Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » There is not even universal support within the Warministas for an ETS

There is not even universal support within the Warministas for an ETS

This song is dedicated To “JM” who just refuses to give up on Emission trading as the way to save the world…..

The knowing supporters of emission trading are a rump, albeit powerful, of financial interests who see a multi-billion fortune to be made from trading financial derivatives, carbon-intensive industries that see scope for rorting to prolong their industries, and the politicians who support them by gulling the public that they are doing something that will help save the planet.

Corruption thrives on secrecy and its close cousin, complexity. But ETS has powerful opponents that include the International Monetary Fund as well as the green movement.

In the heat of an election campaign that has already started, it is impossible for the government to explain the CPRS except in the most general terms, and most of those who already understand it know it is a lemon. The CPRS is fertile ground for the mother of all fear campaigns, and Abbott has the intelligence and the ruthless cynicism to exploit it. He is flirting with Lord Monckton to shore up his support among the climate-warming deniers and global conspiracy loonies. It won’t be long before he applies his Jesuit mindset to exploiting the arguments of the high priests of the environmental movement such as the American scientist James Hansen.

Kenneth Davidson

The CPRS is a dead policy walking, and it won’t be that long before the stink of its rotting corpse begins to offend even the Pant-suit wearing minister in charge of trying to breathe life into it…
Cheers Comrades
😉

My bold in the quote
Advertisements

45 Comments

  1. Len says:

    A good indication of this scheme’s popularity, is yesterday house of reps question time. As soon as it was announced, watched, as 90% of pollies in the house, just up and walked out, probably to the bar ?

    A pretty good indication ? If the pollies are not interested in the scheme, at least enough to ask questions on behalf of their constituents, it sort of shows how serious the whole thing is ?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Len, Labor is just going through the motions on this one now because they know that it is both lost and no longer a plus at the ballot box

  3. furrybarry says:

    Of course there’s no universal support for the ETS. Anybody without their head up their arse about global warming can see that it only pays lip service to the problem. It doesn’t go far enough with CO2 cuts or spanking the coal industry.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Welcome to my blog Furrybarry, and thanks for your comment,

  5. furrybarry says:

    Thank me when the Greens get balance of power and put the Garnaut report recommendations in place.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t think that is going to happen Barry
    I would not recommend that you hold your breath waiting for it.
    There is not even a guarantee that Brother Number One will retain government and if he loses office then the greens having more seats in the senate won’t matter when it comes to an ETS or any scheme dreamed up by Garnaut.

  7. Pkd says:

    I trust Barry has the little green genie app you covered a while back Iain running on his computer. All Greens should have adopted zero carbon cost computing by now surely?

    Welcome too BTW Barry! 🙂

  8. Len says:

    I agree with the consensus about the Greens. We have all suffered the “balance of power” power trip ?

    what will be interesting, will be to watch the Tasmanian election coming up. Down there, it is an issue, and a serious one, so if it has any chance down there, just watch the results.

    We have all “discussed” the banter the last few months here, now it is coming up crunch time. With state elections coming up, as well as no doubt a Federal election being fought on the issue, watch the pollies do a midstream switch come campaign time, when it all blows up in their faces.

    On the plus side, it should all be interesting to watch.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    The editorial in today’s Oz says what I have been saying on this issue.

  10. furrybarry says:

    Now is as close as ever for the Greens, they certainly have more chance than the mad monk of making headway against Labor. Even as the Abbotionist makes headway with the Howard loving codgers he alienates women and anybody under the age of 75.

    Both the mainstream parties have dropped the ball on climate change, with Rudd too scared to offend the coal lobby in both it’s BHP and union forms, and Abbott happier to let his fantasy friend in the sky do the weather stuff.

    That leaves one alternative.

