre court to a capacity crowd.

  431. JC says:

    Birdie:

    Can i make a suggestion. You invariably get caught when you make comment after comment asking the same silly questions over and over.

    Fine, keep the moniker change, but change the pattern of your comments. Make two or three a day and then stop and so on. That way you may never find yourself in the bird trap.

  432. Look, there’s obviously been a breach, and this thread needs a firewall and flush.

  433. haiku says:

    Fyodor – might be time for martinis all round?

  434. wizofaus says:

    JC @ 373, if you are absolutely certain that link is what was in Tim’s post when you first saw it then that does leave only the rather unfortunate (and somewhat incredible) conclusion that Rafe edited the post. But it still strikes as far more likely that you got confused about which page you were reading.

    And Jacques, surely the web server keeps logs?

  435. . says:

    Do we have any proven example of greenhouse actually working? On what planet? In which greenhouse?

    Shit man, maybe in a greenhouse?

  436. Fyodor says:

    Fyodor – might be time for martinis all round?

    Oh yah, Haiku Dave. The way this thread has gone, make ’em really dirty.

    Actually. Feckit – let’s disintermixiate entirely.

    *fetches bottle of Sapphire and a bowl of big & bouncy olives*

  437. FDB says:

    It’s Bird for sure – summoned by ‘Sally’ if my guess is correct.

    Make mine a double Fyodor.

    And I want anchovies stuffed in those olives.

  438. murph the surf. says:

    I dunno …..nostalgia twice on one thread…..

  439. Rafe says:

    I wondered what happened to Sally. I was trying so hard to impress her!

  440. Paul Bamford says:

    I wondered what happened to Sally. I was trying so hard to impress her!

    Well, that excuses everything – Rafe was c*#tstruck!

  441. PSC says:

    95% is used these days because of improved statistical and specialised analytical techniques available.

    (rolls on the floor laughing)

    … no scientific worker has a fixed level of significance at which from year to year, and in all circumstances, he rejects hypotheses; he rather gives his mind to each particular case in the light of his evidence and his ideas. – Ron Fisher (1956)

  442. PSC says:

    Just found the paper where I read the quote.

    Worth reading. It’s all obvious, but I’ve seen numbers of people – particularly fresh graduates – doing exactly what’s described here. And don’t get me started on broker equity research.

    http://people.umass.edu/~bioep740/yr2009/topics/Gigerenzer-jSoc-Econ-1994.pdf

  443. . says:

    95% is used these days because of improved statistical and specialised analytical techniques available.

    (rolls on the floor laughing)

    Why do you think 95% is used then, you raging wanker?

  444. PSC says:

    read the paper dot.

  445. . says:

    The quote/paper basically mean what I said was right anyway (given the progression of econometric techniques in the last 15-20 years anyway) and it totally blows away what that bumbling, gibbering fool, Homer Paxton has insanely said about “significance levels are significant”.

    I’m right?

    Thanks for the kind words.

  446. PSC says:

    dot – as I’m sure you’re aware, the p = 0.05 criterion was proposed by Fisher – it was in 1925 in “Statistical Methods for Research Workers”. The justification was a throwaway line about how it included nearly two standard deviations. That paper describes in part how it became entrenched.

  447. Tim Lambert says:

    There are two versions of the story by Brian Martin, one I’ll call H92 published in 1992 in Habitat Australia, and SS4 a book chapter published in 1997. SS4 has a little more information:

    I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry. In my view, this does not affect my assessment of the case.

    In my comment @236 I put in a link to SS4 because it had more information. But the link there now goes to H92. And I’m sure that no-one edited my comment, because I still had that window open on another computer so I have a snapshot of what the comments at Troppo looked like just after I posted, and the link then went to H92. Moreover, the URL has the file name 92habitat.html which implies that it’s a link to H92. If it was just me, I’d guess that I’d just pasted the wrong URL into my comment. But it wasn’t just me. Rafe followed the link and posted part of the passage I quoted above, though leaving out the last sentence where Martin said that O’Brien’s reply didn’t affect his assessment (it doesn’t affect mine either). So he got a copy of SS4 at the link to BH92 as well.

    I also looked at the Google cache of BH92. Or rather, tried to, since I get an error message “This webpage has a redirect loop”. The only thing I can think of is that there was temporary problem with the web server returning the wrong page.

    Rafe’s accusations and general conduct have convinced me that any further interaction with him would be a waste of time.

  448. KB Keynes says:

    PSC ,

    don’t waste your time.

    Marky will just continue swearing and blustering as he always does when caught out.

    I am not surprised at the behaviour of Sinclair Davidson as I have already shown his behaviour is less than expected but for Rafe to give him his due this is only recent. Behaviour at Catallaxy has become so poisoned he has simply lost his bearings.

    just a thought but if Howard had won in 2007 and then brought in his ETS would catallaxy be so denialist?

    you are right. No.

  449. KB Keynes says:

    Just for interest

    in terms of the Conley and Dupor article

    The old abstract read:
    Our benchmark results suggest that the ARRA created/saved approximately 450 thousand state and local government jobs and destroyed/forestalled roughly one million private sector jobs. State and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than boost private sector employment. The majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs were in growth industries including health, education, professional and business services.

    The new abstract reads:
    Our benchmark point estimates suggest the Act created/saved 450 thousand government-sector jobs and destroyed/forestalled one million private sector jobs. The large majority of destroyed/forestalled jobs are in a subset of the private service sector comprised of health, (private) education, professional and business services, which we term HELP services. There is appreciable estimation uncertainty associated with these point estimates. Specifically, a 90% confidence interval for government jobs gained is between approximately zero and 900 thousand and the counterpart for private HELP services jobs lost is 160 to 1378 thousand. In the goods-producing sector and the services not in our HELP subset, our point estimate jobs effects are, respectively, negligible and negative, and not statistically different from zero. However, our estimates are precise enough to state that we found no evidence of large positive private-sector job effects. Searching across alternative model specifications, the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government. It appears that state and local government jobs were saved because ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases (Fig. A) rather than directly boost private sector employment (e.g. Fig. B).

    The new abstract is completely accurate, and does not overstate the paper’s findings.

    No-one on Catallaxy ( Steve Kates, Marky , JC etc) noticed the problems of the original and then Marky dissembled in gold medal form in attempting to explain he agreed with both abstracts.

    I might note that the new abstract came as a result of a plethora of people pointing out what their statistics actually said.

    For anyone out there one is usually told in first year introduction to Statistics that it is only the 95% or even better 99% levels that are statistically significant.

    this paper by Daniel J Wilson of the San Francisco Fed
    uses a methodology similar to that of Conley and Dupor, but finds strongly positive (and often strongly significant) effects of the stimulus.

  450. JC says:

    Lambert

    This Martin character seems to have more versions of this stuff than Apple has Iphones. Lets call them Martin’s Iphone 1 and 2 versions for yours and mine. I’m sure if we look hard enough there’s 3 and 4. 5 could turn up any second.

    Your version contains this:

    I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.

    In my view, this does not affect my assessment of the case

    The version I picked up contained in my 4.04:11 email to myself is this:

    “I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.”

    So lets forget about Martin’s mysterious link (color me purple, but I still think the change came from his end) and focus on the accusation.

    This O’Brien dude says he had no contact with the evil and greedy coal industry before he made those statements. But without a shred of proof your dude, Martin suggests that doesn’t affect his “assessment of the case”. What would exactly, perhaps a 747 Boeing hitting his office at crash speed? Are you on speaking terms with him? If you are ask the dude what he’s smoking?

    One other thing, did you know that sentence existed in Iphone 1 and if you did, shouldn’t you have at least told us instead of wasting everyone’s time having to wade through that stuff?

    Lastly, Rafe was being a bit of a hot head and shouldn’t have cast aspersions like he did, however he was on pretty strong scent that a bone had been buried.

    Try and be useful after being in the middle of this abortion and ask Martin if he changed the linkage at his end, as that would be really interesting to see what he says.

  451. john walker says:

    Regarding post 430
    Do I really need to explain what the Antarctic vortex is?

  452. JC says:

    John

    No. We all know what it is. In fact it’s the topic de jeur at the dinner table for the past month.

  453. Nabakov says:

    OK, back OT. Is Lord Monckton a lesbian?

  454. john walker says:

    So I don’t need to point out that the climate (wind patterns) in my part of the country has changed in specific ways that were specificaly predicted by the warming models , years ago?

  455. . says:

    PSC said:
    dot – as I’m sure you’re aware, the p = 0.05 criterion was proposed by Fisher – it was in 1925 in “Statistical Methods for Research Workers”. The justification was a throwaway line about how it included nearly two standard deviations. That paper describes in part how it became entrenched.

    You can see how it’s sort of useless for financial blow ups right off the bat. Sorry I flew off the handle before. My point is almost exactly the same as yours. What we have here is…

    Homer – PSC doesn’t want or need your help. Your schizophrenic treatment of Conley etc is a joke. If you stand by your argument against me, your argument against Conley blows up. Good work you dullard. The point is that the IPCC TAR work is grossly unreliable – on top of a low level of significance it then forecasts 100 years or more. We have better tools to enable us to have much better levels of acceptable modelling failures. That is why we should have a lower p value, not because it is boilerplate used in undergrad (which you cannot move on from, you perennial undergrad).

