Rational Advice on ‘Carbon Act’ Censored
Posted by jennifer, June 29th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change, Humour
ON Friday President Barrack Obama praised the House of Representatives for passing the ‘Clean Energy and Security Act’. Everyone agrees that it’s far reaching legislation, and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has made mention of the event as a reason for Australia to hurry-up with its own emissions trading laws.
The US Environment Protection Agency had one of its employees, Alan Carlin, critique the supporting technical documentation for the legislation. Mr Carlin’s report advised that the scientific hypothesis on which the draft legislation is based is seriously flawed. He lists its failings as:
“1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise. Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis.
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO. Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability, which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand. This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way.
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD [technical supporting documentation] refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data….
“These inconsistencies between the TSD analysis and scientific observations are so important and sufficiently abstruse that in my view EPA needs to make an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP without much more careful and independent EPA staff review than is evidenced by the Draft TSP. Adopting the scientific conclusions of an outside group such as the IPCC or CCSP without thorough review by EPA is not in the EPA tradition anyway, and there seems to be little reason to change the tradition in this case.
“If their conclusions should be incorrect and EPA acts on them, it is EPA that will be blamed for inadequate research and understanding and reaching a possibly inaccurate determination of endangerment. Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until about 2030 given the 60 year cycle described in Section 2) there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain much of the available data.
“Finally, there is an obvious logical problem posed by steadily increasing US health and welfare measures and the alleged endangerment of health and welfare discussed in this draft TSD during a period of rapid rise in at least CO2 ambient levels. This discontinuity either needs to be carefully explained in the draft TSD or the conclusions changed.”
Mr Carlin’s report was suppressed even within the EPA, but a copy leaked to meteorologist and blogger Anthony Watts who has posted it here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf [4 MB pdf]
SJT,
You dare to talk about conflation? Conflation is when a belief system evolves around the assertion that a tiny move around a vast data set that is demonstrably noisy and full of inaccuracy and bias is proof of impending doom.
And we have been hearing the mantra of ‘we will be outside the range of normal in a few years’ for decades now.
That chant lost credibility awhile ago.
janama,
Your point is well made.
Ian Mott,
I have noticed for awhile that ‘Luke’ seems to have significantly different personalities and writing styles from time-to-time. I thought it was simply because Luke was a drunk and we were getting sober and and stoned versions. Your explanation makes more sense.
Luke,
Your more recent sock puppets are tarnishing your brand. Instead of being a snarky, mean, bright AGW true believer, your brand is now associated with ignorant, circular, and dull.
Comment from: Luke DESK I June 30th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.
1) conspiracy – You mean like having a member of Real Climate in charge of editing the history of the hockeystick controversy for Wikipedia? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.
2) selectivity – Like starting the world temperature record in the 1880’s, when the temp was forced as much as 1.5 degrees C lower then normal by the Krakatoa eruption? Sounds selective to me.
3) fake experts – You mean like reporting that the AR4 was created/reviewed by more than 2500 experts, but later we find out only 62 reviewers commented on the key critical chapter in which the near certainty of GW being due to human activity is asserted. And of those 62 we find out 59 had a profit motive. Sounds pretty fake to me.
4) moving goalposts – You mean like when Steve Mc examined the “In Press” and “Accepted” citations in IPCC AR4 Second Draft Chapter 6 to verify whether Wahl and Ammann 200x had received unusual and special treatment? It did. W&A 200X benefited from IPCC Authors bending the rules to accept papers not published before the Dec 2005 deadline. In fact 16 articles — all by IPCC Contributing Authors – failed to meet an important IPCC Publication Deadline and were accepted after the December 2005 final date. No non IPCC Contributing Authored papers were accepted in this manner. Sounds like they moved more then goalposts. Sounds like they moved Heaven and Earth to get “preaching to the choir” papers included.
5) general fallacies of logic – Sheesh – You mean like the non-physical property of evaporative heating evoked to provide necessary “tipping points” to put catastrophy in the catastrophic climate change? Considering that there is no such thing as evaporative heating, sounds like a problem with basic logic to me.
Five out of five. Color me skeptical, not as confused as you would like me to be, and 100% four square in denial of your climate change consensus.
Darned sockpuppets.
Wee James – thanks for playing. The reason that you are pig ignorant denialist filth is because you’re pig ignorant and filthy. You actually fell into the 5 classic sciences of denialism skank – you couldn’t help yourself. I am quite taken aback actually – you really aren’t that bright are you. I hope you’re not in any position of authority.
(1) no reference as to who. You’ve suggested a conspiracy but haven’t said why. This is what POINT ONE means doofus – you don’t make up false stories about conspiracies. Indeed the formal differences of opinion are explicitly tabled.
(2) numerically wrong; and even if it was so – you’ve asserted a conspiracy with no evidence
(3) fake experts – no the experts weren’t fake – not proven nor shown. As for profit motive – you’ve posted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence. Incidentally that’s libel so be careful
(4) Not what is meant. In any case – an important issue so perhaps a working group exercised some discretion. Does not imply any conspiracy – case utterly unproven. Hearsay blog gossip.