    Also, yes my computer is running on low power mode charged by my Prius while braking.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    As the editorial in the Oz suggests Barry ( hope that you don’t mind me shortening your User name) the issue of climate change is no longer a vote winner for Labor and the Greens have demonstrated a a great defincey in thier ability to read the politics. Now I know that a lot of people have responded to opinion polling on the issue by saying that they are concerned about the issue and that they think that something has to be done about it but when push comes to shove we all do the old fashioned cost to benefit analysis and by any measure the CPRS is not a good scheme.
    I don’t think the issue for Brother Number One is at all about “offending the coal lobby” that is just Green propaganda, the issue is how do you maintain a level playing field when it comes to trade. and the more expensive you make our energy economy the less competitive this country becomes internationally. No sane government would hamstring the country for the sake of climate piety.
    On the contrary Tony Abbott has enunciated a policy that will cost substantially less and has a pretty good chance of achieving as emission reductions of the same magnitude as the CPRS without the same money churn and enrichment of a whole class of spivs and shysters.

    Also, yes my computer is running on low power mode charged by my Prius while braking.

    Do you actually drive a Prius?
    I would have thought that true believer like yourself would be devoted to shanks pony or a bicycle before you deigned to get behind the wheel of any car……

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Just want to post a link to a truly great Guest post at Anthony Watts Blog because it sums up very extensively the problem faced by the Warministas when it comes to the issue of climate change in a post “Climate Gate” environment.

  13. furrybarry says:

    I don’t mind the contraction, but citing editorial from the Australian is like asking Barnaby Joyce for talking points.

    Rudd’s issue with the coal lobby is clear given that the major cost of his emissions trading scheme was the huge handout to that exact sector while consumers paid the price. It’s very simple, and of course the Greens pointed it out.

    Abbott only offers claytons solutions, which is reasonable given that’s exactly what his far right backers in the party demand of him.

    As for cost, the Greens scheme would cost the government nothing, even with low and middle income taxpayers fully compensated. Both the Lib and Labor schemes would cost hundred of millions a year from treasury, and without any guarantee of any actual emmissions cuts in the Libs case.

    And no I don’t drive a Prius, I have a Nissan GTR, currently running on E85. I ride my bicycles a fair bit too.

  14. PKD says:

    I suppose a guest post can’t be any worse than Watt’s usual posts – I’ll have a look when I can.

  15. Len says:

    A tough article to read.

    The guy had some interesting premises, but nothing of any substance to back them up. No checkable citations or references, just conjecture, and some pretty fractured conjecture at that. I am no slouch, and I had to walk away a few times, to try and digest what he was trying to say. A blog teaser perhaps, but an academic essay ? Don’t think so.

    Sorry Iain, if I handed in an essay like that at Uni, it would have failed.

  16. Iain Hall says:

    The thing that i liked about the piece Len was what he had to say about some very important aspects of the case made by the alarmists and how they have done their darnedest to undermine or minimise the uncertainties of the science . Because it is the way that we deal with uncertainty that gives science its strength and validity. He makes the point, that I agree with, that those who are prosecuting the case for AGW now have to work very hard indeed to recover the trust that has been squandered by the alarmists ad homiem attacks on any one who dared disagree with the AGW orthodoxy or question the “debate is over” mantra that has been used to shut down anyone who dare to question the Gurus of this apocalyptic faith.
    I also liked what he had to say about the way that the INTERNET and the blogosphere has irrevocably changed the “peer review” landscape from one that is very much “in the club” of any particular speciality to one where ordinary people can read the source material or public reports and make public any gross errors or stuff ups. The mistakes in the IPCC report that have been so calamitous for the Warministas recently are perfect examples of that as is the “climate gate” scandal. The thing is that the article is not a paper so much about the science but the philosophy of science and how it has been done and how what has been done in the name of global warming has changed the way that science will be done in the future.

  17. Len says:

    If that was the point of the article Iain, then I whole heartedly agree.

    I tried to read it again, and the eyes just sort of glazed over again, so lost interest.

    BUT, what you are suggesting, is happening on both sides of the argument though. I have seen data twisted, to enforce arguments on both sides. As the science is relatively new, and, by the look of parliament question time yesterday, we, as the gullible electorate are not interested in the technicalities of the debate. Therefore, we, get presented with argument, (and conjectured proof ?), that is sketchy at best, and have no interest in delving deeper into that ‘evidence’, to ascertain its true worth.

    One of the great features of todays technologies, is that no longer are papers presented to a closed audience. They are open to scrutiny from all sources now, and thus, the cutting of corners, or the one sided interpretation of raw data, can now be caught out very quickly. The ironic thing is, that usually in circumstances such as these, the interest shifts, to perfecting the science, and the move to a more practical, and provable consensus usually follows ?