    For anyone out there one is usually told in first year introduction to Statistics that it is only the 95% or even better 99% levels that are statistically significant.

    “Significance levels are significant”

    Are you brain damaged or a troll?

    Jesus Christ you’re a jerk and a dummy. You are the one who needs PSC’s help.

    How can such an imbecile be so condescending?

  456. Ken Parish says:

    Nabs

    I don’t know about that but I’m almost certain he’s Marty Feldman’s love child.

    And where were you when the stoush was at its most entertaining? You aren’t really on the Barrier Reef are you? We even had a cameo appearance from Graeme Bird denying the existence of the greenhouse effect. As Fyodor said, it was a truly great troppo thread of doom, right up there (or down depending on your perspective) with the immortal Sophie Masson thread. You should have been there.

    BTW I’m thinking of exercising greater moderator leniency (at least on my own posts) on ad hom sledging with commenters who are clearly part of the Sister and Brotherhood of Stoushing and understand the rules of the game i.e. as long as everyone is a consenting adult who understands it’s just a game, albeit a smartarse and sometimes nasty one. The reservation I have is that it could only work as long as the licensed stoushers clearly differentiate between the players and non-players on the thread. The other potential problem is that, even if the players discriminate carefully, some serious commenters might be put off by the verbal mayhem surrounding them.

    I’m seeking feedback on this idea (haven’t consulted Nicholas yet either). This thread managed to generate some really interesting serious discussion as well as B+ grade recreational stoushing (with Birdie arguably lifting it to A- just through his unique lunacy). Whether it’s feasible to foster that sort of robust mix without it spiralling out of control, by lighter-handed but carefully discriminating moderation, remains to be seen. What do others think?

  457. JC, your lack of comprehension skills are on display again.

    O’Brien has been a climate skeptic since 1990 (when he looked at the science as it then was for 3 weeks.) He is still a climate change skeptic, and last month made the claim that funding is biasing the science towards “true believers”.

    You might have noticed, but climate science has moved on a bit since 1990, yet O’Brien remains unconvinced of it all. If at any time since 1990, he has had ties to the coal industry, it’s fair enough to point out that one might suspect a biasing effect there too.

    O’Brien’s response that his skepticism came first is by no means a complete answer to this, because the science is not where it was at in 1990.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  458. . says:

    No, my objections to Homer Paxton’s written word is a public service.

    I deserve the following post noms. AC GC PSM

  459. JC says:

    Steve:

    As usual, you’re missing the entire point.

    This is what Martin said:

    “I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.”

    That’s pretty clear, right? No ambiguities here.

    It’s either true or it’s bullshit, which of course Martin could have established if it is true or not in his various versions of the same thing.. referred to here as Iphones 1 or 2, (3 , 4 and 5).

    Lambert now shows up with Martin’s Iphone 2 version and it appears a sentence has been added:

    I sent a draft of this chapter to O’Brien, inviting his comments. In reply he pointed out that he had publicly stated and published his views on the greenhouse effect before having any contact with the coal industry.

    In my view, this does not affect my assessment of the case

    That last sentence leads to a reasonable one word question.

    “why”.

    Does Martin have an answer why it doesn’t change his assessment or should we think that his word is good enough?

    Now look, I’ve never heard of these guys in my life and I couldn’t give a toss if Martin or O’Brien believe in the second coming let alone AGW.

    However Lambert posted a link to suggest O’Brien was in cahoots with them evil, bad, terrible, horrible, profit making coal companies. But he (O’Brien) says he didn’t have an association with them as pertains to the comment.

    At this stage O’Brien has the ball unless either Martin or Lambert himself can prove otherwise.

    If this isn’t clear to you then I don’t know how anyone can possibly help you any further.

  460. Rafe says:

    I have got no problems with the moderation.

    The thread generated some useful discussion, along with everything else.

    It would be interesting to know if anyone changed their mind on anything.

    It is good to have an explanation of the link mystery so we can put that behind us and focus on the substantive issue as explained by JC.

  461. KB Keynes says:

    Marky,
    I didn’t say significant levels are significant you did!Oh dear.
    Caught out again.

    Go away and try primary school. there is a subject calls maths. It is the first step.

    mind you you will say 2+2 is both 3 and 4.

  462. . says:

    You are the most loathesome fool I have ever met in my life Homer Paxton.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-437138

    Homer said:

    no a 90% confidence level is not <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance&quot;.statistically significant at all.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-437141

    I said:

    Gibberish.

    A set of observations or a relationship is statistically significant or not given an assumed confidence level.

    A confidence level in itself is not “statistically significant”.

    I’m not going to be insulted by someone who is functionally illiterate.

    Homer said just above

    Marky,
    I didn’t say significant levels are significant you did!Oh dear.
    Caught out again.

    You illiterate old reprobate. Thanks for derailing the topic with your garbage and incessant stupidity and antics. Give up and piss off.

    QED

  463. . says:

    Homer is the same bloke who accused Reagan of being dishonest and knowingly went into debt, knowing that his tax cuts “wouldn’t work”, i.e deficits didn’t matter and he didn’t give a damn.

    Now Homer is advocating the same thing through ever high Government spending.

    We could accuse Homer of the same thing given the obvious malfunctioning of programmes like railways to nowhere and “cash for clunkers”.

    What an ugly, stupid hypocrite.

  464. . says:

    Whoops wrong thread.

  465. I am at a loss.

    JC I cannot understand your point at all, nor your inability to comprehend my plain English explanation of what Ken, Tim, and I are saying about the O’Brien and the coal industry issue.

    You may be good with figures: you are hopeless with comprehension.

  466. desipis says:

    I think we have physics clashing with fractional reserve banking

    Well if you consider the atmospheric photon bank, you’ve got the carbon dioxides wanting to lower the reserve ratio and cycle more photons back into the earth’s energy economy for a given photon supply from the solar reserve…

  467. KB Keynes says:

    Mark ,

    Again I will leave your comments for others to peruse. PSC caught you out.

    Anyone could who has been to Kindergarten

  468. Joseph Steelman says:

    Well thats who you people are. Traitors. Ignorant. And happy with yourselves. The reality is that there is no greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect concept fails more spectacularly on Venus than anywhere else.

    “…..Venus is rather similar to Earth: it has nearly the same mass as Earth, and while its orbit is somewhat closer to the Sun, that effect is more than made up for by the sunlight reflected from Venus’ thick cloud cover. Because of the cloud cover, the surface temperature of Venus would be a chilly -42C if were not for the greenhouse effect of its atmosphere. In reality, the surface of Venus, at 740K (467C) is even hotter than the surface of Mercury…..”

    Temperature tells us the direction of thermal energy transfer. At first we have the light-energy transfer to the surface. Which is so feeble that as an average you wind up with -42 degrees Celsius in this idiotic greenhouse story. Warmer than that at the daytime side. Near to absolute zero on the night-time side.

    We pick the story up where the light has already made it to the surface. So in the first instance we have a freezing sub-zero surface. Now the greenhouse rebellion against physics tells us that the light from the cold ground, then moves upwards, is scattered and absorbed by greenhouse gases, these photons are transferred repeatedly back down to the surface, heating Venus up to 467 Celsius. If you imagine that this is even possible you are a science illiterate.

    But the stupidity doesn’t stop there. Since on the night-time side the physics-rebels are saying that no light gets to the surface, yet their greenhouse effect, working without light, makes that surface equal in temperature to the daytime side. And not just the surface temperature. But the entire heat profile up to 45 kilometres. Once again if you believe these lies you don’t understand physics and you ought not be trying to hurt your country due to things you have no understanding of.

    It is just as Douglas Adams described the Kereru. He would talk of this New Zealand bird that had forgotten how to fly. But the Kereru had FORGOTTEN that he had forgotten how to fly. So he would keep leaping off high branches and landing on the ground with a big fat thud. There were many Kererus who would die on the basis that they had forgotten that they had forgotten how to fly. But in this case the Ken Parishes of this world are not just hurting themselves. They are actively engaged in treason.

  469. . says:

    You’re a tool Homer.

    You are the most loathesome fool I have ever met in my life Homer Paxton.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-437138

    Homer said:

    no a 90% confidence level is not <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance&quot;.statistically significant at all.

    http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/07/20/to-fisk-and-to-monckton/#comment-437141

    I said:

    Gibberish.

    A set of observations or a relationship is statistically significant or not given an assumed confidence level.

    A confidence level in itself is not “statistically significant”.

    I’m not going to be insulted by someone who is functionally illiterate.

    Homer said just above

    Marky,
    I didn’t say significant levels are significant you did!Oh dear.
    Caught out again.

    You illiterate old reprobate. Thanks for derailing the topic with your garbage and incessant stupidity and antics. Give up and piss off.

    QED

  470. Geoff Honnor says:

    So…you had me till you got to the Kereru. Kereru actually do fly Birdie. You’ve got them confused with some other fat bird that actually does fall off twigs. You’ll understand if I’m now forced to place the rest of this screed into the highly dubious basket…though, I’m obviously open-minded about the Parish treason stuff.