(5) “tipping points” – that’s an example of you moving the goal posts – I’m not familiar with the IPCC tipping points – show how it relates (I’m politely telling you to “put up”). Here we have a good example of classic denialist manipulation. I tabled two papers on water vapour and feedback on recent threads. Obviously you can’t read.
James – again thanks very very much for playing.
You’ve provided a classic example of autonomic denailism. You’re so immersed in filth and lies that you don’t even know when you doing it.
“The name “Luke” is the designation of a desk and PC in a Queensland Government Department. Various people are tasked to man this desk to provide regular, if hardly consistent, misinformation and distraction to the discussion on this blog and any other that might have the nerve to stray from the party line.”
But don’t you see Ian. Its not something to mention. There has mass-sackings. Everyone involved. Their bosses. Their contential contacts in the same department. Their subordinates. Any known friends. The only way to stop this abuse by parasites on the public dime is to sack everyone you can and take a massive gouge out of the department, supposing you cannot wind up the department entire. Nothing like the taxpayers asserting themselves to restore some morale to the public sector.
Would you want to tell us which government department has been used in this defamatory, wasteful and totally unacceptable fashion.
You’d want to just hit the ground firing people in 360 degrees fashion. Save the taxpayer a great deal of money and improve productivity and motivation in the department.
“But don’t you see Ian. Its not something to mention. There has mass-sackings. Everyone involved. Their bosses. Their contential contacts in the same department. ”
Wow a lot of mistakes there.
That should read:
But don’t you see Ian. Its not something JUST to mention. There has to be mass-sackings. Everyone involved. And their bosses. Their tangential contacts in the same department……..
Comment from: Luke DESK I July 1st, 2009 at 3:22 am
How many Phd’s went into the creation of that snappy retort, do you think?
It’s hard to believe. The best and brightest of Bom on display in all it’s glory, and yet little old Jimmy keeps on tap tap tapiddy tap sliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide tapiddy tap tap tap tapdancing across the collectives’ “Luke” desk.
How can it be? Is it because I’m a super genius? A modern day Saturn born in the age of Aquarius?
Oh I’m a bad man,
I’m giving you on count of three
to show your stuff or let it be . . .
I’m telling you just watch your mouth
I know your game what you’re about
Well they say the sky’s the limit
and to me that’s really true
but my friend you have seen nothing
just wait ’til I get through . . .
Because I’m bad, I’m bad-
Come on you know I’m bad, I’m bad-
you know it (nod to the MJ)
but I’d never claim that. You know the click the link to test your IQ website “Madonna scored a 124″ on?
Yeah, I did that one time. Scored a 74. ( 2 points below Jethro Bodine, Uncle Jed.)
I am the living embodyment of the scientificly illiterate American the Japanese keep doing studies on. Then again…
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.
GOZILLA!
(I know that somewhere on Earth a Samurai flinched)
How come everytime I have a mind to apply the boot to Luke’s head, he gets kicked?
(check the archives)
I’m so small and yet I punch so
way up high, way up high, way up high, up high, up high, up high, high, high, high, high.
Way up high
over my paygrade.
Could it be because I’m pretty? Not a mark on my baby face…
I’m so pretty, so so pretty, i’m so pretty and witty and wise.
and so I beat the crap out of ETS guys
Um no. I’m as plain as day, snaggletoothed, with a beer gut. I could pass for a Brit.
Is it because I am pure of heart? ::: ding :::
“Thaaat’s thinkin with your dipstick, Jimmy.”
Word to the nubies. Stick to the truth, especially against a polyphonic socialist like the Lukes here.
Poor, poor, Luke collective. I think about their futures, and it makes me sad.
He’s got patches,
on the patches,
of his worn out memes.
they used to be new,
when they used to be cool,
when they used to be green.
One of these days, see them driving round town, in their solar powered carts, with the tops pulled down, nothing to lose, just the ETS blues, yelling “Hey Look out for me.” when ever they see a truck.
No it ain’t no fun.
Working nightshift in the Walker chair.
No it ain’t no fun. (do you believe me?)
Working night shift in the Walker chair.
No it ain’t no fun. (Hear what I’m saying to ya?)
Working night shift in the Walker chair.
No it ain’t no fun
(ain’t no fun)
It ain’t no fun
(ain’t havin no fun)
Down here with the scum
(down here with the scum)
Ain’t having no fun
(ain’t no fun)
Ain’t no fun workin nightshift in the Walker chair.
Ain’t no fun workin nightshift in the Walker chair.
(Hey Albert. Get your damned Private Jet off my airport)
Sorry folks. My Pavlovian reflex kicks up like that sometimes.
It’s a curse. Half the time I don’t even know it’s happening.
You learn to live with it.
I have to disagree with topic heading. There was nothing ‘rational’ about the advice at all, but just odd quotes from random web sites.
I keep asking, why can’t the ’skeptics’ lift their game? If you are going to counter AGW, at least use some high quality arguments and evidence.
I was going to include a blurb at the end saying “over to you C3PO“.
Ah damn.
Water under the bridge.
Reuters: dissing Pelosi for selling out the party to the Greens.