    I wonder what they are waiting for ?
    More funding perhaps ?

  18. Iain Hall says:

    Well I suppose that as a non-scientist my focus has been much more on the process which is why I have been so keen to criticise the use of Proxies in the “reconstruction ” of paleo-climates and the use of computer models and statistics as if they are some sort of holy writ. which is why the piece struck a chord with me.
    As you would appreciate the data you collect now is like say a 10 megapixiel image compared to say a1pixel image for say 1000 years ago when it comes to climate , you simply can’t make truly valid comparisons between the two but the alarmists would have us believe that you can as long as you have the right algorithms.
    Anyway i will re read the post and pick out some highlghts to help those with glazed over vision see what I mean, but that will have to be tomorrow because The spanners are calling and I ignore them at my peril from SWMBO !!

  19. JM says:

    Iain: As you would appreciate the data ….the alarmists would have us believe that you can as long as you have the right algorithms.

    A number of people in the world – ie. the people who work on it – know this answer very, very well.

    But you don’t. You are not in any position to evaluate or criticise at all. Why do you think you can?

    This is just the “Argument From Personal Incredulity” (otherwise known as “I-don’t-understand-it-therefore-it’s-wrong-hah-hah)

    For instance, I know almost nothing about cars or welding (although I did a bit of welding when I was younger). How much attention would you pay to my criticisms of your approach to arc-welding spiral staircase frames?

    If my wife listened to your assurances that the thing would stand up and support her weight, how much attention would she pay to me if I started to scoff?

    About zero I think. She knows what I’m good at and what I’m not.

    As we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks (well 2-3 years really) your opinions in this area are just ill-informed nonsense.

  20. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    A number of people in the world – ie. the people who work on it – know this answer very, very well.

    But you don’t. You are not in any position to evaluate or criticise at all. Why do you think you can?

    Its simple JM when you have a very small amount of real information (lets call it data shall we) as your starting point you can certainly make some thing out of it, but if you seek extrapolate it so that you can compare it to a very much larger, more detailed and probably much more accurate set of data it stands to reason that any comparison is only as good as the margin for error.

    This is just the “Argument From Personal Incredulity” (otherwise known as “I-don’t-understand-it-therefore-it’s-wrong-hah-hah)

    No it is an argument from first principles, I E a dodgy or vague set of data can’t validly be compared to a more expansive and detailed data set.

    For instance, I know almost nothing about cars or welding (although I did a bit of welding when I was younger). How much attention would you pay to my criticisms of your approach to arc-welding spiral staircase frames?

    It very much depends upon how you argue your case JM But unlike the claims of climate science I can point to the proof in the pudding in the case of both sets of stairs that I have made and my car the touble is that after many years , billions of dollars and countless man hours the AGW alarmists are still no closer to proving their claims, in fact if anything over the last few months they have lost a great deal of their credibility. Oh and I use a MIG welder because it is far superior to any arc welder.

    If my wife listened to your assurances that the thing would stand up and support her weight, how much attention would she pay to me if I started to scoff?

    About zero I think. She knows what I’m good at and what I’m not.

    As I said every inch of weld takes a ton of force to tear it apart so why would you scoff in the first place?

    As we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks (well 2-3 years really) your opinions in this area are just ill-informed nonsense.

    🙄
    And who is it who has been definitively shown to be wrong about the political viability of an ETS,both here and on the world stage, right here at this blog over the last few weeks?
    Take a bow JM Its a big ask but you have pulled off the most unlikely daily-double of being a Warminista and a denialist (about the political reality of your pet topic).
    As I keep saying your prescription just won’t get up so what are you going to do now?

  21. JM says:

    only as good as the margin for error.

    Agreed. The error can – and is – calculated. Go and have a look at all that scientific work you describe as junk. “margins of error” are calculated in every single paper

    No it is an argument from first principles

    It is most certainly NOT an argument from first principles. Arguments from first principles proceed from theory NOT data.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    every inch of weld takes a ton of force to tear it apart

    That sounds a bit too much like a rule-of-thumb there Iain. Maybe I shouldn’t trust your skills quite so much 😉

    who is it who has been definitively shown to be wrong about the political viability of an ETS

    We shall see.