  471. Joseph Steelman says:

    Well they think they can fly. A bit like Keynesians who think they understand economics. Or neoclassical economists who imagine they aren’t ignorant more generally.

  472. Joseph Steelman says:

    “You’ll understand if I’m now forced to place the rest of this screed into the highly dubious basket…”

    You mean to say that you are so dimwitted that you cannot understand that temperature determines the direction of thermal energy transfer? Where do these guys imagine the energy is coming from to heat up Venus? When you see something exhibiting a lot of energy …. like cyclone Yasi or something, or the heat profile of the first 45 kilometres of Venus … You have to try and think where the energy is coming from. And you cannot be breaking an whole string of physical laws. This is not to say that these laws can never be broken. But you don’t expect it to be happening on a casual basis.

  473. Whether it’s feasible to foster that sort of robust mix without it spiralling out of control, by lighter-handed but carefully discriminating moderation, remains to be seen. What do others think?

    I love me some Catallaxy. But whenever the CF regulars spill out of their usual haunt it reminds me of the fight scene at the end of Blazing Saddles where the riotous cowboys burst onto the musical soundstage.

  474. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Douglas Adams famously described the kakapo as the ‘world’s largest, fattest and least-able-to-fly parrot’.

    It is an exceptionally fat bird (a good-sized adult weighs roughly two or three kilograms) and its wings are just about good enough to waggle about a bit if it thinks it’s going to trip over. But flying is completely out of the question.

    Strangely, not only has it forgotten how to fly, it also seems to have forgotten that it has forgotten how to fly. Legend has it that a seriously worried kakapo will sometimes run up a tree and jump out of it, whereupon it flies like a brick and lands in a graceless heap on the ground.”

    The Kakapo. Not the Kereru. Geoff. You are never going to get it together fella. This is the wrong blog for people who want to actually find out what is going on. If it wasn’t the Kereru/Kakapo debacle you would find some other thing to maintain your belly-crawling stooge status.

    Its really quite a simple story. The first 45 kilometres of Venus is isothermic. The same temperature profile all over. The greenhouse effect cannot explain this, does not work. and has not been shown to be a factor anywhere, least of all on Venus.

    Didn’t they ever teach people science at school in this country?

  475. And Jacques, surely the web server keeps logs?

    Sure, but like most servers it only logs GET requests, not POST requests. And WordPress doesn’t track comment versions. So that’s that.

  476. Joseph Steelman says:

    “I love me some Catallaxy. But whenever the CF regulars spill out of their usual haunt it reminds me of the fight scene at the end of Blazing Saddles where the riotous cowboys burst onto the musical soundstage.”

    They are a bunch of low-IQ dummies at Catallaxy. Riff-raff. Primitives. Retrogrades. You ought to find somewhere to try and develop your mind. Improve yourself.

  477. JC says:

    Birdie:

    This Venus stuff has been buzzing around your fat head for weeks now, fella. What is it with Venus that’s has you all excited? Venus this Venus that.. In fact I think it’s safe to say that never in the entire history of the unvierse from top to bottom and sideways has this, one of your thread topics, ever been uttered or written in any format.

    Spanking Venus/ The Case Of The Lazy Layer

  478. Harold says:

    @213 Tim Lambert said:
    So now its all a vast conspiracy, Rafe? Do you think the moon landings are a hoax as well?

    Because he puts his trust in Professor O’Brien Tim?

    This Professor O’Brien?

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentDisplay.do?id=1969-099C-07

    NASA called him a Principal Investigator on the Apollo program, but of course we really know he was using his physics expertise for lighting and set design *wink* *wink*

    If only the man could equal the achievements of those who spend their careers in the halls of Australian academia, then maybe we’d give him credence.

  479. Pedro says:

    “I love me some Catallaxy. But whenever the CF regulars spill out of their usual haunt it reminds me of the fight scene at the end of Blazing Saddles where the riotous cowboys burst onto the musical soundstage.”

    I say let Bird and Homer back on catallaxy.

  480. Joseph Steelman says:

    The lunacy of the global warming fraud originates with the lunacy in the diagnosis of the reason for Venus’ great heat. The surface of Venus ought to be cold, if you are relying on the suns light to heat that surface. Since the atmosphere blocks most of that light. And should the daytime side be tepid, then the night-time side ought to be frigid.

    If you just follow science you then say that there must be another energy source. Now I know this is all a bit too much for you JC. You are a dummy. But somehow you’ve forgotten that you aren’t that bright. Continuing with Venus. We look at the heat profile. And in a very prosaic way we conclude that Venus is the course of the heat. Not the greenhouse effect. Venus is hot. Venus is the source of the energy for the high heat of Venus. The temperature profile tells us straight, without any need for embellishment, that the atmosphere of Venus is heated from the inside out. There is not any doubt about this. This is what we call a “FACT”. Something few people in Ozblogistan have any comprehension of.

    The dumbing down of the society is a very scary things.

  481. JC says:

    If it ever happened Pedro, it ought to begin only in short spurts like supervised day release programs and also daily physiological counseling, as these two knaves have a lot of pent up hostility here. There’s a lot of hostility I’m seeing here.

  482. Joseph Steelman says:

    Whereas many people are to blame for the dumbing down of the culture at large, Cambria almost singlehandedly brought the conversation of Catallaxy down to some low uncommon denominator.

  483. JC says:

    birdie

    You know we still love you. But just think of it like a marriage where the gal says..”you know I’ll always love you, but we can’t live together any more. It’s just not right”.

    jason, Tillman and I always visit you at your own blog, but you have that nasty habit of deleting everything we say and writing abuse over it in cap locks.

  484. haiku says:

    Ken,

    One of the reasons I lurk Chez Troppo is because of the high signal to noise ratio. Pieces by Don, Nick, Peter and yourself are nearly always worth reading, and a decent chunk of the comments are sensible and thoughtful.

    Which is not to say that the odd stoush isn’t entertaining as well. But a no-holds barred approach to stoushing would diminish Troppo. Catallaxy jumped the shark when Jason Soon left, and the signal to noise ratio there is now approaching zero.

    Perhaps once a year (August 19?) you could release the hounds.

    Or the Bird.

  485. Harold says:

    What’s the criteria for getting a comment published?

    My comment at 484 “is awaiting moderation” and there’s another 6 after it now.

    (Moderator) It’s not a matter of criteria. It depends on when one of the three moderators thinks to check the queue. I’ve been teaching for the last 3 hours hence I’ve only just checked the queue just now.

  486. . says:

    haiku,

    Read my first post at 278.

    Goddamn I can be reasonable. Actually read it and tell me what you think.

    What really happens is that all the flipping crazy muppets like Homer Paxton can’t handle the well reasoned, polite advocacy of laissez faire and they drag the thread down.

    Homer tried to “tutor” me about statistical significance with a truly insane homage to circular reasoning.

    The solution is to ban Homer, Bird, rog, maybe Steve from B etc (they either troll or are out of their minds) and let them out on Walpurgisnacht.

    Homer was banned from Tim Blair for literally being too stupid and shunned from catallaxy when he took on experts across several fields and tried to lecture them on their expertise. Another crime of his is the gross misrepresentation of the economic historian, Tooze.

    That was beyond a joke.

  487. Ken Parish says:

    thanks haiku

    Yes I was thinking about something like your suggestion, only maybe a bit more frequent. Say robust “stoushing” post every couple of weeks where moderation rules are relaxed, but otherwise the accustomed “deep civility” no ad hom abuse rules apply.

    BTW I’ll probably put Bird’s latest manifestation back on moderation soon, but he hasn’t got all that abusive yet and it’s even moderately entertaining (in the same sense as bear baiting or dwarf tossing).

  488. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Dwarf tossing? You mean Catallaxy hasn’t got the dwarf tossing market cornered?

  489. rog says:

    I was always perplexed at Catallaxy, allegedly the home of the free speaking straight thinking freedom fighter, banning Homer because of his non compliance with the group think.

    My fault really, I will have to brush up on the libertarian manifesto.

  490. Rafe says:

    Getting back on topic for a minute, the Sydney Institute has a talk next Tuesday by Professor Murry Salby, holder of the Climate Chair at Macquarie University, titled “some facts on carbon, climate change and atmospheric science”.

    From the email flyer.

    Carbon dioxide is emitted by human activities as well as a host of natural processes. The satellite record, in concert with instrumental observations, is now long enough to have collected a population of climate perturbations, wherein the Earth-atmosphere system was disturbed from equilibrium. Introduced naturally, those perturbations reveal that net global emission of CO2 (combined from all sources, human and natural) is controlled by properties of the general circulation – properties internal to the climate system that regulate emission from natural sources. The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2. Independent of human emission, this contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide is only marginally predictable and not controllable.

  491. Peter says:

    I’d be banning Marky for being an incoherent abusive idiot who never has anything of interest to say about anything under the sun.

  492. jtfsoon says:

    Interesting moniker that Birdy has chosen for himself.

    Joseph Steelman = Joseph ‘Man of Steel’ = Joseph Stalin

  493. JC says:

    I’d be banning Marky for being an incoherent abusive idiot who never has anything of interest to say about anything under the sun.