Who the hell are these Reuters? It seems to be some sort of news company.
And what’s with the comment section? They let people talk trash about sustainablility, carbon taxes, calling cap and tax a Jobs killing bill. A whole lot of stuff. Those hooligans and planet traitors would never get away with that fresh talk at climate progress, I’ll tell you.
I get my news from FOX usually. Maybe I’d better branch out more.
Reuters – sheesh. What will they think of next?
Speaking of Fox , Alan Carlin, Suppressed EPA Scientist speaks out on Fox News.
“… the U.S. should not rely upon recommendations of the UN in making policy decisions regarding global warming.”, says Carlin. “The most important conclusion, in my view, was that EPA needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend upon reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and in fact have done,”
Well I’ll be. Dip me in Crisco and call me a Senator. Check the callender because it has to be Christmas. July 1st. It came early this year, boys.
Hotdog!
see video here.
“Thaaat’s thinkin with your dipstick, Jimmy!”
I feel a primal scream coming on. Excuse me.
SJT: “I keep asking, why can’t the ’skeptics’ lift their game?”
What?
You? I think you should take your own advice, perhaps a lot of the time you just don’t know what you are saying.
“You? I think you should take your own advice, perhaps a lot of the time you just don’t know what you are saying.”
You are confusing what I am saying with your inability to understand it. Miskolczi is not science, G&T is not science. It’s pretty simple.
SJT “It’s pretty simple.”
You have used the wrong pronoun but I agree you are pretty simple. The fact that you can understand neither Miskolczi nor G&T is proof.
There is something fundamentally disturbing with that depiction of Obama and Gore…. It will give me nightmares… I’m sure of it!
J.: “There is something fundamentally disturbing with that depiction of Obama and Gore…. ”
I’ll say. Obama all tongue and Gore with nothing between the ears. What a combination!!!
In SJT land, “Scientist” means “Agreeing with all claims of AGW”.
“Wicked denier scum hack” means “One who disagrees with any claim of AGW”.
Minitruth has a job opening just for you, SJT.
“It’s” = “It is”. Another waste of time nitpick, and it’s wrong.
““Wicked denier scum hack” means “One who disagrees with any claim of AGW”.”
Not at all.
SJT: “Another waste of time nitpick, and it’s wrong.”
It that case, don’t you think you should stop nitpicking.
SJT,
Then it is time to shine, SJT. Tell us what you believe. Not what you read about defending Gore. Not cut-n-pastes of other reports.
Tell us how much dissent is OK before it drifts into denialism.
“Tell us how much dissent is OK before it drifts into denialism.”
There is a very simple test.
* Does the dissent address the issues raised by AGW, or does it create it’s own version and attack them.
* Does the dissent accept any contrary evidence, no matter how bad.
* Does the dissent descend into lunatic conspiracy theories.
* Does the dissent understand the case for AGW.
I see people here failing that test constantly. They do not understand the case for AGW, they believe any piece of non-science, such as Miskicolzci, they rant on about lunatic conspiracy theories, they construct elaborate straw man arguments, misrepresent the case put by the IPCC and indulge in frantic arm waving. Denialism.
What contrary evidence you moron SJT? Just present it? For our civilisational survival what we have to come down on is the obsessive lying that you represent.
SJT,
That really was not a clear answer.
Your continued clinging onto AGW skeptics = conspiracy theory is not justified by the facts. You should at least address continual indictments of skeptics – by opinion leaders of AGW.
Graeme,
With all respect, going straight to the insults and calling people liars is not very conducive to conversation. It doesn’t work any better when Luke tries it, either. AGW is a social movement. People get more defensive of the beliefs, not less, when simply attacked.
No its no good hunter. They are liars. When asked for evidence they will not come up with it. Thats just fraud. None of them have the evidence. Yet they have put us in an energy crisis just the same. It does no good for you to pretend that this is not fraudulent malevolent behaviour.
Why fake reality to that extent? Pretending that they aren’t filthy liars isn’t going to reform their character. Perhaps you’ve just begun your investigation of these matters and so don’t realise what these people are like. If not wake up.
“Your continued clinging onto AGW skeptics = conspiracy theory is not justified by the facts. You should at least address continual indictments of skeptics – by opinion leaders of AGW.”
Exhibit A. G Bird.
[...] Part 1 of this series is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/rational-advice-on-%e2%80%98carbon-act%e2%80%99-censored/ [...]
I don’t contend any conspiracy theory. Thats an interesting debate. The debate goes like this:
Is there a conspiracy? Or are they just evil and stupid pack-animals. I respect the former point of view but I take the latter perspective. You don’t need to infer a conspiracy with leftists, since they are just goose-stepping automatons. Worse than pack-animals. More like spineless insects.
And it doesn’t matter whose right or wrong in this debate, healthy debate that it is. What matters is that these people must be stopped. Since they are aiming to do exactly what they did with the malaria-control-centralization holocaust. But the energy-deprivation crusade will kill far more people then their still ongoing efforts with malaria population eradication.
You have misrepresented my point of view SJT. Filthy liar that you are.