  22. JM says:

    In fact Iain, just to make this point about “margin for error” a little bit clearer, refer to this graph

    Yes, I know it’s the “hockey stick” but I don’t want to argue about that for a minute.

    Can I direct your attention to the grey bits? That’s the error in the measurements. Anything between the black line in the center and the area shaded grey above and below it could be true.

    Notice how the grey gets very much narrower once we reach the modern era? That’s because the error is less.

    Scientists do take account of the fact that older measurements (and proxies) are less reliable than thermometers from the modern era – which is your objection.

    It’s just that you don’t notice it when they do. For some reason you think that amateurs like you and me (or god forbid absolute numbskulls like Shawn and Watts) have trump cards that will lead experts to whack themselves in the head with a hammer for not having thought of the obvious.

    They have thought of it Iain, they have. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). They’re way ahead of you.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    only as good as the margin for error.(moi)

    Agreed. The error can – and is – calculated. Go and have a look at all that scientific work you describe as junk. “margins of error” are calculated in every single paper

    I have seldom if ever described any “scientific work” as “junk” that is just not the way that I argue , so please stop projecting ! That said Just because something can be calculated does not validate the comparison between data sources that have differing margins for error and that is my point. Because surely it has to be the case that for an overview scenario your earlier less sure values can have a relationship to the more certain numbers only if you take a very large leap of faith about what the uncertain vales actually represent. the likes of Mann and the “hockey stick” graph is being essentially dishonest to attribute so much certainty to the results that he has derived from “tree ring data”

    No it is an argument from first principles(moi)

    It is most certainly NOT an argument from first principles. Arguments from first principles proceed from theory NOT data.
    You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    But It is JM because the principle that I am arguing from is the one that says that if you want two measure two or more things and compare the results the you have to use the same measuring stick on both of them for the subsequent comparison to have substantive meaning. I make things JM and as a practical man I know that simple fact why can’t you wrap your mind around the principle that I am invoking here?

    every inch of weld takes a ton of force to tear it apart

    That sounds a bit too much like a rule-of-thumb there Iain. Maybe I shouldn’t trust your skills quite so much 😉

    What I am saying is literally true for the sort of structures that I have been making , If you make one weld that is one inch on a joint in the structure you need a ton of force to break the joint , in fact the weld itself will not fail but the parent metal adjacent to it will but like all structures the strength comes from the configuration of its components. With due attention to triangulation extremely strong structures can be made that are remarkably rigid for their weight

    who is it who has been definitively shown to be wrong about the political viability of an ETS(moi)

    We shall see.

    Well I see this as you finally losing your faux certainty that you so tenaciously held on to even though it is entirely unjustified by the facts.

    In fact Iain, just to make this point about “margin for error” a little bit clearer, refer to this graph

    Yes, I know it’s the “hockey stick” but I don’t want to argue about that for a minute.

    Can I direct your attention to the grey bits? That’s the error in the measurements. Anything between the black line in the center and the area shaded grey above and below it could be true.

    Notice how the grey gets very much narrower once we reach the modern era? That’s because the error is less.

    Scientists do take account of the fact that older measurements (and proxies) are less reliable than thermometers from the modern era – which is your objection.

    It’s just that you don’t notice it when they do. For some reason you think that amateurs like you and me (or god forbid absolute numbskulls like Shawn and Watts) have trump cards that will lead experts to whack themselves in the head with a hammer for not having thought of the obvious.

    Actually your Graph perfectly illustrates my point about the use of different measuring sticks as the earlier points on the graph shows a margin of error that is greater in magnitude than the variation between ancient and modern temperatures being compared, thus what is being claimed could be true but it is even more likely to be wrong.It assumes that the true value (temperature) will consistently fall in the middle of the two extremes of that margin of error and the reality is that it could be anywhere with in that rather large range.

    They have thought of it Iain, they have. Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). They’re way ahead of you.

    I’m a modest man JM but even I know that something being “SOP” does not infer it with immutable validity. It used to be SOP after all to believe that the earth is flat……….

  24. JM says:

    .It assumes that the true value (temperature) will consistently fall in the middle of the two extremes of that margin of error

    Sort of. That the errors are “normally” distributed. They will tend to lie closer to the average and be 50/50 distributed above and below the line.

    the reality is that it could be anywhere with in that rather large range.