    Dot? He’s really a good guy, a practicing economist, who Homer rubs the wrong way. Homer has the magical affect on people.

    I was always perplexed at Catallaxy, allegedly the home of the free speaking straight thinking freedom fighter, banning Homer because of his non compliance with the group think.

    You know that’s not true. There’s THR the resident marxist posting all the time about the ravages of capitalism. At one time he was a trainee libertarian but he couldn’t get through libertarian pre-school classes. It may have been Jason who fired him from Preschool. I can’t recall.

    No, Homer was banned for being an truly annoying to the owners.

    In fact Homer was the first person in these here entire Oznets being banned for generalized annoying idiocy. Blair’s beautiful assistant, Andrea Harris banned him because she couldn’t take him anymore. Even Chris Shiel banned him for the same reason from what I recall.

    Let Andrea explain (in 2005 no less).

    What is also obvious is that you, Homer ……, are a useless wad of protoplasm that has somehow managed to grow a pseudopod that can manipulate a keyboard and a mouse, and if you make ONE MORE STUPID “I AM GOING TO BE CONTRARY ON TIM BLAIR’S BLOG BECAUSE I AM A PIGHEADED IDIOT” useless comment I will fucking ban you.

    And needless to say he did make another stupid comment in his unique way.

  494. . says:

    “Peter”,

    I have been abusive to one brain damaged condescending idiot at this site, basically in retaliation and after he derailed a thread with mind numbing stupidity.

    Other than that I’ve been civil and added more value than Steve Jobs.

    Please see my post at 278, and make comments. It’s a well balanced, polite and laissez faire policy approach.

    Tell me why at 492 or 475 I am wrong.

    I tried to add some value to the discussion, the site owners engaged with me but we all had to put up with the illucid rambling of Homer and Bird and the amateurish trolling of rog and Steve from B.

  495. Rafe says:

    278 is a quality comment. You probably need to ignore the trolls and avoid feeding them. Most people know the trolls and are not be impressed by their contributions.

  496. FDB says:

    “278 is a quality comment. You probably need to ignore the trolls and avoid feeding them. Most people know the trolls and are not be impressed by their contributions.”

    The irony.

    It burns.

  497. Rafe says:

    Interesting development – the convoy of no confidence.

    It started with Mick Pattel – a livestock transporter from North West Queensland — who suffered a 50 percent drop in business when the Federal Government banned live exports to Indonesia. According to Beef Central he declared that the time has come for a re-election. The owner/driver from Richmond, who also serves as president of the National Road Freighters Association, started planning a protest convoy to drive from northern Australia to the lawns of Parliament House in August.

  498. . says:

    I’m a troll, FDB?

    Come on you know the substance of my comment at #278 is holier than a communion wafer.

  499. KB Keynes says:

    Marky ,

    you are wrong because you said it was firstly statistically significant and then agreed with the Authors recant it wasn’t.

    not surprising to a person who believes VAT taxes a progressive!

    you always know when he is caught out as he constantly swears,

    JC it was highly ironic that true intellectual Andrea was actualy contravening the comments policy at tim blair’s place.

    no I was banned by Sinclair when I attempted to show that the comprehensive study by the IMF on fiscal consolidation completely contradicted nay demolished Steve Kates claim that Keynesianism was dead indeed it cremated the classical school instead.(I might note nothing has ever been mentioned of this report on Catallaxy. ignorance is bliss.)
    but then Sinclair and the rest allways did have glass jaws it goes with their lazy research techniques which I have shown

    the Chris Shiel incident was short but sweet. That was the instigation on the Bring back EP at LP. Chris’s sense of humour was the same as JC’s.

  500. . says:

    Homer if you want to bring up old arguments, why not your bizzare views on Nazi economics etc, or your mutilation of Adam Tooze?

    I never said it was statistically significant. You’re lying. I said if we hold it to the same standard as the IPCC we should reject the climate modelling of the IPCC.

    I said significance levels are chosen for specific reasons. PSC chimed in and agreed with me regarding a critique of Fisher etc. My point was we either reject the work of the IPCC or your criticism of Conley is amateurish pap.

    You then made some unintelligible claim about “significance levels being significant”. You can lie and claim that others are dishonest, but you have been caught out at # 475.

    I never said “a VAT is progressive”. I said a pure VAT is proportional and the net result of the Australian GST was, as econometrically shown by Treasury and others that it turned out to be with all the other ancillary legislation, slightly progressive.

    you always know when he is caught out as he constantly swears

    Shut up you no talent bum. I’m honest and I don’t shill for the Nazis. You seemed to think the Mefo bills were a crank theory and people enjoyed their time in forced labour camps. You fascist prick.

    You’ve been banned by libertarians, conservatives and lefties. You are constantly ridiculed here. You literally wade in and ask for it.

    Bugger off and do something productive, you dissembling fascist prick.

  501. KB Keynes says:

    Marky you said

    “A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance”
    I might add never at any time did you provide evidence for your IPCC claim.

    game set and match.

    Err PSC agree the 90% level you were trying to support was claptrap.

    no Marky you said all VATS were proportional. Quite silly but in keeping with you.

    You are the goose who think the RAD is forced labour camps for which there is NO evidence, you were the expert on the RAD despite never have read the only book on the subject.
    you are the person who believes on attaining power Hitler had a command and control economy despite a book in 1979 yes 1979 completely and utterly demolishing such a thought as Adam Ritschl for one ha stated.
    you thought the reason for the Mefo bills was some dark secret despite it being know since Nuremberg.

    and let us never forget you were the one that said all German statistics between the wars were false despite tooze in his first book showing in fact it was quite the opposite
    Projection Marky Projection.
    If you are capable of reading and understanding anything and that is a big assumption read about it.

  502. . says:

    “A 90% confidence level is fine. You are being dishonest when you say there is no statistical significance”

    Yes that is quite true, even if p = 0.10 is imprecise by modern statistical methods.

    Now it gets weird and poorly written:

    Homer:

    not surprising to a person who believes VAT taxes a progressive!

    Posted on 28-Jul-11 at 7:38 am

    Myself:

    I never said “a VAT is progressive”. I said a pure VAT is proportional and the net result of the Australian GST was, as econometrically shown by Treasury and others that it turned out to be with all the other ancillary legislation, slightly progressive.

    Posted on 28-Jul-11 at 8:00 am

    Homer:

    no Marky you said all VATS were proportional.

    Posted on 28-Jul-11 at 8:42 am

    Now I don’t mind being criticised as long as you don’t take me down to your level of schizophrenic amnesia.

    You are the goose who think the RAD is forced labour camps for which there is NO evidence

    They were held against their will and paid subsistence wages. They were liable for prison or to be shot if they left on their own volition.

    you were the expert on the RAD despite never have read the only book on the subject

    Yes Homer, it’s “the only book on the subject”, LOL. I’m sure you’ve totally mangled what it said as well.

    you are the person who believes on attaining power Hitler had a command and control economy despite a book in 1979 yes 1979 completely and utterly demolishing such a thought as Adam Ritschl for one ha stated.

    I never said that you lying clown and everyone knows that Gleischaltung took at least two years to implement.

    you thought the reason for the Mefo bills was some dark secret despite it being know since Nuremberg.

    No, you denied they financed the Nazis with Mefo bills. You are lying.

    and let us never forget you were the one that said all German statistics between the wars were false despite tooze in his first book showing in fact it was quite the opposite

    Reference and quote please. Anyone who thinks the Nazis didn’t duke the stats is kidding themselves. They didn’t budget enough resources to fight the war because they were too busy murdering civilians.

    Why bother arguing about this Homer? Every soul on catallaxy will back me up.

  503. Joseph Steelman says:

    Dwarf-tossing hey Parish. You want a fight you low IQ traitor? Anyone want a fight? Anyone? Well see about this dwarf-tossing business.

    If we could transport the most flagrant liars about global warming (its cooling) and the Keynesian multiplier (they tend to be the same people) to the one island. And then break the Norwegian out of prison and send him out onto that island, would anyone really care about the consequences? It would save the taxpayer a great deal of money. It would help break the cycle of public servant bigshots always hiring people more stupid then themselves to avoid competition.

    Lindsay Tanner is a stupid stupid man. He hired two men, yet more stupid than himself, to come to Canberra. On the basis of the Keynesian multiplier …. (a non-existent phenomenon and an idea that would have no policy implications if it did exist )… they went for an almighty splurge that killed a few people, threw many thousands out of work, and hurt our finances. And they won’t have to pay this money back. Working men … non-predatory public servants will have to pay it back.

    Now if the Norwegian just killed 100 of these mentally deranged people, who believe that these non-existent phenomenon (CO2-warming, Keynesian multiplier) give them the right to predate on their benefactors ……. Give them the right to hurt this country and reduce its sovereignty….

    … what man who has to actually work for a living could complain too bitterly about it? I think we could all just throw a big street party.

  504. . says:

    Uncle Joe,

    I’m more open to the multiplier being a mathematical sleight of hand now. I went back through it all and you may be right.

    This is on top of idealised demand management never working in an open economy.

    The thing is I think it has a policy implication, in the that the net effect of demand management is GDP negative, regardless of what you think about the multiplier.

  505. Err…can someone send Bird back to his cage now?

  506. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Joseph Steelman = Joseph ‘Man of Steel’ = Joseph Stalin”

    Thats in keeping with my discovery that having Chairman Mao as my gravatar worked a charm at getting comments through at Prodeo. Tigtog used the name as an excuse to wear me down this time around. They don’t listen these Prodeo types. I suspect that the Norwegian concluded that they were never going to listen. All I tried to do at Prodeo was to point out that this fellow was a conservative. Thats the interesting thing about the incident. Of course we may find out that there is more to this story. But for now we have to conclude that for once it is a conservative trying to kill as many leftists as he can. A reversal of the Pym Fortyn atrocity. Turns out that conservatives shoot straighter and plan better.

  507. Joseph Steelman says:

    “I’m more open to the multiplier being a mathematical sleight of hand now. I went back through it all and you may be right.”

    Why thank you Mark. At last. Thats all it is. Its a transfer of gross revenues out of spending that does not show up in GDP …. to spending that does show up in GDP. It transfers spending out of spending that employs people to spending that does not employ people but pumps up profits.

    But even if the multiplier DID increase total spending, it would be irrelevant to policy considerations since we can hit any spending level we choose with the aid of direct cash injection and the reserve asset ratio.

  508. . says:

    I don’t think this dude is a conservative.

    Crusader Popes?

    Menzies wouldn’t abide by it.

  509. Joseph Steelman says:

    “The thing is I think it has a policy implication, in the that the net effect of demand management is GDP negative”

    Yes in the longer run thats true because the price level will always catch up and reduce real GDP. But in the short run folks like Rudd, Tanner, and Gruen can point to GDP not going down like it was predicted to and they can call this success when its just sleight of hand. You are right in that they ought to have no excuse even if it worked in the short run. But that it does work in the short run, for people who misread the data …. well thats enough excuse for these vampirific devils to ruin our future and the future of the country with their parasitism and their splurging. So it was unacceptable for Sinclair to confirm to the Senate that there was a Keynesian multiplier. Because when you have these goblins around that is all the excuse they need.

  510. . says:

    Sinclair meant that the multiplier was so low it was deleterious.

    Also note the fall in capital expenditure growth was accelerated when the stimulus kicked in.

  511. Joseph Steelman says:

    “I don’t think this dude is a conservative.

    Crusader Popes?

    Menzies wouldn’t abide by it.”

    He wouldn’t abide by the mass murder. But the fellows ideas are pretty straight conservatism. I’m hearing fascism fascism fascism by people whose own ideas are closer to the national socialists. I think its important to be accurate hear. Is this the shape of the future? Abolitionists used to be pretty peaceful Christian types as far as I can make out. Then Tom Brown and his boys murdered a bunch of people at Harpers Ferry. The abolitionist spirit then became part of a war of aggression against the South. Both good and bad came out of that war. But my point is that peaceful movements can turn violent. And Europe has traditionally been a very violent place. Now that the Americans cannot afford to be stationed all over the world I suspect some changes are in the wind.

    There is no doubt that in the post-war era conservatives have been peaceful people in their private dealings. I’m not saying that this is about to change. All I’m saying is that if one of them has decided that violence is part of the answer we ought not shy away from this.

  512. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Sinclair meant that the multiplier was so low it was deleterious.”

    Doesn’t matter what he meant. If he’s not willing to denounce the multiplier or learn the material he ought not be testifying in front of the Senate. He had gotten so lazy he was working off Greg Mankiw for goodness sakes. A know-nothing non-entity like Greg Mankiw.

  513. KB Keynes says:

    Marky ,

    you belong to Catallaxy.

    you apparently believe studies that have a 90% confidence interval are statisitcal significante but then backtracked when the authors changed their mind.
    PSC upbraided you on this.
    right again

    no they volunteered as Klaus comfortably demonstrated as they were paid token stipends as people in other countries in labor services programs. 13 countries adopted such programs like the USA.
    again you had no idea obout either why they wre paid token stipends nor of similar programs in other countries.
    right again

    I never denied the Mefo bills partly financed the German budget afterall I told the reason why it was and when it became public. you made the dopey comment it was a pyramid scheme. another classic Markism

    right again

    you are so deranged you forget some of your best Markyisms.

    typical.
    Can’t read and can only swear.go back to Catallaxy

  514. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Also note the fall in capital expenditure growth was accelerated when the stimulus kicked in.”

    Of course it did. Thats where the resources came from. Pure criminal behavior. And when you put in a cap-ex request at work (and I’ve been one time or another part of that process) this implies a lot of manual work. But since cap-ex spending of a large amount would tend to get depreciated over a number of years it can show up quite adequately in (net)I. Its gross I that you really want to focus on. You get that right and (net)I can take care of itself.

  515. . says:

    you apparently believe studies that have a 90% confidence interval are statisitcal significante but then backtracked when the authors changed their mind.
    PSC upbraided you on this.
    right again

    I never said any of that, it is also theoretical garbage. A statistical study at a given confidence level is not “statistically significant”.

    My point was that your criticism was amateurish and shallow and at least should be applied to the IPCC.

    PSC didn’t back you up at all you illiterate Nazi clown. I apologised when I realised the paper he linked to was making the same point I was.

    no they volunteered as Klaus comfortably demonstrated

    Come off it you Nazi dickhead. You are straight up lying. Every other source says it was compulsory.

    I never denied the Mefo bills partly financed the German budget afterall I told the reason why it was and when it became public. you made the dopey comment it was a pyramid scheme.

    Right dickhead, so why then did they basically have to invade Czechoslovakia to pay their FX gold bill if it was solvent?

    You lying Nazi dickhead.

    http://www.documentarchiv.de/ns/1935/rad_ges.html

    Translate into English if you use google chrome

    Reich Labor Service Law.

    Of 26 June 1935.

    Section II, the compulsory labor of male youth

    § 3

    (1) The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor shall determine the number of conscripts to be convened annually and shall determine the length of service.
    (2) The service obligation begins after completion of the earliest 18th and ends no later than the age of 25 Year of life.
    (3) The labor conscripts are usually in the calendar year in which they are the 19th Years to complete, called the Reich Labor Service. Voluntary entry into the Reich Labor Service at an earlier date is possible.
    (4) a sentence of more than 30 days duration, the labor conscripts and volunteers nachzudienen service work unless they are in accordance with § 16 leave the Reich Labor Service.

    Oh no Homey caught out lying AGAIN

  516. jtfsoon says:

    Hey Birdy/Stalin
    Can you please explain more about this idea that there’s more to the Norwegian than meets the eye? are you implying someone else financed his operations?

    steve – shut up. this is a fun thread. Bird just needs to be filtered

  517. KB Keynes says:

    by george you are a complete idiot.

    We were talking about RAD as a working program ie when it was firstly the FAD and then changed to RAD however it makes little difference

    now again if you actually had read Klaus you would have found out that this didn’t eventuate because the allies OBJECTED to it. They thought it to close to military conscription.

    This is a bit like saying the RAD was made compulsory except it was only compulsory in legislation never in fact. The numbers didn’t vary from it being voluntary to be compulsory because it was so easy to get exemptions.

    Try and go to kindergarten and find out how to read. Then read the ONLY book written about it.

    Harry Clarke was right about you

  518. . says:

    This is a bit like saying the RAD was made compulsory except it was only compulsory in legislation never in fact.

    Yes Homer, the Nazis never enforced their own laws they enacted. Imbecile.

    Reich Labor Service Law.

    Of 26 June 1935.

    Section II, the compulsory labor of male youth

    § 3

    (1) The Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor shall determine the number of conscripts to be convened annually and shall determine the length of service.
    (2) The service obligation begins after completion of the earliest 18th and ends no later than the age of 25 Year of life.
    (3) The labor conscripts are usually in the calendar year in which they are the 19th Years to complete, called the Reich Labor Service. Voluntary entry into the Reich Labor Service at an earlier date is possible.
    (4) a sentence of more than 30 days duration, the labor conscripts and volunteers nachzudienen service work unless they are in accordance with § 16 leave the Reich Labor Service.

    Oh no Homey caught out lying AGAIN

    Then read the ONLY book written about it.

    Idiot.

    Harry Clarke was right about you

    Harry Clarke bizarrely thinks the external cost of smoking a pack of ciggies is 222 USD (enough to hypothecate economic welfare to zero if 90% of adults smoked). I don’t care what Harry thinks of my mental acumen after that “gem”.

    Come on then, tell us the organisation size of the FAD and RAD by year, you Nazi clown.

  519. Joseph Steelman says:

    “Can you please explain more about this idea that there’s more to the Norwegian than meets the eye? are you implying someone else financed his operations?”

    It looks like the opposite. Where you have these conspiracies they never seem to learn new tricks. The old ones work so well. So with the old tricks you have the sheep-dipping. You have the media-force-feeding. You have the patsy. You have the leaving around of low-hanging fruit as evidence of third party involvement, then you have the vigorous denial of that third party evidence.