    In any given year, yes. But if you’re going to say that it will consistently be above (or below) the line, year after year, then

    a.) you are defying the mathematics
    b.) you are defying reality
    c.) you are making a huge bet that you are right and all our experience is wrong.

  25. Iain Hall says:

    But JM my point is that when the margin of error is larger than the comparison values the validity of the comparison is rather suspect.

  26. JM says:

    likes of Mann and the “hockey stick” graph is being essentially dishonest to attribute so much certainty to the results that he has derived from “tree ring data”

    Iain. What attribution? He (and his collegues) attribute much less certainty to proxies. Have a look again at the graph.

    They’re way ahead of you. They have calculated this, while you’re just waffling.

  27. JM says:

    But JM my point is that when the margin of error is larger than the comparison values the validity of the comparison is rather suspect.

    You sure? Define “larger”. You want to rewrite mathematics now as well as physics?

  28. Iain Hall says:

    The attribution of certainty lies in the hard black plot at the mid point of all of that grey margin for error without a clear enunciation of any caveats about how wrong those assumptions may be.

  29. JM says:

    Clear enunciation?!?!

    See the grey area? That’s beyond clear enunciation. That’s concrete quantification!

    What more do you want? Divine enlightenment?

  30. Iain Hall says:

    Yeah JM
    like who outside the Warminista club would appreciate the significance of all that Grey? Which is my point. You say “look at the Graph it shows the variable margin of error” but to some one not in the club that is far from obvious but it lacks any consideration of how having a variable margin of error makes any claim of any trend questionable at best.

    What more do you want? Divine enlightenment?

    You are the one arguing a faith position JM, not I .
    But what i want is more admissions form advocates like yourself of the uncertainties of your case.
    You consistently refuse to even consider that your central thesis could be wrong or even just over stated and frankly that is just unscientific.

  31. JM says:

    Iain. If it’s a club, it’s not a very exclusive one. Anyone who is willing to engage honestly and learn from other people is welcome to join.

    There are no membership criteria apart from intellectual honesty.

    but it lacks any consideration of how having a variable margin of error makes any claim of any trend questionable at best.

    Please justify that. I’ve no idea what you’re talking about (unless you’re rewriting mathematics again – in which case, could you explain in appropriately rigorous fashion rather than just hand-waving and waffling).

  32. Iain Hall says:

    Its like using different scales on a technical Drawing JM.
    You can create an image all right but it won’t tell you as much as it appear to do at first glace and if you don’t have a very big warning saying words to this effect :
    “individual elements are drawn at different scales ” the how can we truly understand any of it as a whole?

  33. JM says:

    I see, so this is “Iain science” – where the conclusions are whatever Iain wants with evidence based on whatever rationalization Iain thought up in the last 5 minutes – as opposed to the science accepted by the rest of the world?

  34. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    What i am saying is that any reporting or diagrammatic representation of the results should be entirely clear and transparent the actual conclusions are not the issue but the way that they are presented is.

  35. JM says:

    Iain, it is very clear. And anyone who can read it can explain it to you – as I have done. If you still refuse to understand it, I can’t help you.

    Anyway, it’s been fun. Over the last couple of weeks we’ve established that you:-

    * don’t understand the difference between science and faith
    * can’t make logical inferences
    * can’t refute a simple proof of AGW
    * don’t understand the means by which data is analysed
    * don’t understand much about how it is gathered

    At least you now do understand that the problem is purely political and economic, and that playground taunts aren’t contributing to the solution.

    I’m traveling for the next few days so we’ll have to come back to this later. See you then.

  36. Len says:

    I think that is a bit harsh JM ?

    The problem is not with Iain’s (or mine for that matter ?), interpretation, it is the problem of the twisting of data, to suit a hypothesis !

    There are that many b/s theories coming out of science at the moment, that if you believe everything you are presented with, then you may as well put a ring through your nose, and tie a string to it, so as you can be led around the ring.

    Science is the evidence of life
    Faith is the evidence of things unseen.

    You are quick to criticise Iain, and myself for that matter, when we bring up the simple fact that science in this field, is not studying the entire picture. Simply, they are following the money trail and the pollies, quick to seize an opportunity, are joining the folly, as there appears to be votes in it for them ? Why can’t you see the reality here ?