    Just filling in the template, with the 9/11 operation you had all the embassy bombings, the real attempts by Clinton to get Bin Laden but someone didn’t want him to get bin Laden. You had the media playing up bin Laden as “The Saudi Billionaire” which was a lie. Then on the actual day you had the media force-feeding. They left all this evidence around that Saddam was involved then they vigorously denied this evidence to the point where there was social stigma attached to even mentioning it. They also had the low-hanging fruit of the fat laden video, wherein an action with a nose half as long as bin Laden made a fake confession.

    With the Norwegian there is none of that. Nothing at all. Unlike the assassination attempt on Reagan, 9/11, Oklahoma, the killing of Martin Luther King Junior, Bobby Kennedy and Jack …… These hits all fit the template more or less. But this Norwegian seems to have come out of a clear blue sky.

    I’m just saying you never rule these things out on first principles.

  520. KB Keynes says:

    you really do like making a complete fool of yourself.

    Klaus has statistics of people in the RAD.

    There is NO difference between when it was voluntary and when it became compulsory.

    Given the tightness of the labour market ( which of course you deny because the statistics were false and there was no recovery) by the time it was made compulsory it was very easy to get an exemption indeed Klaus shows all the possible exemptions.

    of course if you could read you would know this instead of looking up obscure websites.

    nothing like scholarly work

    you continue to sink more into the mire

  521. Joseph Steelman says:

    Fella I don’t think you are in much of a position to be posing as a fan of scholarship with a name like that. I don’t suppose you are using the Keynes name ironically are you?

  522. . says:

    Homer you fuckwit I quoted the Reich legislation. “Obscure” eh?

    Please provide some figures you assert.

  523. KB Keynes says:

    Mark,

    Why bother,

    you can neither read nor comprehend.

    I have told you why you are wrong.

    If you had studied even a little of german hisotry you would know it.

    Here is the book.

  524. . says:

    Wow Homer, you gave me a promotional flyer and no numbers.

    Big surpise.

  525. . says:

    This is absolutely disgraceful what you are doing Homer. You did the same to Tooze. Someone on catallaxy actually went out and bought Wages of Destruction and we could see it wasn’t just what everyone else knew, plus reviews of Tooze that contradicted you, Tooze himself contradicted you.

    I found the specific piece of Reich legislation (which you call ‘obscure’) which refuted your lie about the RAD being “voluntary”.

    Now you’re saying it doesn’t matter since everyone simply stayed in as the voluntary FAD changed into the compulsory RAD and the cohorts were of a similar size.

    (Not that it matters, morally).

    As you are supplying no evidence and you have previously misrepresented authors, we can only assume you are bullshitting.

    There is no other reason why someone in this day of age would defend forced labour camps other then being a closet Neo Nazi.

  526. . says:

    When I find out you’re bullshitting here, what other lies will you fabricate to defend Adolf Fucking Hitler?

  527. KB Keynes says:

    Marky this is the last time.

    Germany was forced by the allies to withdraw the RAD conscription in 1935.
    In other words the legislation meant nothing. At that stage it wasn’t enforced.

    anyone who has studied German history knows this. It might even be in Wikipedia

    After 1936 when Hitler essentially said he was going on a military spending spree and no-one did anything it was compulsory in name only. There were more exemptions to get out than holes in your head. If the numbers in the RAD didn’t change why do you think this was so?

    No don’t think you will get a headache.

    The Voluntary FAD became the voluntary RAD until 1936 but it was still voluntary because it was so easy to get out of service in it. they had labour shortages in 1936!!!

    Finding legislation or a graph is meaningless if you have no understanding of what is going go as you have constantly again.

    Actually they didn’t.It was doverbeach that wonderful historian who didn’t know what Sopade papers were who produced quotes of Tooze saying increased military spending got Germany out of the Depression.

    his great insight was the night of the long knives proved Nazi terror.

    Except as both Gestapo and Sopade papers agreed on it was heartily approved of by the German people who were more concerned with rising inflation.

    you are battered to a pulp now go away

  528. . says:

    Germany was forced by the allies to withdraw the RAD conscription in 1935.

    This is the biggest piece of bullshit I’ve read in my life. Eventually there were RAD fighting units that fought alongside the Wehrmacht.

    The Voluntary FAD became the voluntary RAD until 1936

    This doesn’t even make sense. Became until…what the fuck are you smoking you old crackhead?

    The rest of your post is straight up denialism. The Gestapo were just like Roy Morgan…fuck me dead.

  529. . says:

    Marky this is the last time.

    This is because you are losing the argument, you repugnant old Nazi turd. You don’t do any research. You are not “well read”. You fabricate and distort.

    Why? To defend Adolf Fucking Hitler and your own bizzare and unworkable version of vulgar Keynesianism.

    Actually they didn’t.It was doverbeach that wonderful historian who didn’t know what Sopade papers were who produced quotes of Tooze saying increased military spending got Germany out of the Depression.

    There we go. That is what you believe. The fact is the Nazis made people worse off every year they were in power, and the war preparations made them even poorer.

    You are a moral pygmy if you can’t see that conscription is morally wrong, despite the enrollment figures. You reckon it had “exemptions” but how come they’d stick you in gaol if you buggered off?

    Such a dishonest, dissembling, foolish spiv for Nazism. You area waste of the resources of our fine education system.

  530. . says:

    Homer’s greatest hits:

    “In 1938, nothing of note happened to German Jewry…”

    I’m going to call a spade a spade. Homer is a closet Neo Nazi and holocaust denier.

  531. Ken Parish says:

    Godwin is so last decade.

  532. Peter says:

    This ‘Marky’ appears to be an hysteric and a troll.

    Iron seeding of the oceans?

    Guffaw.

  533. . says:

    Well if I’m a troll one wonders about the environmentalist CEO of Planktos Inc.

    You know nothing about the intricacies of iron seeding, so guffaw all you like.

    For third parties:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

  534. . says:

    Anyone who calls Gen IV nuke “unproven tech” is simply misinformed and not hip and with it:

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-china-nuclear-power-breakthrough.html

    China said Friday it had hooked its first so-called “fourth generation” nuclear reactor to the grid, a breakthrough that could eventually reduce its reliance on uranium imports

  535. FDB says:

    “I’m a troll, FDB?”

    No Punctuation Mark, that was directed at Rafe. He’s been trolling up a storm on this thread, and failing to address responses, then sees fit to counsel you to not “feed the trolls” who engage with your ostensibly genuine comments.

    Reverse double irony with pike, I’m sure you’ll agree.

  536. Dot: do you believe every PR blurb you read? The article about the Chinese reactor is extremely detail free; Planktos was trying to make a buck out of iron fertilization, but as the Wiki article you linked to shows, there is much uncertainty as to whether it can work effectively, and it has potential environmental dangers too. A good article explaining just one of the complexities is here.

    You are like JC: a techno-optimist who fails to see that people selling high tech solutions are often more salesmen than realists, and you get upset when people doubt your line that the solutions are all easy-peasy, if only people would listen to you. I think you, more than JC, doubts that climate change is a problem at all, which only is more evidence that that your opinion on the solutions is also safely ignored.

  537. . says:

    The Gen IV reactor is online and iorn seeding works, even if it doesn’t work fantastically absolutely everywhere on the ocean. Shit man, if broadcasting seed doesn’t always yeild large croppage, you don’t say “broadacre farming is unproven and problematic”, you cultivate the seed where you get the best results or the biggest gains. Come up with a substantive argument than some consumer reports style warming about UNICEF and Cancer Council spruikers harrassing me on my way to work.

    which only is more evidence that that your opinion on the solutions is also safely ignored.

    Steve. Why the fuck are you being dishonest about this? Why are you insinuating the Gen IV reactor is NOT on-line? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? What would motivate you to say such misanthropic things? Do you really think a poorly designed cap and trade system is going to boost GDP to astronomical new highs?

    Oh yes Steve, if only people listened to you.

    If the shoe fits…

  538. JC says:

    You are like JC: a techno-optimist who fails to see that people selling high tech solutions are often more salesmen than realists, and you get upset when people doubt your line that the solutions are all easy-peasy,

    Steve,

    You do realize that if there are no real techo solutions to the problem, it basically trashes the whole idea of a carbon tax, right as you wouldn’t need one because we would be fucked anyway.

    What do you think raises our living standards (seen more visibly from decade to decade) if not technology. Seriously, do you think productivity rises are just people working hard with shovels and spades, or is it new capital machinery?

    We’ve had these discussions before. Take a look at the Dreamliner and the way it was manufactured (the processes) and the absolutely unbelievable new technology that it will carry.

    Have a look at this company that will likely receive a US government loan guarantee to proceed with the American Centrifuge Project allowing them to process uranium with 90% less electricity.

    Or think about global gas and oil reserves having literally gone up by multiples because of the fracking process for shale oil and gas. America and China are literally bathed in shale oil and gas (more gas for China) while only a few years ago (still now) some people are talking about peak oil/energy which is old news.

    Humans are really cool. They solve problems, make new new things we like and life goes on. There’s one thing I will never undersell and that’s the capacity of humans to do great things with their minds to solve problems. Never undersell that.

    Yes, AGW is a big problem over the long term with the large emissions expected from the emerging economies over the next 50 years measured at a stand still rate of technological improvements. But I see it paradoxically as a good problem because it means literally 100’s of millions of people will be lifted out of grinding poverty. We can of course hark back to the old economic order where there was Europe, the US, Japan and a few hangers on like Australia called the developed world and our emissions were rising slowly so we could sit back and have a cigar on a sun lounge. That ball game has changed and I welcome the idea that millions and millions of people are joining the middle class. Of course that creates trade offs we need to get our head around, but I would much rather have this problem to deal with (AGW) then watching poor people suffer in absolutely grinding absolute poverty. So yea… I’m an optimist. You ought to try it some time.

  539. Steve from brisbane says:

    Actually, JC, I would broadly call myself a techo optimist, but I am realistic enough to see that technology in some fields reaches bottle necks which take a lot of effort to overcome. Look at rocketry: we’ve been doing it for 50 years now, but it’s still quite a risk that your satellite won’t make it to orbit. High technology in many defense programs routinely oversells itself. More specifically, geothermal sounds relatively straight forward, but it obviously isn’t.

    It seems to me that the relatively rapid replacement of energy sources away from carbon fuels is a big, big program to undertake, and the technological changes to best deal with it are just not that obvious at the moment, and don’t have the political leadership driving them on a big enough scale either.

    That’s why I get annoyed with you playing footsie with climate change denialism: An ETS is a worthy start, if you can prevent it being rotted, but I suspect the real solution will need more much stronger political input from America, and that’s being held up by the likes of tea party dumbos.

  540. Steve from brisbane says:

    Rorted, not rotted. TiPad typo.

  541. . says:

    Actually, JC, I would broadly call myself a techo optimist, but I am realistic enough to see that technology in some fields reaches bottle necks which take a lot of effort to overcome. Look at rocketry: we’ve been doing it for 50 years now, but it’s still quite a risk that your satellite won’t make it to orbit. High technology in many defense programs routinely oversells itself. More specifically, geothermal sounds relatively straight forward, but it obviously isn’t.

    What has that got to do with anything you galoot? Rockets? Hello, the Chinese have just got Gen IV nuke working. This is like they’ve invented the turbofan engine. Anyway – rockets? You got any idea of the SCRAM jet experimentation going on right now?

    That’s why I get annoyed with you playing footsie with climate change denialism: An ETS is a worthy start, if you can prevent it being rotted, but I suspect the real solution will need more much stronger political input from America, and that’s being held up by the likes of tea party dumbos.

    This misinformed condescension is why you piss off half of Queensland when you open your mouth – simply allowing nuke and nuke exports can wipe out more emissions at negligible cost with positive income effects.

    Why do you protest climate change action except for the most expensive programmes with the most marginal benefits?

    This doesn’t even consider how bloody bad the carbon tax policy Gillard is proposing actually is. 99% of economists could come up with a better plan over a couple of days locked in an office.

    The idea that JC and I have to submit our ideas to you to see if we’ve got an agenda or not is laughable. We’ve consistently said something like I posted at 278. If the evidence is anything more than small but manageable or insignificant man made warming, supply the evidence.

  542. JC says:

    Steve:

    Actually, JC, I would broadly call myself a techo optimist, but I am realistic enough to see that technology in some fields reaches bottle necks which take a lot of effort to overcome. Look at rocketry: we’ve been doing it for 50 years now, but it’s still quite a risk that your satellite won’t make it to orbit. High technology in many defense programs routinely oversells itself. More specifically, geothermal sounds relatively straight forward, but it obviously isn’t.

    The ratio of dead rockets to live was was around 10:1 in the 60’s I think. It’s gone up to 70:1 so you can’t say it hasn’t improved. And no matter what you say, a rocket is basically a controlled explosion for the most part and a pretty risky endeavor. There have been all sorts of break throughs of the one off sort and don’t forget that space tourism is about to start one of these days soon, so it’s not as you portray. It’s just the days of the big drama stuff are probably over and that’s a good thing too. I can understand and appreciate the fact that governments started off this area of science, however they never really let go when they should have so I think space travel was retarded for that reason in many ways. Governments can’t afford dramatic accidents, as they are held responsible so they stalled after each accident (when deaths occurred). Quite honestly, if the Virgin guy’s space jet falls out of the sky with a bunch of tourists most people will yawn compared to say a shuttle going down.

    There’s also the fabulous idea of space elevators that could be seen by 2030 and that really will revolutionize that entire area of science and space travel.

    So my point is you can’t say that side hasn’t moved along. It has.

    It seems to me that the relatively rapid replacement of energy sources away from carbon fuels is a big, big program to undertake, and the technological changes to best deal with it are just not that obvious at the moment, and don’t have the political leadership driving them on a big enough scale either.

    I reckon there is. The biggest problems with say nuclear energy are safety and waste. The reactors Dot is talking about really do show promise. But I do concede this isn’t going to be moving quickly like say Apple coming up with new Ipad replacements every 6 months. There’s been only a couple of moves in the energy field in human history. But don’t underestimate gas, particularly in the US even as a 30 year transitional move, as the technology inspired gas find is stunning. The can reduce their emissions by 50% on a baseline by simply going to gas. The beauty of shale gas is that the freaking thing is made for gluts, so the price.. supply will under pressure all the time. The reason is you can’t turn the tap off and on, so you either sell the production or you lose it. Shale gas could literally transform the US and china over the next 20 years.. even their road transport. Cummins Engine is now working on a suped up gas consuming turbo charged engine that could transform truck transportation. All it will take is for one of the big carmarkers to come up with a decent car engine and you can say goodbye to reliance on middle east oil (they are too unreliable). The BTU cost equivalent is stunning.. 100 buck oil barrel for 15/20 buck gas equivalent BTU. There are countless numbers of people looking at the spread with their mouths wide open thinking of ways to exploit it.. and gas is around 50% emissions!

    That’s why I get annoyed with you playing footsie with climate change denialism: An ETS is a worthy start, if you can prevent it being rotted, but I suspect the real solution will need more much stronger political input from America, and that’s being held up by the likes of tea party dumbos.

    You don’t need an ETS in the US for that. All you need is a regulation saying that from now on the only emitting energy plants can be gas etc or clean coal, which is what they will do. I reckon both Dems and GOP will support that, as it will be relatively costless. I do concede the argument between the two parties will be timing though, as I’m sure the GOP wouldn’t support scrapping coal plants before their time is up while the Dems probably would. Quite honestly with the supply and price of gas where it is, that’s no big deal.

    But why worry if there are some people that believe in the science of AGW or not? That isn’t the fight. The real battle and the real objective is and always will be cheap and abundant energy with the caveat that it has to be either emissions free or greatly reduced emissions.

    If we can achieve emissions free energy no one will care either way and I guarantee you that even sceptics would say it’s worth the change as the risk parameters become cost free and therefore the equations changes.

    I honestly don’t understand why you or anyone else gets upset with people who don’t believe in AGW science. That’s why i say it’s a technological problem.

    As for the Tea party, some of them are out of their mind, but some of them are not. Those that are not are genuinely concerned with the way the country is going. Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey is not a crazy person. You may not like him but he’s not out of his mind.

  543. JC says:

    Dot’s right steve. The Chinese just very recently stuck what appears to be a Gen 1V reactor on the grid. This is pretty important stuff.

    Last time they focused on a technology like that was the steel mill and through scaling they reduced the cost of installing steel plants by a stunning 65%. They absolutely revolutionized the installation of steel mills. It’s the same for coal fired energy plants too where they saw also about a 60% drop in building coal fired power stations.

  544. . says:

    if you can prevent it being rorted

    You might as well say “if you can can stop teenagers in a Christian youth group from drinking and rooting”.

  545. JC, your example of space elevators that “could be seen by 2030” only further illustrates my point about the difference between realistic techno optimism, and the likes of LaRouche-ian techno-optimist Jetsons fantasy. You tend towards the latter.

    By the way: there’s no way I would invest in Virgin’s space tourism. The first lethal crash and the business will be dead, I reckon.

  546. . says:

    Steve,

    Do you know what the word “could” means? Seriously dude.

  547. Just as we could all be flying by helicopter backpack to work by 2030, I suppose.

  548. . says:

    No, we couldn’t.

    Irrelevant anyway. The anti development, anti GDP growth lobby have their AGW story busted. China has Gen IV on grid. It’s a proven technology now and it can be cheaper than coal with more reliable supply. We’re going to save the world and be consumers to boot.

    Watch the lies come out now about nuclear and the “efficiency” of scams like wind.

  549. David Wilkie says:

    “No Punctuation Mark, that was directed at Rafe. He’s been trolling up a storm on this thread…”

    Might FDB explain what is meant by ths? Surely this is FDB not listening. Surely this is FDB with his fingers firmly in his ears.

  550. FDB says:

    David, I explained already. Posing provocative “questions”, then not responding to the answers? Check. Linking to a bunch of stuff that doesn’t even support his position, which he hasn’t read properly, then ignoring people who point this out? Check. Citing non-authorities in the mainstream media when asked for scientific references? Check.