    We both do not deny the data/evidence that is out there, merely, we are criticising the whacked out conclusions that science is reaching in their greed for power, prestige, and most of all, money !

  37. Iain Hall says:

    JM
    Your arrogance is staggering and entirely unjustified for given the way that you have argued here overthe last few weeks .
    Lets look at your claims shall we?

    Iain, it is very clear. And anyone who can read it can explain it to you – as I have done. If you still refuse to understand it, I can’t help you.

    When I make the point about how the ideas are communicated you typically retreat into this sort of nonsense. The problem for you Warministas is that you think that those who do the science are excused the obligation to explain their case in a plain and simple manner that is free of willfully obscure jargon.

    Anyway, it’s been fun. Over the last couple of weeks we’ve established that you:-

    Your arrogance continues! but lets check out your claims shall we?

    * don’t understand the difference between science and faith

    No JM you don’t like being mocked for the religiosity of your position and you make the mistake of assuming that becuase I use religious terms for my sarcasm that I don’t appreciate the difference between science and faith.

    * can’t make logical inferences

    This claim is just plucked from the air and entirely false.

    * can’t refute a simple proof of AGW

    The thing is JM there is NO simple proof of AGW, because if there were then there would be nothing to debate all that you managed to “prove” was that CO2 is a GHG which is undisputed even by me , the magnitude of the effect of anthropogenic Co2 is the issue and when I have pressed you on that you have gone into avoidance mode. You can’t (or won’t) explain why you accept a particular value for the climate sensitivity to Co2

    * don’t understand the means by which data is analysed

    Gee that is a very broad claim JM and rather wide of the mark, do I understand all of the algorithms? I’ll concede that I don’t but this is a blog and we have been discussing the issue in generalities and at that level I do understand the principles involved here.

    * don’t understand much about how it is gathered

    While I’ll happily defer to Len on some aspects of how the data is collected it is entirely untrue for you to claim this .The problem for the Warministas is that many of your Gurus have been very secretive about thier raw data as the climate gate scandal demonstrates .

    At least you now do understand that the problem is purely political and economic, and that playground taunts aren’t contributing to the solution.

    I am gobsmacked that you could say this JM because of the way that you have steadfastly refused to acknowledge the fact that your ETS prescription won’t get up here or at a global level. and I have been saying so for more than year here at this blog. On this aspect of the debate you have wriggled more than a worm on speed

    I’m traveling for the next few days so we’ll have to come back to this later. See you then.

    Yeah i bet that you are going for an airplane ride and i bet that you will have some vague excuse to cover the innate hypocrisy of a Warminista flying.

  38. Len says:

    sorry about that, made a typo with the email address.
    Oops !

  39. Len says:

    To assist the discussion along a tad Iain, I give all interested the below.

    The aircraft I have here, were purchased and fitted in the US. They are Falcon lear jets modified. (heavily !)

    They are fitted with a series of tiny ducts, about thirty in all, located in the main body of the aircraft, forward of the rear mounted engines, so as all atmospheric sampling is uncontaminated. Hence the need for rear mounted, jet engined aircraft. They were designed in the US by a company known as L-3 Telemetry-East. They fit out the jets before delivery. They have a website believe it or not @ http://www.telemetryproducts.com/

    Inside the aircraft, body, the computer equipment is distributed evenly on each side, and there are four banks either side of the aiselway. Once sampling is done, the data is saved in binary, saved to portable h/drives, as mentioned previously, then transmitted to the client’s mainframe. All this is done in real time. The sensors are calibrated before every journey. They have to be calibrated to height ceiling range of the flight, and the updates of altitude and speed, are constantly updated every ten seconds by means of available GPS locater satellites. So, all in all, pretty high tech gear.

    If you want to say that the instrumentation is wrong ? hmm !
    If you want to say that the sampling is corrupt ? hmm !

    The equipment is state of the art, and the providers are always updating software interfaces and sampling dissertation software constantly. This done on the fly, directly to the planes !