    I thought it a textbook case of trolling, as do many others on the thread. But in the end I guess, as with everything in this crazy postmodern world, one man’s troll is another man’s…

    …actually I dunno what you think he’s been doing. You haven’t offered up an alternative, beyond suggesting that I haven’t been paying attention.

    Perhaps you can explain? Or haven’t you been paying attention?

  551. KB Keynes says:

    Mark you are a classic.

    RAd units alongside the Werhrmacht in 1935. what with their pick and shovels.

    you never heard of Germany backing down on RAd conscription.

    not surprised you idiot.

    oops who said the Gestapo was as accurate in detecting the mood of the public in Germany as the Gallup organization was in the US.

    Why it was Adam Tooze. Indeed bob Gellately wrote more on what the Gestapo did up to 1938.

    at least Jason soon shut up when that egg cracked all over his face but not our Marky.

    gosh Marky wrong agin.who would have thunked it.Marky swearing Again when caught out.Who would have thunked it.

  552. PSC says:

    PSC didn’t back you up at all you illiterate Nazi clown.

    Dot’s correct, I didn’t. You were both trading some woolly statements about the statistical significance – and I upbraided a bit.

    Any level – be it 0.05, 0.01, 0.25 – is arbitrary.

    I should also point out that statistical significance often sounds very important, but what’s often a lot more useful are simple descriptive statistics.

  553. rog says:

    Steve, you gotta liberate ya mind to the potential for the future.

    It’s a brave new world.

  554. . says:

    you never heard of Germany backing down on RAd conscription.

    Fuck off Homer you are making this crap up as you go along. What other furphies are you going to fabricate? Germany backs down over rearmament?

    You reckon Hitler went against his ideology which helped construct the autobahn which were needed for war materiel logistics?

    Why it was Adam Tooze. Indeed bob Gellately wrote more on what the Gestapo did up to 1938.

    at least Jason soon shut up when that egg cracked all over his face but not our Marky.

    You are fucking lying. No one “shut up” about your Neo Nazi fabrications you arseclown.

    gosh Marky wrong agin.who would have thunked it.Marky swearing Again when caught out.Who would have thunked it.

    You are an idiot, a Neo Nazi and a compulsive liar. Reap what you sow.

  555. rog says:

    Speaking of furphies, Sinclair’s place has now linked to Kesten Green. This “revelation” is 4 years old and Greens piece, which is about the unscientific practices employed by the IPCC, uses refences to…Green.

    Why does Sinclair continue to peddle this unscientific crap?

  556. . says:

    rog,

    What do you know about science? Serious question.

  557. Peter says:

    What does Sinclair Davidson know about science? He teaches marketing and book-keeping.

  558. desipis says:

    Peter,

    Don’t you know the rules of the game? Everyone who denies that climate change is something we should take action on is automatically assumed to be an expert; everyone who claims we need to take action on climate change is assumed to be a corrupt lying moron.

    Although, the question does make me wonder if anyone in this thread actually has scientific qualification or experience…

  559. KB Keynes says:

    gosh Marky is punch drunk.

    let’s see

    compulsory RAD

    Klaus p148
    the difference between the conditional voluntariness between 1933-35 and the LIMITED compulsoriness after 1935 was minor in practice.
    p 145 he list the 6 exemptions to get out of being in the RAD

    on p297 he lists all the major and minor tasks the RAD did. oh dear unis in the Wehrmacht not there.
    oh on p5 he lists the counties who had labour service programs such as the FAD/RAD like the USA and UK.
    p145 212,00 people in RAd pre1935 and post 1935.

    Gellately (The leading Authority on the Gestapo)in Backing Hitler says p2 terror itself does not adequately explain how the 3rd Reich came to be, no account for its considerable staying power.

    p4 by and large terror was not needed to force the majority or even significant minorities into line

    In The Gestapo and German society he says 259
    Care needs to be taken to avoid assuming ?Germany as a whole was like some kind of military training camp in which the people were subjected to the double strategy of propaganda and terror.

    oh let us not forget he didn’t even realise it was tooze who made the comparison between the Gestapo and the Gallup organisation
    Gosh Marky wrong again.

    This is boring pointing out how many times Marky gets it wrong.

  560. . says:

    Homer Paxton you are a disgraceful liar. My mother lived near an old German couple who said Hitler was hated and feared.

    “the difference between the conditional voluntariness between 1933-35 and the LIMITED compulsoriness after 1935 was minor in practice.”

    Bullshit. Morally they are obviously different. You have never stumped up the numbers either. If you left the FAD on your own accord, you weren’t out in gaol or shot.

    “p 145 he list the 6 exemptions to get out of being in the RAD”

    Yeah, like being a Jew.

    “oh on p5 he lists the counties who had labour service programs such as the FAD/RAD like the USA and UK.”

    This is a lie. They were not the same. No Americans were gaoled or put into concentration camps for objecting to the CCC.

    Gellately (The leading Authority on the Gestapo)in Backing Hitler says p2 terror itself does not adequately explain how the 3rd Reich came to be, no account for its considerable staying power.

    If Gellately honestly believes this he is not an authority on anything. The Enabling Act, The Long Knives, Hitler’s failed Presidential elections and illegal usurpation of the Presidency, German general elections, the Sudetenland issue and the Anschluss were all conducted under a veil of terror with backing from the Wehrmacht, SS or SA.

    “p4 by and large terror was not needed to force the majority or even significant minorities into line”

    If you have recanted this correctly and not mangled this, it is the most disgraceful piece of “history” scholarship possibly ever.

    The Germans never voted Hitler in as Head of State nor really the Chancellorship. he got both bu force. Did Hitler get all of the holocaust victims to commit suicide? Why were Catholic party members beaten up for failing to pass the Enabling Act?

    You are such a disgraceful liar and Nazi apologist. You are verging on holocaust denial.

    “on p297 he lists all the major and minor tasks the RAD did. oh dear unis in the Wehrmacht not there.”

    You dummy they were separate to the Wehrmacht but built their infrastructure. They also fought alongside them independently the same way the Waffen SS did.

    “Care needs to be taken to avoid assuming ?Germany as a whole was like some kind of military training camp in which the people were subjected to the double strategy of propaganda and terror.”

    What care? It was a massive military camp. Germany rearmed from 1935 onwards and they aimed at autarky for a war. Their social policy was directed to breed Aryan soldiers. They were subjected to endless propaganda and censorship, and terror against dissenters.

    You are a disgraceful human being and you do not fit into the Australian way of life.

  561. KB Keynes says:

    Marky has more knowledge than academics who actually have written on the topic.

    wow.

    They couldn’t have built any infrastructure as people in the RAD had rarely had machines. They couldn’t even do work on the Autobahns.

    Gee ever read the diaries of Klemperer or Philip Gay at all?

    Who is talking about the holocaust.

    Hitler stuck his opposition in Gaols or killed them.

    Activities such as the night of the Long Knives were quite popular as people heartily approved of such actions.

    It isn’t just Gelaltely most scholars believe in this line now given the evidence.

    so there we have it.

    Marky without reading any scholarly papers at all knows everything except as we find again he knows bugger all
    As usual

  562. . says:

    Activities such as the night of the Long Knives were quite popular as people heartily approved of such actions.

    Yes Homer, and then the Nazis won a fair and free election after that…you totalitarian moonbeam.

    Marky has more knowledge than academics who actually have written on the topic.

    Wrong Homer, it is likely you have misrepresented them and you are lying now.

    Who is talking about the holocaust.

    “p4 by and large terror was not needed to force the majority or even significant minorities into line”

    Fuckwit. You monstrous fuckwit.

  563. KB Keynes says:

    Marky,

    Gellately went through various places eaxmining both Gestapo and Sopade files.

    they are in full agrement on the night of the Long Knives. most Germans heartily approved of it. Tooze merely notes Germans were more worried about rising inflation.

    most Germans voted for parties who were going to get rid of Parliament.

    They didn’t like Parliament at all.

    not hard to guess if you understood GErman history.

    Oh The only party to vote against the Enabling act were the social Democrats

  564. KB Keynes says:

    Oh what most scholarship has shown is not that Hitler’s behavior was excusable. It wasn’t. He was without question a murderous bastard of the highest order.

    The major point is the German people were still supporting him well into 1945.

    Sopade papers show that exiled social democrats only thought support for Hitler occurred because of the economy.

    However they were perplexed as this support occurred well into 1945

  565. . says:

    most Germans voted for parties who were going to get rid of Parliament.

    Fuck me you’re a raging idiot.

    The Nazis got a plurality of the seats in the Parliamentary elections by intimidating voters and opponents. The German people did not vote for, or free re elect the Nazis after the Enabling Act was passed, WHICH WAS PASSED UNDER DURESS.

    The election was ordered by Hindenburg after Hitler was a minority Chancellor and then the Reichstag fire (which no one conclusively knows who caused it). Hitler began banning parties and arresting opponents before the election.

    Oh The only party to vote against the Enabling act were the social Democrats

    Because they already beat the snot out of the Catholic party deputies to get it over the line, then started rounding up the SPD members after it was passed.

    “only if you understoof German history”

    If only you could retell an event from history with the relevant facts and without lying or incompetence.

  566. .