    Again, what happens to that data once it leaves our hands is not up to me. So JM, and anyone else that wishes to criticise my. or any of the others that have also spent upwards of $100m on doing this, you need to temper that with our strict need for “beyond reproach” research. We have nothing to gain by slanting the data either way. We are not the ones making the outlandish conclusions here. We just shake our heads sometimes in disbelief at what is published out there. It’s nothing new though. Corruption of reporting procedures to satisfy superiors, clients, money/funding, is not new, it has been happening ever since science was first explored ?

  40. Iain Hall says:

    As i have said before Len my problem is not about any data gathering process in the here and now like the stuff you do but rather with those who think that you can validly compare the sort of data that you collect to the proxies like tree rings, oxygen isotopes, or even Ice cores, The proxies are of many orders of magnitude less accurate than the stuff you do Len Yet JM would have us believe that with the right math they are comparable………
    As they said in “the castle” he’s dreamin!

    I think that JM is so invested in the AGW theory that he just refuses to see anything that my undermine his deep faith in it.

  41. Len says:

    Spot on Iain san.
    They want so desperately to prove their theory/hypotheses’ that they will cut corners. Perhaps not consciously, but they do so none the less.

    There are many causes out there for our climate change woes. Carbon is merely a minute spot, on the canvas showing the problem. What we all need, is to take a step back, and admit, that what we are doing now, in our industrial processes, as well as the way we live our lives, is killing the planet. The minute we finally admit that to ourselves, then we are on the road to saving this planet.

    The politicians out there have to realise that this problem is not a quick fix one, and also realise that their careers, and remembrance in the history books, will not come overnight. Some tough decisions have to be made, on how we do things, EVERYTHING, and only then will the solutions come to fruition ?

  42. Pkd says:

    Sorry I’ve been to busy moving house to comment but your denialism iain is reaching new heights even for you.

    It’s not so much that you deny the plentiful evidence provided (especially as it doesn’t agree with your pre existing ideologies) but your complete failure to provide anything substantial in it’s place. Instead of alternate science you give us conspiracy theories or half baked discredited science like your Religious support in sunspot theory.

    It really is getting very monotonous – time to life your game don’t you think?

  43. Iain Hall says:

    One of the biggest problems facing the planet is the one that they just won’t even let past their lips and it is simply that there are too many people and sadly one of the Major causes of that is actually one of our successes, namely modern medicine. This is not so much a first world problem but in any of the “less developed ” countries of the world where we have provided vaccines and knowledge about how to keep more children alive there have been population explosions and when these people go hungry due their own misfortune or ineptitude the food aid has flowed. Now I well understand the way that compassion demands this but the overall result is more people than the planet can sustain. In the first world we have largely done the right thing and reduced our fecundity but then the addiction to an every growing economy has inspired our governments to seek the growth that we have avoided by importing people from places that know less restraint when it comes to having children.
    What i am saying here is that at some point we (globally) have to look to maintaining a steady level of population becuse the planet just isn’t big enough to do otherwise. The trouble is that everyone is just so scared to discuss this aspect of climate issue because they fear being accused of “racism”.

    Tessa
    Thanks for the tip on the spelling of Gaea 🙂

  44. Iain Hall says:

    PKD
    If you are propping up your house of cards with a very dodgy looking stick should I say nothing about it jst because I don’t have a timber mill that can supply a suitable replacement? because that is what you are saying here.

  45. Len says:

    So is your argument PKD. Take a step back, and realise that there are corruptions on probably both sides of the argument. I, and others fortunate to be in my position, are in a unique position, in that we see the raw data. Now, I am not a scientist, but am a graduated military pilot (blissfully retired), so am no slouch when it comes to the mathematics, science in general, as well as having been on this planet for a bloody long time.

    What is it that you deny re Iain’s argument, or mine for that matter ?

    I consider myself to be reasonably balanced, and carbon is not the problem here. Far from it. It never ceases to amaze me, at the extent to which you greenies will go, in denial of plain logic ? You can show me all the studies in the world, and with a bit of time, I bet I can rebut with the equivalent amount of studies to negate them. That is just how corrupt the entire system is.

    When the answer, or should I say answers (as there will be more than one, being carbon), then we, as a civilisation may get somewhere in saving this planet. Until then, the entire frat party of so called ‘experts’ will just run around like chooks with their heads cut off.

    Don’t mind me, for me, I don’t mind in the least.
    Show me the money !

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: