A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises!

Credit where credit is due, and I admit I never thought I would say this about local climate pseudosceptic Richard Treadgold – but “good on you mate.”

richard1

Richard Treadgold, New Zealand climate pseudosceptic and blogger

I have often got into heated debate with this guy – my main concern being his willingness to effectively accuse honest climate scientists, include New Zealand scientists, of scientific fraud. He also has a bad habit of misrepresenting climate science and climate scientists on his blog Climate Conversation Group. I have often raised with him his moral obligation to apologise for such misrepresentation and accusations (see Apologies would be nice).

Without result. But now he has apologised for recently misrepresenting local climate scientist Dr James Renwick (see Hide sticks it to Renwick Renowden a scaring warmist,  and  Renwick blames drought on man-made global warming, which has been now changed to Renwick doesn’t blame AGW for drought).

In his post today, Climate porkies from TV One, Richard actually says (and we have to get this on record):

“I apologise to Dr Renwick for misquoting him so badly — that is, over a statement so disastrously incorrect.”

So, good on you, Richard.

This whole incident started with Richards thoughtless endorsement (Hide sticks it to Renwick) of a snakey NBR article by failed NZ ultra-conservative politician Rodney Hide (see Faith, not facts, drives global warming) and I won’t rehash the time line here (read my posts “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney?,  Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped?   and  Pseudosceptics are at it again – misrepresenting and attacking climate scientists for details).

Richard admits he wrote his misleading posts “after reading the transcript and studying the video,” but the final blow for him seems to be Renwick’s email which “politely confirmed that he never blamed the drought on global warming: “This is just not so.””

I believe the transcript and video were extremely clear and am surprised Richard’s apology only came after personal confirmation from Renwick  (see transcript at Lack of govt leadership on climate change – Renwick, and video of interview at Q+A: Corin Dann interviews Dr James Renwick).

Mind you, some other climate pseudosceptics are more resistant than Richard. On of the commenters on Richards blog responded to Renwick’s confirmation by accusing him of “splitting hairs.” And one faithful climate change denier on twitter I debated  refused to take the video and transcript as evidence – instead claiming that the offending claim had been made while the camera wasn’t running, or had been edited out. Poor soul.

I am also aware that local climate change pseudosceptics will have not qualms twisting Renwick’s confirmation into another misrepresentation. Some of the commenters on Richard’s blog already seem to be doing so. Renwick’s confirmation – that he never declared global warming had directly caused our recent extreme drought and that there was no other explanation –  to mean he claims that global warming will play no role in future extreme weather events. Richard himslef comments:

“. . it’s useful to have his firm statement on record that weather events are not caused by global warming. Everyone and his dog has been looking around at this warm record or that storm and saying that’s global warming, we’re all doomed. It will be handy to slap them with Renwick’s authoritative statement.”

Let’s be clear, the current scientific thought is that while one can never prove a direct link to specific events, global warming will probably increase the frequency of such extreme weather events in the future. Renwick made this clear in the interview – read the transcript Richard.

Meanwhile, I hope Treagold’s ethical chickens really have come home to roost for good – there are still a few apologies outstanding. For example his egregious  claim that NIWA scientists had manipulated New Zealand temperature data to create evidence for warming (see  his infamous article “Are we getting warmer yet?” and my posts New Zealand’s denier-gate and Painted into a corner?).

However, let’s celebrate this rather rare event – a scientists getting an apology foir their misrepresentation.

There’s a few other New Zealand bloggers who should take note and start thinking about their own ethical obligations.

Similar articles

About these ads

132 responses to “A New Zealand climate change pseudosceptic apologises!

  1. Richard Treadgold has done the decent thing, and good on him.

    I doubt Rodney Hide will follow suit.

    Like

  2. Me too, Richard.

    However, Hide did say he uses Treadgold’s blog as a resource and in a comment thanked Treadgold for blogging support fir Hide’s attack on Renwick. If he was being honest I wonder if he will now be bitching about Treadgold’s lack of loyalty.

    Like

  3. It’s incredible that this happened. I daresay it’s a unique event. So yes, good that Treadgold changed his mind. Yet what a twisty-windy way of doing things. What a painfully bad methodology. The transcript and video were available. Yet the apology only comes after personal confirmation from Renwick himeslf. Are they going to do that with every single scientist about every single comment or paper…forever? That’s a recipe for disaster.
    What if the scientist has better things to do?
    Are they just going to continue to interpret things the way they want because it makes them feel better?
    Somebody needs to have a hard look at how this mess got started in the first place and why it took so long for genuine skepticism to engage.

    Like

  4. I wonder whether this isn’t the beginning of a strategic retreat? Treadgold is not stupid so doubt about the strength of his position has to be creeping in, and the logical conclusion is that in the probably not too distant future he will lose all credibility outside of very small number of muppets. If I was in his shoes I would start to raise doubts about the validity of some of the classic denier’s arguments and suggest that maybe, just maybe, AGW is real? I’ve noticed that the argument seems to be moving from “no such thing” to “climate change is real, but there is doubt over the pace”. The smart deniers will gently move that to “the pace is not quite as bad as we’re told, but that could change” to “the pace has definitely picked up lately, we think there could be problems on the horizon” to “we told you there was a problem, it’s not our fault if you didn’t listen”.

    Pity its probably too late.

    Like

  5. A strategic retreat? Given that there is a new paper in Nature due for publication that shows climate sensitivity quite a bit lower than postulated in previous IPCC reports, I don’t think the sceptics will be in retreat. By the way, this paper is co-authored by several of the “big guns” in climate sensitivity studies

    Like

  6. I don’t expect we’ll get any criticism of TVNZ over this issue either. They seem to come out squeaky clean despite making a statement that is directly contradicted by James Renwick.

    So, somehow, I figure out that the problem lies with TVNZ and then you somehow manage to twist this into a retreat from the sceptic position.

    Like

  7. Yes, TVNZ were wrong, but the real fault lies with Rodney Hide for not checking that he was basing his entire argument on a fallacy (but then he is a former ACT politician AND a denier) and then on you guys for listening to him and believing him. But I guess like Rodney, you’re deniers so you can’t really afford to subject what you believe to any scrutiny.

    Like

  8. Given that there is a new paper in Nature due for publication that shows climate sensitivity quite a bit lower than postulated in previous IPCC reports…

    Yes, it will change everything. Sure it will. It will be a magical, silver bullet. Science spins on a dime and one single paper is all it takes to…well no.
    That’s not the way it works.
    It doesn’t work that way for the Theory of Evolution or Gravity or Germ Theory or…anything really.
    A scientific consensus has to be built the old-fashioned way. There are no short cuts.
    Beside, you people keep twisting valid research into odd shapes. You lot “creatively reinterpret” stuff just like creationists do with valid work on Evolution. It won’t do. I’ll go with the actual authors and what THEY claim their paper is about IN THE PAPER ITSELF as opposed to second-hand hearsay.

    Science vs. the Feelies

    Like

  9. OK David, so you are quite happy for a publicly funded broadcaster to spin and lie (note that they lie in their press release) and then you blame someone for not checking their facts.

    Maybe if I went into a theatre and shouted “fire”, you’d blame the people for not checking their facts if they trampled themselves to death in their rush to get out.

    I find it hard to understand how your brains are wired sometimes

    Like

  10. Andy, there are many papers on climate sensitivity and there is a range of values they produce. Obviously people wanting to use the data either select a specific alive because of heir own preferences or use something like a median value, or a value which seems to have the best support.

    Then there are those people like yourself who desperately select a value which can be used to reduce the effect of greenhouse gases.. You may be right, but there is nothing to suggest that you are, given your biased selection.

    I imagine the next IPCC report will give a balanced view and produce a most likely range for the value.

    But I think David’s point is that the very fact you guys now acknowledge there is warming, that greenhouses gases are responsible is a retreat. You are now using the fall back manoeuvre of trying to deny the warming or greenhouse gas effect is significant. You are still cherry picking to fit a preconceived agenda instead of making a a balanced and informed selection of such values.

    By the way Andy, you still haven’t responded to my criticism of your naive interpretation of the role of CO2 in influencing paleotemperatures.

    Does that mean you actually agree with me?

    Like

  11. Ken, this is a new paper that is co-authored by most of the experts on the topic of climate sensitivity. It is hardly insignificant

    Of course I accept that Co2 is a Greenhouse gas and will cause warming. I don’t accept that we know anything about how much warming it has caused and how much it will.

    I find it remarkable that you call a new paper published by most of the current experts in climate sensitivity “cherry picking”

    Are we expected to keep the older papers equal weight?

    Like

  12. Come on, Andy, you are pathetic. TVNZ was not “spinning a lie” – the reporter was clearly confused. OK they should be corrected but you a very much a pot accusing a kettle in this case.

    As for checking the facts – who did that? Gareth and me. We pointed out that neither the video or the transcript supported Hide’s claims. Hide was lying and Treadgold went along with the lie. Any chance to stick the boot in and attack an honest scientist – right up Treadgold’s street. We pursued the case, together with some commenters here and on Treadgold’s blog.

    I don’t know why Treagold got a sudden whiff of morality on this issue – perhaps he could actually see how silly his position was.

    But to repeat, both Hide and Treadgold had the transcript and the video — they preferred to lie.

    Gareth, me and a number of commenters here and on Treadgol’d blog checked the transcript and video out and called Hide and Treadgold. We did the checking – neither you or your mates did. (However, after reading my post you did check and agreed with my point. You may have played a key role in helping Treqdgold to back down – because no way was he taking Gareth or my comments to heart).

    It’s childish to now claim credit for “checking” – that is literally the last thing Treadgold did.

    I have heard of politicians making a virtue out of necessity – but your “analysis” really beats the cake.

    Like

  13. Andy, there is something wrong with your comprehension. I did not call the paper “cherry picking.” I accused you of cherry picking it – purely because it is a paper reporting a lower value than many others.

    Think about it. If this paper had reported high values, you would have shut up about it.

    The sensible thing to do is look at, and evaluate, all the work in the area. I am sure the IPCC will do that. And yes, we don’t reject other work in this area, as you want to. Hopefully each bit of work will be evaluated on its merits and the reasons for any recommended value or range of values made clear.

    In other words the IPCC in their review of the literature will not cherry pick just according to a political agenda like you and your mates do.

    Like

  14. Ken,
    here is the transcript of the TVNZ interview

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1303/S00196/qa-march-17-corin-dann-interviews-dr-james-renwick.htm

    In the summary, it says this
    Dr Renwick told the programme that global warming was the only explanation for the drought, saying the average around which temperatures vary is changing and will be hotter over time.

    Renwick denies that he said this

    TVNZ is lying

    Now try to spin that Ken.

    I am sure you will, somehow

    Like

  15. Yes, Andy, you guys are really pinning a lot on that confused report – even though Hide and Treadgold clearly had the transcript and the video. Treadgold claims to have checked both before supporting Hide..

    Now, if you think TVNZ purposely lied about Remwicks’s position, have it out with them. Personally I think the reporter confused two different parts of the interview – hardly surprising. Have you never had the frustration if trying to get a complex issue across to a reporter. They aren’t exactly up to date with current science.

    Another reason I am not particularly worried about the reporters mistake is that most people will have been informed by the TV interview. I also think the difference between human produced climate change causing droughts in NZ In the future and the more correct position of causing a increased frequency of extreme events rather than causing any particular one is a subtlety most people don’t wish to spend time on.

    Personally I don’t think the mistake will have prevented most people from getting the important message that science is telling us.

    Like

  16. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone will have been informed by the interview since most of it is semi-literate gibberish

    Like

  17. And that is your opinion, Andy – apologies to Sheldon’s creationist mum who greets the best lines in The Big Bang Theory.

    A clear case of the pot calling the kettle her.

    Personally I think Renwick gave a really good interview – and the topic was clearly of key interest to New Zealanders at the time.

    Your prejudices are showing, Andy. They will stop you from drawing an objective or balanced impression if the situation.

    Like

  18. Yes, Ken, I am an old fashioned guy who likes sentences that mean something.

    CORIN The point is, though, that NIWA, and I guess the official advice that the best scientists in NZ can give to our government is that climate change is changing our climate

    Why do we bother paying these guys to come out with this drivel?

    Like

  19. Strangely I had no problem at the time understanding Corin’s question, Andy. Perhaps my comprehension is better than yours, or I am not cherry picking to support a political agent.

    CORIN The point is, though, that NIWA, and I guess the official advice that the best scientists in NZ can give to our government is that climate change is changing our climate

    In the context of the ongoing discussion this was simply Corin making the point that the global climate change talked about also has consequences on NZs climate. He is just saying – yes, I can see we are part of the whole global story. If the climate is changing globally then what we see here will be a part of that.

    As I say, when you not have a political agenda to satisfy you can usually understand things better. It also helps if you are not trying to denigrate people.

    Like

  20. So as I read it, Corin is saying that the climate is changing and this is causing the climate to change

    Obviously, i don’t understand this, therefore I have a political agenda.

    Makes complete sense (?)
    (* puzzled looks *)

    Like

  21. Andy, I don’t think you can be so stupid as to not understand what Corin was saying, even if he put it informally. I also find it hard to believe that your political agenda actually makes you blinded to what he was saying, or what he was meaning.

    But I do think you political agenda is driving your malice, your attempt to discredit the interviewer as well as the interviewee.

    Come on, this is tiresome. Perhaps we should get back to your claim that paleotemperatures were not affected by CO2 and my response to that. You seem to want avoid the issue.

    Like

  22. Andy, I feel I should point out that this is a transcript of an interview. As a rule, people are a bit looser with their grammar when speaking on the spot than they are when they have the luxury of going back and checking over a written piece of work before submitting it for publication. Or indeed if they’re reciting a prepared speech.

    You’ll see pauses for thought, strange turns of phrase and the like. Reviewing transcripts is great for telling what someone did or didn’t say, but combing through them in search of the odd verbal glitch is very much scraping the bottom of the barrel. I guarantee you that, had I the time or inclination, I could find transcripts showing examples of bad grammar or the like from interviewees of whatever political stripe or scientific discipline you might care to name.

    Better, I think, to look at the overall content. Check if there are any egregious errors of fact, by all means, or statements which you want to verify.

    Like

  23. Chris B, do you work for TVNZ?

    Like

  24. Why would you think that, Andy? I can’t recall anything I’ve said in our rather limited interactions which might give you that impression.

    Feeling you’re being a tad silly about something does not generally indicate a hidden agenda.

    Like

  25. Oh sorry, it was just the way you were describing the transcript. It sounded like you were speaking from a position of authority within TVNZ.

    No worries, I didn’t imply anything else

    Like

  26. Incidentally, yes I do find that press release misleading, though considering the misleading part is not a direct quotation, and conflicts with my own understanding of climate science, I would have wanted to do some fact checking before decrying anybody.

    Definitely an indicator that TVNZ could do with some dedicated science journalists on staff. As could most media organisations, in fact.

    Like

  27. “Definitely an indicator that TVNZ could do with some dedicated science journalists on staff. As could most media organisations, in fact.”

    I agree a d was sort of making that point – Andy is feigning indignation at what is a common problem – even internationally.

    I think SciBlogs has had a positive effect locally. Their bloggers sometimes take on issues which are presented poorly in the media. However, in this case the distortions by Hide, and then by Treadgold, were far more important than a relatively minor cock up by the reporter.

    I think we concentrated on be important issue – and hey, Treagold has apologised. Would he have done so without being pressured like that? Even Andy probably contributed to that unusual backdown.

    Like

  28. Oh shucks Ken. (* blush *)

    Like

  29. @Cedric

    What a painfully bad methodology. The transcript and video were available. Yet the apology only comes after personal confirmation from Renwick himeslf.

    At its height the ridiculousness on display was almost grotesque. When the transcript and video showed that Renwick’s initial comments were in regard to NZ’s changing climate, not drought, the commentators at CCG simply made up an explanation to overcome the evidence: i.e. that (unspecified) body language confirmed the existence of an unrecorded question put to Renwick on the drought. The body language (you you can’t see it?!) , proves it. This is typical modis operandi of those who buy into conspiracy. Someone (probably a paid up member of the mysterious group known as the “They”) must have excised the question from the written and video record. The Lizard men are everywhere by now, you can trust no one.

    @ Andy,

    There is a huge difference between sloppy leader writing by a TVNZ employee and Hide’s and Treadgold’s treatment of the situation.

    The TVNZ writer, in all probability, had to write synopses of a few dozen pieces that went to air, many of which were probably on subjects well outside their area of expertise or experience. These days most of the newsroom seem to be twenty-something and exhibit a definite lack of journalistic experience. Nothing malicious, just sloppy work. The synopsis is merely a canned promo to lure the watcher to the video.

    Hide mounted a political attack, the onus was on him to be accurate.

    Like

  30. Hide mounted a political attack, the onus was on him to be accurate

    Well, you are probably right in that respect, but I still hold that TVNZ were misleading

    I think mainstream media like to present a snappy story, and the actual uncertainties of science don’t sound quite as appealing to the newsroom editor.

    Like

  31. OK David, so you are quite happy for a publicly funded broadcaster to spin and lie…

    Oh bullshit. Pure strawmannery. Grow up.

    ….you blame someone for not checking their facts….

    The transcript was available. The video was available. It was all there. But oh no, that wasn’t good enough. Gotta dig a trench and wait stubbornly until Renwick makes a personal appearance just for you.
    There was precious little fact checking going on at “Conversations”. Even now, there are still hold-outs, shameful wriggling and finger pointing.

    I would never have this problem. My methodology is much better.
    It’s pretty simple. Assume the journo got it wrong. They often do.
    So you keep that as a very real possibility before you go shooting your fat mouth off.
    Not hard really.
    When I want my science information, it never occurs to me to get it from a blog like you to or gullibly believe some op-ed in a newspaper. It’s stupid.
    Really stupid.
    You people do it all the time.
    I only get my science information from scientific communities that do the work. Y’know, primary sources.
    (I’m happy to use youtube videos to illustrate the work from said communities but only as illustration. If a youtube vid is not an accurate representation of what NASA etc. are saying themselves, then I’d never use it. I shouldn’t have to pedantically spell this out but there are morons out there who might want to play “gotcha” games.)
    When I want to know what a paper really says…I’ll go to the author and the paper. I skip the middlemen entirely. Don’t care what Forbes has to say. Don’t care what Business Insider has to say. Don’t care what “The Australian” has to say. I’ll just go straight to the people that did the work and wrote the paper.
    When I want to know what NASA has to say on particular subject, I’ll go to NASA themselves and read it for myself. I don’t need Monckton to ‘splain me about NASA. I don’t need the Daily Mail to ‘splain me. I don’t need Treadgold (of all people) to ‘splain me.

    I’ll go to NASA. Directly. NASA and every single scientific community on the planet. It prevents a lot of cock-up. Primary scientific sources are good that way. You should try it.

    9. Climate Change – Meet the Scientists

    Like

  32. Thanks for the link, Cedric.

    I will probably do a post on these videos in the next few days to give them more coverage. Well worth watching.

    Like

  33. The transcript was available. The video was available. It was all there. But oh no, that wasn’t good enough. Gotta dig a trench and wait stubbornly until Renwick makes a personal appearance just for you.

    As it happens, I never wrote an article in the NBR and I never wrote a blog post on the topic. I politely suggested to RT that he contact Renwick, which he did

    I did, however, look at the video, and I posted a link to the Scoop press release from TVNZ on CCG

    The video had a lead-in from Susan Wood that introduced the interview by talking about the drought. It was quite clear that TVNZ were trying to associate the drought with “climate change” whatever that might mean.
    They stated in their Press Release that “Renwick told TVNZ that the drought was caused by global warming”. He did not say this, and has confirmed this in an email

    So, my issue is with TVNZ making a misleading TV programme where the facts are not supported by the science and not supported by the NZ scientists working in the field.

    Of course, you could make a statement along the lines – “the drought is the type of weather we expect to see more frequently if our climate models prove to be correct”, which is a better and more scientific statement.

    TV isn’t interested in scientific statements on the whole.

    Like

  34. Andy, no news media is going to make such a boring statement – leave that to scientific reports and papers (one of the reasons these can be so boring).

    However, despite the minor flaw in the reporting I think people got the main message, that these sort of droughts are going to become more frequent because of current climate change. And the interview – transcript and video – certainly clarified any questions listeners would have had as a result of the poor reporting.

    However, what abut this little misinterpretation that Treadgold, and his mates, seem to want to push – Treagold says about Renwick:

    “. . it’s useful to have his firm statement on record that weather events are not caused by global warming. Everyone and his dog has been looking around at this warm record or that storm and saying that’s global warming, we’re all doomed. It will be handy to slap them with Renwick’s authoritative statement.”

    If he is now going to try to use Renwick as an authority to claim that global warming will not effect weather events he will be lying.

    But that’s what we have come to expect from the sort of cherry picking and distortion he indulges in. It’s what got him and Hide into trouble in the first place.

    Like

  35. However, despite the minor flaw in the reporting I think people got the main message, that these sort of droughts are going to become more frequent because of current climate change.

    And you know this how?

    Yes Ken, it is not about Science. It is about propaganda. There is no basis that these droughts will become more frequent other than the climate models that have done a very poor job so far.

    So it is not about “educating” the public, it is about misleading them, something that you seem very happy for a publically funded state broadcaster to do

    Like

  36. I would also add that I think that this shoddy journalism is to the detriment of science, and is one of the main reasons that the public is starting to distrust scientists.

    Like

  37. Christ, you are like a dog with an old bone, Andy. Only you, and perhaps Treadgold, are at all worried about the misreporting – and that is only an attempt to divert attention away from the malicious misrepresentation Hide and Treadgold indulged in, and the fellow travellers at Treadgold’s blog endorsed – and still do.

    No, it’s not about propaganda. It’s about NZ scientists doing the jobs that are tasked to do. The government, many economic and agricultural organisations and people in general have an interest in getting the best advice possible on how climate change will effect our country. There’s a tremendous amount of interest in understanding, for example, what direction crop breeding should go (read the recent science column in he Listner). And so on.

    Now, no one with any sense is going to rely on internet bloggers and trolls for this sort of information. They are going to call on the experts, the climate scientists, and it is their responsibility to do the best job possible.

    It’s in the nature of models that they are imperfect – bloody hell it’s in the very nature if science and scientific knowledge. That’s why we continue to refine imposes as knowledge improves. I think governments understand that even if you don’t. They want the best advice possible at the time – they ae not silly enough to expect the impossible absolute depiction of reality.

    Scientists in their advice usually are careful to convey doubts, probabilities and uncertainties. The IPCC reports an example of that.

    You are upset that TVNZ dared to talk about the drought, the NIWA estimations of likely future drought frequencies in the different regions and the role of climate change in these. Well tough. The rest of the country is interested and surely TVNZ was doing their job.

    As for you claim that the public “is starting to distrust scientists.” Prove it. Despite the best efforts of you and your mates I suspect you have things exactly reversed – particularly on the climate change issue. Surveys have generally shown an increase in acceptance of the science over the last several years.

    I have always argued that scientists should pursue science, despite political pressures to produce answers desired by commerce or politicians. And despite political campaigns like the “climategate” fiasco. In the end science is the best way of coming to a good depiction of reality and ensuring the well-being of humanity. Short term political favour and giving in the the political interests of commerce, bloggers, trolls and the pseudosceptics will only lead to one being discredited.

    Andy, I am afraid you are letting your political biases confuse you.

    Like

  38. How is wanting objective and accurate science reporting showing a political bias?

    (I think I know the answer …)

    Like

  39. It’s, not Andy – but that is not what you are wanting.

    After all, you have got a transcript and video interview presenting some good science and you continue to divert attention onto the (slightly) shoddy reporting – something that these days we expect.

    And in your own comments you misrepresent the science and make malicious comments about the scientists. The regular cherry picking and quoting of pseudosceptic sources show objective and accurate science reporting is the last concern you have.

    Like

  40. Those meet the trolls clips (above) were weak. They failed to even remotely skewer the troll under scrutiny for a number of of his egregious distortions. I’m quite sure he would have been comfortable with the resulting clips.

    For example is “I object to the politics not the science” line, when in truth he spends considerable time on-line undermining the science, not the politics. The statement went completely unchallenged. Similarly his claims in the face-to-face were weakly countered. For instance, the claim that 44 IPCC models were proven to be wrong. Really? Outside statistical boundaries?

    Like

  41. It’s, not Andy – but that is not what you are wanting.

    Amazing Ken, not only do you know what the NZ climate will be like in 100 years, you also know what I think and my views on everything.

    It is truly amazing to meet someone with such super-powers
    You could go on tour in Las Vegas and make a lot of money with talent like that

    Like

  42. No, of course I don’t know what you think on everything. No one has said anything remotely like that.

    But, come on, you have expressed your views on scientists, climate change and the science process forcefully here and elsewhere often enough to give readers a fair idea where you are coming from.

    But your reaction to my comment is, I must say, typical – and a bit of a give away.

    Like

  43. “Those meet the trolls clips (above) were weak. They failed to even remotely skewer the troll under scrutiny…”

    I agree. Yet the interviewers were doing more of a personality profile rather than a hard look at the PRATTs and the rebuttals. For what it was in terms of it’s limited goals, I thought it was an interesting insight.

    Like

  44. Andy, I’m really not seeing anything which justifies the level of moral outrage you seem intent on communicating to the rest of us. The content of the interview itself is sound, and so far as I’m concerned, the chief effect of the somewhat misleading press release appears to have been that certain people who didn’t bother to check their facts have had the opportunity to make fools of themselves. Now, if they want to dig themselves deeper by continuing to gripe about tvnz as if doing so excuses their own conduct, that is their business. Personally, I am not impressed.

    Like

  45. Cool, so you think it is OK for TVNZ to mislead the public but not for Rodney Hide to do so

    Hide was merely expressing an opinion on the religious zealotry seen in climate change issues. Given that Renwick said “no other explanation is possible”, you might wonder what he was referring to if was not the drought.

    Incidentally I see that Barbara Boxer has been getting a bit of flak over attributing the recent US tornado to “climate change”

    Like

  46. Andy, so you think TVNZ was misleading the public by publishing the full transcript and a video of the interview, do you? Surely this made extremely clear (even if the reporter slipped up) that no other explanation worked referred to greenhouse gases. Extremely clear.

    Now, I can understand you have political reasons to excuse Hide, but he has been making slanderous attacks on climate scientists and in this case he clearly misrepresented Renwick. He also expressed his views (that warming stopped 17 years ago) as “incontrovertible” – that is he acted as a religious zealot.

    Given the record you guys have in misrepresenting scientists comments and views surely you must realise that your claims about someone else taking flak are meaningless to me. I prefer to read these things for myself and determine what the facts really are than listen to an unreliable source.

    Like

  47. Andy, so you think TVNZ was misleading the public by publishing the full transcript and a video of the interview, do you?

    Yes, because they didn’t include in the transcript the lead-in from Susan Wood that talked about the drought. This was clearly designed to place the Renwick interview in a context that was trying to explain the drought as caused by human induced climate change.

    Therefore, TVNZ had an agenda that is not supported by the science and not supported by Renwick.

    By the way, I am not attacking Renwick here, I am defending him

    Like

  48. What a load of crap, Andy.

    Of course Susan Woods lead-in referred to the drought. That’s where the interests was for all New Zealanders at the the time. I think most NZers appreciated that TVNZ interviewed a climate scientist on the topic – surely the responsible thing to do.

    Yes, I know, you would prefer they interviewed an idiot like Richard Cumming to give us his pure gold. Get real. He would belong in a comedy show, not a serious report on the climate.

    And what a silly thing to say – that the transcript was not included in Susan’s lead-in. For Christ’s sake – her lead in was to the bloody interview.

    You are making a fool of yourself which such mental gymnastics, Andy. This is the last place you should be trying our such infantile arguments. Why not solve your problem by lay a complaint to TVNZ or the appropriate body using these arguments. After all, Treadgold claimed he would, but has been strangely silent since. Perhaps they told him to piss off?

    Like

  49. It is hardly mental gymnastics Ken. Even a 5 year old could follow my reasoning

    TVNZ: James Renwick told us that the drought was caused by global warming

    Renwick: I did not say that the drought was caused by global warming

    Error. Does not compute, Divide by Zero .

    Like

  50. By the way, we missed the bit that explained why “climate change/global warming” results in more droughts. They forgot to explain that. They made the useful assertion that climate change will cause the climate to change. Fascinating

    Next week they will tell us that painting your house red will make it go red

    Like

  51. Andy – “Even a 5 year old could follow my reasoning.” True, your reasoning is quite appropriate for that age level. But surely not here – we expect better.

    Like

  52. Yes of course Ken. In the twisted world of the climate activist, anything that support The Cause is OK, even if it directly contracted by science, logic and reason

    You have to wonder to advises TVNZ on climate issues. Is it the same ragbag of political activists and Greenpeaceniks that advise the BBC?

    Like

  53. Pots and kettles, Andy.

    Like

  54. Would you care to expand on that Ken? Perhaps you would like to make a personal insinuation about me that is not true?

    Please Ken, make my day

    Like

  55. Again, pots and kettles, Andy.

    Like

  56. Andy, it comes down to remembering that the media are now almost entirely profit driven which means they need to get bums on seats, so contentious and popular will always be more important than simply stating the truth. While that means you and I will never base anything on what we read in the media, it’s also important to remember that a correction or retraction will typically be between 5% and 15% as influential as the original article, so never let the truth get in the way of placating or incensing the masses who would much rather believe that climate change is a scam to get their money and that scientists are not only no smarter than they are, but are driven primarily by money.

    After all, doing a PhD is an easy and quick way to get a cushy job with a huge salary and absolute job security. (At this point I avoid my various friends that were stupid enough to get PhDs and not become real estate agents or accountants).

    Like

  57. Again, Andy, you’ll forgive me if I don’t find your level of indignation over what is, at most, a minor annoyance, to be convincing. The media will, from time to time, get things wrong. This is a fact of life when people are reporting on subjects outside their area of expertise.

    Such a mistake does not strike me as evidence of tvnz deliberately lying to the public, as you seem to maintain. Certainly I am unaware of any previous incidents which might constitute a pattern of behavior to suggest tvnz was spinning deliberate falsehoods.

    Like

  58. But Chris, the lizard men are everywhere!

    Like

  59. But Chris, the lizard men are everywhere!

    Let’s take a trip down memory lane…

    “Do you really believe that the IPCC is interested in “unsubstantiated propoganda”?Is that how the scientific world operates? Seriously?”

    Yes, you got it!
    Hard left marxist driven statist IPCC.
    Do you think these guys actually CARE about the environment or believe this crap?

    (…)
    As for “hard left”, well you only need to look a the EU and see how it is destroying the UK economy through its marxist totalitarian views and its obsession with climate change.
    The lights will go out in about 5 years in theUK.,
    Their energy policy has nowhere to go. All driven by IPCC myopia.

    What a steaming pile of horseshit you delivered with your multiple sockpuppets, Andy.
    Of course, this paranoid, conspiracy dribble wasfrom March 11, 2010. So that’s….hm….only two years left before the lights go out in the UK.
    Yeah. ;)
    No need for anyone to hold their breath. Total bullshit.

    Like

  60. Ah for those Marxists, you have to watch out for them. Even my dog has been eyeing up Das Kapital Vol 2

    Bloody Marxist puppy school I tell you. They bloody everywhere these Marxists.

    I like Kevin Marx though, he is cool

    http://bogpaper.com/2012/12/03/kevin-mark-lefty/

    Like

  61. What are you doing with Vol 2 of Capital on your bookshelves anyway, Andy? Aren’t you worried that the GSB and the SIS will have you on their books?

    Strange, though. It used to be that you would find Marxists under every stone, or bed. Even though they were all different – each species of Marxist had only 1 or 2 members. Just think of all the names they used to use – Trotskyista, Anarchosyndicalists, Maoists, Leninists, Marxist-Leninists, Stalinists, . . . .

    Nowadays I don’t see Marxist anywhere. What happens to the all? Do they all meet at your place, Andy? Are your running study groups? How else do you explain the books on your bookshelf?

    Like

  62. Come on Ken, use your imagniation. the Marxists all work at TVNZ!

    Like

  63. I prefer to use my imagination for more productive purposes.

    Bloody hell, just imagine what is going on in a mind that thinks like that. I guess McCarthy had the same perception – all the Marxists worked in Hollywood or the sciences!

    Like

  64. I guess you don’t know when I am serious and when I am taking the P. Look at Kevin Marx, puleeze

    Like

  65. Actually, Andy, I never take you seriously.

    Like

  66. Actually Ken, I never take you seriously either.
    Anyway, have a nice day, lots of beheading stories to catch up on

    Like

  67. The thread has wandered, but unwittingly it’s shown why two groups of intelligent and very literate people can be so profoundly at odds over something that, when assessed objectively, is about as much in doubt as the whether drinking and driving is safe.

    The debate has been very carefully reframed from being scientific to political, which is a problem because political alignment is probably the primary way we (middle aged white men) define and identify ourselves relative to each other. As a pack animal we have a very primal need to belong to a pack and political orientation has been very cleverly (and intentionally) made into a pack determinant. A major part of the western mindset is the idea of “if you’re not for me you’re against me” which George Dubbyerbush used in the war against terror, and one of main reasons he used it was because it’s in the Bible and is a major driver of a lot of the fundamentalist/conservative doctrine.

    Long story short, climate change has been very effectively placed as a “left wing” tool/concept/cunning plan which means people who belong to the left wing tribe are trained to oppose it in the same way they oppose same sex marriage, gun control and tax. Regardless of how irrational that position is, they follow it because the left are using climate change to attack the right by hurting their businesses (hence the importance of the myth that the right own the businesses and the left are all bureaucrats, academics and beneficiaries). That means we will never convince them to accept that they’re wrong because maintaining that position is fundamental to who they are and to their membership of the right wing tribe. The price to change their position is their very identity.

    And don’t get me started on how irrelevant and meaningless the right/left cleavage is.

    Like

  68. This cultural divide is largely a construct of the warmist creed. i.e the small group of people who link that the world will come to an end unless we rapidly change the behaviour of the human race.

    Outside that small group of fanatics, there is a wide range of views around climate change and policy.

    Like

  69. I agree, David, but would add that for some people at least the whole issue starts with ideology or politics, rather than the science. One only has to read Ian Wishart’s book to see that. Although he accuses others of alarmism he in fact starts with political alarmism, his conspiracy theory about the capitalist, imperialist, communist, liberal, atheist, greenie conspiracy to form a one world government and use climate scientists to achieve that. Starting from there he just cherry picks and misinterpret6s to fit his story.

    Scratch most of the people commenting on Treadgold’s blog and you will find the same ideological commitment – and I suspect, starting point.

    Mind you, I agree on the meaningless of the left/right concept.

    Michael Mann discusses this a bit in his presentation last week where he is careful to identify a number of conservative republicans who support the science. Apparently this part of the Republican party is growing – and he is actually quite optimistic that eventually there will be sufficient bipartisan agreement to enable progress on climate change issues.

    In the end, despite ideology (which I agree is an incredibly strong emotive and motivating factor) there is an objective reality out there. Consequently many people who in the past may have taken a denial stance are actually coming around. The deniers have been going downhill since the climate gate issue – rightly so.

    Like

  70. So, my view is that the science is largely correct in terms of CO2 but that the issue around climate sensitivity is largely unresolved

    When people get accused of being a “denier” for suggesting low sensitivity to CO2 (in line with many recent papers, btw) or being a conspiracy theorist, or being anti-science, then I know that the war on reason has largely been lost to an irrational mindset

    Like

  71. Andy, it is in the very nature if science, and our obtaining knowledge, that lots of issues are “unresolved” or have uncertainty. Nothing new here – but despite this, science is the best way of understanding our environment and deciding on necessary actions.

    Climate sensitivity of course has a degree of uncertainty, and I would argue three us a loping on his precisely we can measure it, or indeed should measure it (as we have to be careful about a general use of a value hitch actually only applies in limited situations).

    But if ourselves who are the people who can contribute o reducing this uncertainty? The climate scientists who your mates at Treagold’s blog attack, slander and misrepresent every chance they get.

    You yourself froth at the mouth when you can is over a paper which suggests a value lower than average – but don’t seem to realise the limited significance of these – either for determining a ore precise value or for the actual effect if lower than average values. One of the authors of e recent paper you have been promoting, or example, points out how silly this is. Their value is about 30% lower than the average used by the IPCC – and the uncertainty is greater than that. The lower value may mean some of the likely effect if climate change will occur a decade or so lower, but those effects are still likely.

    Yet you use it to attack honest scientists!

    Andy, you might notice I tend to use the word pseudosceptic rather than denier now. I think it is more precise, but denier can still be appropriate if it refers to the psychological approach of being in denial. One can accept the role of CO2 but because of being in denial about the consequences of climate change one can end up cherry picking low values of climate sensitivity. Anything to make the problem go away.

    Like

  72. One of the authors of the Otto et al paper that you allude to, Nic Lewis, recently recommended a book on Bayesian Statistics to me.

    It is certainly helping me understand the issues.

    I don’t recall “attacking” any scientists over climate sensitivity issues, nor to I recall foaming at the mouth.

    I am not “in denial”. The effects of CO2 forcing are logarithmic, so the effects tail off over time (Hansen has already recorded this). If CS is around the 2DegC or even lower, then there is hardly likely to be any adverse effects at all. In fact many think the result will be beneficial.

    Like

  73. Careful of Bayesian stats. All stats can be misused but Bayesian seems to be worst of all. A book has been written by a theist using these sorts of methods to “prove” a 96% probability that a god exists. An atheist wrote another book using the same method to “prove” the probability was 0.3%.

    Ideologically motivated cherry lockers will have a field day with these methods – part of the reason for them being discredited in the past.

    Like

  74. Andy, one if the authors pf that Nature paper you rely on so much, Myles Allen, says this about their results:

    “The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5C response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN’s climate science panel in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8C. Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.

    Despite this, our study seems to be being enthusiastically cited by Ridley and climate sceptics the world over as final endorsement of their position. If this means their position is that the most likely response is 30% lower than the average of our current models, then perhaps the debate on global temperature is indeed over: 30% is well within the range of uncertainty anyway. But that doesn’t mean all debate about climate is over.”

    Perhaps the climate debate is really over for you, Andy. Or perhaps not, because you still seem to be denying any harmful consequences – in contrast to Allen (and presumably his co-authors).

    Like

  75. Sorry Andy, link for Allen’s article is “Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate?CMP=twt_gu).

    Like

  76. Ken, most climate sensitivity studies use Bayesian methods.

    Like

  77. All, I am saying Andy, is that Bayesian methods are a real minefield – probably more so than other stat methods, because their is so much room for subjective assessment and input.

    Another example – I once did a longtime study of nutrient leaching (1 or 2 years, I think). During that time I applied several mathematical models to the data to see how well they were predicting the data to come. One of the methods was a Bayesian curve fitting model (the programme was written by a statistician colleague) which made no model assumption. Turns out the Bayesian method produced to poorest prediction of the lot.

    I have always had the benefit of professional statisticians as colleagues, and none of them suggested that I should see the Bayesian predictions as superior. It clearly didn’t work as well as other methods in my case.

    Some of the critics of climate science, such as Michael Mann’s work, have come a real cropper by using their statistical methods inappropriately.

    I have come to respect good statisticians. I think some scientists have been really silly to think they could handle all the stats themselves.

    Like

  78. Ken, for once I completely agree with you. In fact a lot of Nic Lewis’s recent work was showing the inadequacies of the statistical methods used in these papers. Given that he has now co-authored with some well known “mainstream” climate scientists indicates that the message might be getting through

    Hence the interest that I have – I am just trying to understand the techniques used by them – but I completely agree about the use of professional statisticians

    Like

  79. My background is entirely in social sciences so I make no apologies for not understanding climate science beyond the very basics, but like 99.9% of the population I don’t need to know any more than that because that’s what we have experts for. I know that the scientists are, and have always been, driven by curiosity to find answers and there is absolutely no satisfaction to be gained from making up answers to questions. Add to that they are under constant and often competitive scrutiny from their peers, to say nothing of the thousands of deniers desperately trying to find ANYTHING to catch them up on, I can see no reason not to believe people like James Hansen, James Renwick, Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth and the many thousands of other scientists researching climate change.

    As a result I find it amusing when people like Andy, his mates at CCG and the other thousands of other deniers that probably know bugger all more about climate science than I do, prattling on about “CS” or whatever else is fashionable in the denier circles as though they know something the real experts have missed. When I read Andy claiming that temperature increases of “around the 2DegC or even lower” resulting in “hardly likely to be any adverse effects at all. In fact many think the result will be beneficial” my belief is confirmed.

    Andy, the changes to our climate from a 2 degree temperature increase will have huge negative impacts both economically and socially to the point where I can’t see our economic system NOT collapsing. BTW, my expertise is in business, and I wish you knew just what a mess following the harebrained ideas the deniers are so in love with has already brought us, let alone where we’re heading.

    Like

  80. As a result I find it amusing when people like Andy, his mates at CCG and the other thousands of other deniers that probably know bugger all more about climate science than I do, prattling on about “CS” or whatever else is fashionable in the denier circles as though they know something the real experts have missed.

    The “experts” haven’t missed anything. I am quoting peer reviewed science.
    By the way, can you lay of the “denier” label please. As it happens I have 3 degrees including a maths degree from Cambridge and a PhD so I get a bit pissed off when guys like you are well beyond your pay grade

    Like

  81. Andy, when you say things like:

    that temperature increases of “around the 2DegC or even lower” resulting in “hardly likely to be any adverse effects at all. In fact many think the result will be beneficial”

    You aren’t quoting experts, you are putting unwarranted words into their mouthphs.

    I repeat

    Andy, one of the authors of that Nature paper you rely on so much, Myles Allen, says this about their results:

    “The relevant comparison is not with the 2.5C response of one model, but with the average of climate models used by the UN’s climate science panel in its upcoming major report, which is 1.8C. Now 1.3C is 30% less than 1.8C, but this is hardly a game changer: at face value, our new findings mean that the changes we had previously expected between now and 2050 might take until 2065 to materialise instead. Then again, they might not: 1.8C is within our range of uncertainty; and natural variability will affect what happens in the 2050s anyway.

    Despite this, our study seems to be being enthusiastically cited by Ridley and climate sceptics the world over as final endorsement of their position. If this means their position is that the most likely response is 30% lower than the average of our current models, then perhaps the debate on global temperature is indeed over: 30% is well within the range of uncertainty anyway. But that doesn’t mean all debate about climate is over.”

    Perhaps the climate debate is really over for you, Andy. Or perhaps not, because you still seem to be denying any harmful consequences – in contrast to Allen (and presumably his co-authors).

    And the link for Allen’s article is “Matt Ridley has joined the real climate debate” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/may/21/matt-ridley-joined-real-climate-debate?CMP=twt_gu).

    Like

  82. The beneficial aspect is attributable to Richard Tol who is an economist who is a lead author for the IPCC. He has done studies that show a net benefit up to a certain point, then negative after that.

    Like

  83. Andy, you made a statement with no reference to it, so how was I to know whether it was from a peer reviewed paper in Nature, something you read on WUWT or a quote from Sarah Palin? Mate, if you don’t like being called a denier, then it’s easy, all you have to do is stop acting like one.

    I’m sorry, I don’t actually have a “pay grade”; I’m one of those left-wing socialist self-employed business owning wankers and my “pay grade” is established by the CEOs that call me in to tell them how to keep their businesses economically viable in a world that is changing very, very rapidly.. Also, I have more degrees than you, but sadly none of them is as cool as maths degree, although I would quite like to do an English Literature degree one day. Or maybe classics.

    Like

  84. Andy, I am always suspicious when people use the passive sense. Also I think you are confusion climate sensitivity with economy probabilities based on projected temperature increases.

    The other factor us that benefits and problems are not distributed evenly.

    Like

  85. Wow you have 4+ degrees. That is impressive (seriously)

    Anyway, enough of the mutual backslapping.

    I get a lot of this “stop behaving like a denier” stuff. My views are in line with quite a lot of economists and climate scientists. I am not suggesting that we rape and pillage the Earth until there is nothing left.
    In fact, I stand my my advocacy of clean nuclear Thorium energy as a possible way forward for our species, so it’s hardly like I am sticking my head in the sand

    Like

  86. Andy, you are hardly objective. The views I have seen you express here and at Treadgold’s blog are no way in line with professional economists and climate scientists. No way.

    As for Th power, that is only a remotely possible way forward – you surely know its not going to happen in any thing like the short or medium term. Its got some huge advantages but unfortunately the role of military interests in nuclear power has committed research and development into Uranium and Plutonium reactors. It’s unrealistic to expect the research and development required for Th to happen without huge changes in government and commercial perceptions. As the negative effects of climate change become more obvious this may help bring about that change but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

    Mind you, if we could get genuine nuclear disarmament and effective non-proliferation it might help.

    Like

  87. My understand of “climate sensitivity” is the projected mean warming (or cooling) from a given forcing, whether it be CO2 back radiation (i.e the Greenhouse effect), the effect of aerosols (e.g coal dust and other particulates), total solar irradiance (TSI) or cosmic rays (ie Svensmarks theories)

    The increased forcing due to a double of CO2 levels is thought to be 3.7 W/m2.

    “Climate sensitivity to CO2″ therefore means how much warming we would expect for this increased forcing, which is a factor of positive and negative feedbacks, due in part to water vapour, cloud cover, etc

    The IPCC “central estimate” for this seems to have remained at 3 degrees, but there are many recent papers (including this Otto et al paper written by around a dozen of the world’s top experts on the topic) that suggest a 30% less value

    Of course, if we don’t have any more warming for several years, this value may go down. Conversely, it may go up if warming resumes

    In terms of economics, I try to stay away from this because I know very little about it, except to say that most of the worlds policy seems to be based on Stern, which has been widely criticised.

    I propose Thorium because it seems like a great solution that was trialed in the 1950s at Oak Ridge National Lab. I agree that there are political issues for not pursuing Th but it is more likely that it requires a massive investment in R&D and the associated regulatory structure around a new technology like this

    I am not anti-renewables but I am anti-wind as I don’t believe this solves any problems and creates a lot of new ones. NZ has a great hydro network which I live close to and fully support, along with the geothermal generation

    Maybe that clarifies a few points for you .

    Like

  88. You think that’s impressive – I was once an aircraft engineer (my licenses lapsed a long time ago) and I used to have the license that would have let me drive a bulldozer (I needed it to drive the tractors we used to tow the planes).

    Thorium and other forms of nuclear energy production seem like a really good idea, but there is a far better way to deal with the problem – reduce energy consumption. That approach is cheaper, more effective, the benefits last longer and there are NO drawbacks (unless you have financial interests in energy and building powerstations.

    I am talking with an international high-tech company at the moment that has developed a centralised control system is able to reduce power consumption by up to 25%. In most cases the savings are between 5 and 15%, but even then the payback is typically less than 18 months, Cheaper than building a power station. Another client has developed a construction system that structurally outperforms steel and concrete tilt-slab (very interesting here in ChCh) in every area but weight (which has value in some situations), it looks like it will reduce building heating costs by up to 40% (less energy needed) and the energy required for construction is likely to be no more than 25% that of concrete and steel. It also produces 3% the carbon of comparable steel and concrete and over 90% of the raw materials are renewable and able to be produced in NZ.

    A no brainer? Yep, but have you any idea how much money and political influence the cement and steel lobbies have? Add to that the political paralysis that is driven by the public perception that climate change is still in doubt. My client was almost ready to pull the plug on 5 years and a huge amount of money, but last week a local developer saw the economic value and has agreed to fund the construction of a prototype and the necessary compliance costs to get it legal. Now we need to convince Fletchers et al that it’s a good idea, but competing against companies like Holcim is never going to be easy.

    That;s why you guys irritate me. We have the solutions to create a low carbon and prosperous world, but your pissing around is going to mean we miss the boat. Still, at least Gina Reinhardt will be happy.

    Like

  89. Andy, what do you mean by “warming” and the claim that “warming” stopped 17 years ago?

    It’s been debated a bit on the SciBlogs version of his blog.

    I personally think that we should not limit the concept of warming to just surface atmospheric temperatures (and even if we did what does “stopping” mean?).

    After all there are effects such as ice melting and ocean storage which are not reflected in atmospheric temperatures.

    Like

  90. A no brainer? Yep, but have you any idea how much money and political influence the cement and steel lobbies have?

    No, but I can imagine. Given that a massive amount of steel and cement is required to produce wind farms (around 5 times the amount required by nuclear) I am can imagine how delighted the steel and concrete lobby are to concrete over our countryside to produce worthless “renewable” energy

    At least, David, you have acknowledged that your motivation is financial rather than base on any rational scientific and economic analysis.

    I am really sorry if “my type” is preventing your snout getting into the trough, I really am.

    It always delights me when “businessmen” feeding off the “low carbon” rent-seeking scam expose themselves in public like this.

    Like

  91. By the way David, if you believed in your own propaganda, you would be evacuating the city of Christchurch, particularly the east side where I own a property, due to the “threat” of sea level rise.

    But you don’t. You don’t believe any of it. Like the rest of the parasitic vermin that are feeding off this “low carbon” scam. you are just feeding your porcine snout of the latest money grabbing “business opportunity” that you can find to exploit the poor and vulnerable

    I don’t blame you really, it has become a recognised business model amongst the trendy lefties to shaft the poor. I have seen this across the world

    We must catch up next time I am in town David
    You can buy my a beer and call me a “denier” and we can take things from there.

    What do you say?

    Like

  92. Ken

    Andy, what do you mean by “warming” and the claim that “warming” stopped 17 years ago?

    “warming” is used to describe a rate of change of temperature

    “Warming stopped 17 years ago” refers to the lack of any significant warming trend during this period, as acknowledged in the latest peer reviewed literature

    If you require further clarification,please let me know

    Like

  93. Given that a massive amount of steel and cement is required to produce wind farms (around 5 times the amount required by nuclear)

    can you provide references for this.

    And while you are at it, an estimate of how much concrete currently sits in the Chernobyl plant.

    Like

  94. So, you don’t include melting ice or increased ocean temperature rather as part of warming?

    I guess a more precise way would be to use energy balance – the difference between incoming energy from the sun and re-radiated energy from the earth. After all, it doesn’t matter if we measure this energy at this time as temperature change, melting ice, ocean temperature, atmospheric temperature or whatever. It’s the fact the earth is accumulating the energy in whatever form that is important.

    The other problem is talking about something “stopping” – how can one determine that for a specific date? Seems meaningless to me,

    Statistically we can say over the last 15 years or so, depending on the data source, surface air temperatures trends have not been significantly (95%) different to 0 degrees per decade. But neither have they been significantly different from 0.15 degree per decade either. In this case, given the longer term trends, perhaps the null hypothesis could be said to be the longer term trend. And we have no problem finding similar short term periods where atmospheric temperature is not trending up, or may even appear to trend down, although probably not significantly.

    So, I think statements like “warming stopped 17 years ago” are childish – even if we restrict to surface atmospheric temperatures. Think about it -what happened 17 years ago? The system is far more complex than simply throwing a switch or turning a tap. Claiming warming “stopped” gives completely the wrong impression, but I can see why those in denial are attracted to it.

    So here’s an exercise for you, Andy (seeing you offer clarification) – find and quote for me an extract from a peer reviewed publication which says that war,ing stopped 17 years ago. I am particularly interested to see if any scientist would use the term “stopped” and forgive a specific year,

    Like

  95. My word Andy, you’re getting rattled! Abuse is always a good sign that people are running out of arguments.

    Yes, I make a living providing business owners (normally SMEs) with strategic business advice to help them adapt to external changes using research, planning and innovation which means they can not only stay in business but grow and develop. For most businesses a lot of their carbon footprint comes from inefficient and expensive business process, so part of my job is finding cleaner, more efficient and cheaper ways to run their businesses. Pretty shameful really, I don’t know how I sleep at night, especially when I hear that they’re not only giving their employees greater security, but are able to employ others. Us bloody left wing socialist bicycle riding greenies like nothing more than when we hurt poor people by making them get a job and incur debt with things like mortgages. Mind you, it’s the evil capitalist bosses that I work for, so maybe it’s you that’s the limp wristed intellectual, fag loving, communist scum? I bet you have a beard and smoke a pipe.

    And I live on the east side, but by the time rising sea levels hit my house we’ll all have much bigger problems and even dear Gina will be in the crap.

    Like

  96. David, it could give you some strategic advise too, that would enable your business to transition itself into a low carbon future to enable maximum value for shareholder customer and employee going forward

    I can offer this advise for free, consisting of just two words.

    foxtrot Oscar

    Like

  97. I think Andy may be on the sherry – he gets more and more distracted, and abusive, as the evening wears on.

    Like

  98. Thanks Andy, it must suck not to have anything intelligent to say. Full credit to you for not just slinking out the back door back to the CCG where people will all agree with you and won’t challenge your stereotypes.

    Like

  99. I know David, us pseudo intellectuals that prattle on about co2 forcing,
    climate sensitivity and Bayesian stats are such bores I know.

    Like i say David, I am really looking forward to meeting up so you can offer me some strategic business advice to maximize my dividends and minimize my externalities going forward in a synergistic partnership,with like minded partnerships going forward.

    Not sure how this will work for a home working software dev, but hey, you will no doubt find some value

    Going forward.

    Like

  100. I’ll meet you for a beer any time, I usually drink at Smash Palace.

    Like

  101. Ken, last comment before I hit the sack:you’re right, you pseudo intellectuals prattling on about “co2 forcing, climate sensitivity and Bayesian stats” are bores, especially as it seems you don’t really understand that either.

    The thing that irritates and amuses me about you deniers is the way you dribble on about how cutting GHG output will cripple the global economy and drive us all into bankruptcy, yet the exact opposite is true. The same with “the ETS will destroy the ability of New Zealand businesses to compete on the world marketplace”. I was talking to a local exporter the other day (employs over 100 people), and he is flat out busy implementing ISO14001 and has hired a sustainability manager because otherwise his three biggest customers will be going elsewhere.

    the business model that you are so desperate to protect is only slightly more relevant to doing business in the immediate future than steam engines are to today.

    Like

  102. Jeez Andy, you must have hit the sherry incredibly hard last night. Do you really think that a postage stamp size graph that has no context at all “skewers” anything?

    Seriously?

    Like

  103. David, let me explain this to you.
    You claim that the “deniers” are bleating that CO2 taxes etc will cripple the economy.
    My graph shows electricity prices skyrocketing in Europe, and going down in the USA.

    Why do you think this is?

    Like

  104. *picks up jaw from ground*

    You aren’t serious? How many variables do you think influence electricity prices in a single country? The economy booms, demand increases. There are a series of cold snaps, demand increases. Supply is disrupted because a major power station has to be shut down, prices increase. Fuel prices go up, prices follow. New technology becomes widely adopted, demand drops. There are probably hundreds of variables that influence power prices to varying degrees in just one country, but lets say there are 20 variables that are worth worrying about.

    Europe is a conglomeration of 50 individual and autonomous states, ranging from Russia to Vatican city to Kazakhstan to Denmark to Ireland to Switzerland. Power prices in each of those countries are influenced by the same 20 variables (the specific variables will differ from country to country, but let’s keep it simple).

    You have a maths degree, can you calculate the influence of that one single variable (carbon tax) on the prices in each individual country, and then can you calculate the influence that variable has on the combined power prices of all those countries?

    Now it gets complicated. The graph covers (I think) 7 years (the lack of supporting data makes anything a guess), so on any single year the variables that influence power in each European country will differ, as will the degree of influence exerted by that variable, so what is the probability that carbon tax will have been the dominant driver in 50 countries for 7 years?

    And then it gets really, really, REALLY complicated. You now have to see whether the higher prices in 50 autonomous countries over a period of seven years are caused by the same thing as lower prices in the USA.

    Come on Andy, do you really think I’m stupid enough to take that seriously?

    Like

  105. Hey, David: “Come on Andy, do you really think I’m stupid enough to take that seriously?”

    Don’t you relaise anything from BishopHill is infallible?

    Like

  106. No of course not David
    The effect of subsidies on renewables, the carbon taxes in the EU, the shale gas boom in the USA are all irrelevant to the price of electricity in Europe and the USA.

    It’s much more complicated than that.

    And….

    Like

  107. Ken. The graph says “Source: European Commission”

    Like

  108. I wonder why you didn’t get it from it’s source then, Andy? Doesn’t have a sufficiently high stamp if infallibility? Or don’t you bother checking with primary sources?

    Like

  109. Good idea Ken. I’ll ask NASA

    Like

  110. I’d rather see the graph in its original context myself. Surely it was produced as part of some kind of report. I would also think whoever produced the graph has their own ideas as to what has caused the change in power prices. Maybe they even agree with you, though you’ll forgive me if I don’t take that as a given.

    Like

  111. Andy, you might find the tone at NASA a little different to that of the infallible blogs you usually rely on for your information.

    Like

  112. Someone did ask for the original on the Bishop Hill page, so I can’t give it to you right now

    Anyway, I know that electricity in Europe is increasing rapidly, from multiple sources, and I know that this is set to continue with a sliding CO2 tax in Britain, over and above the EU ETS

    I also know that the Shale Gas revolution has pushed power prices down in the US, which has had a knock-on effect of reducing the price of coal, which is part of the reason Solid Energy are in trouble.

    This is hardly controversial

    Like

  113. Andy, you have given me hope and a new reason to live. One of the great tragedies of the 20th century is that there was only ever one Monty Python and i had resigned myself to the fact that there will never be another dead parrot sketch, yet here you are. Chatting to you is like being in the role of Mr Praline: no matter how rational or obvious what I say to you is you respond with a masterful example of inanity.

    I keep waiting for Ken to burst in wearing an army officers uniform and demand that we stop.

    Like

  114. David, I am not quite sure what you are talking about, but then not much has changed. Apparently you think my life will improve if I employ a full-time sustainability officer who will spend endless hours furiously implementing various ISO standards. I guess I should employ a diversity officer to make sure I reach out to the community and also a health and safety executive to make sure I don’t fall off my chair.

    These are the new rules for the new economy. The problem is I will go out of business in about 6 hours

    Like

  115. By the way, I worked for a dotcom company about 13 years ago where the enthusiastic VP told us about “new rules for the new economy”. The business model was that we paid people to use our product thereby buying page views and owning the “space” on the internet

    The company went bust 12 months later

    Like

  116. Andy, I actually wonder that you are in business. You spend so much time on line, debating at various blogs, when do you get the time to do any work.

    It was never like that in my days working for an SOE research institute. We just didn’t have the time to debate on the Internet.

    Like

  117. It takes a few seconds to reply to bullshit

    Like

  118. Of course I would have less time if I had to manage my sustainability consultant, my diversity officer and my health and safety executive

    In fact a friend who works in North Sea pipeline engineering reckons he spends 75% of his time dealing with crap like this

    Like

  119. Not good enough, Andy. I guess you don’t have a boss to put you back on the straight and narrow.

    You show a pattern of intense commenting in various places which I could not maintain even though retired (mind you, I do have a life). And on top of that you are continually monitoring your echo chamber blogs for information, newspapers and non-denier blogs to provide sources for your ridicule comments, – and what about all those books you are reading about Bayesian stats, etc.. you don’t have time to work.

    I certainly could not have done a fraction of that when I was working.

    Like

  120. The Norwegian Blue prefers kipping on his back.

    Andy, I have never even IMPLIED that. I have absolutely no interest in your business and the things you have just described prove beyond any doubt that you have as much understanding of commerce as Michael Palin had about the behaviour of the Norwegian Blue. So when I tell you that the business practices used to become sustainable are better than the old ways you reply with the equivalent of “the Norwegian Blue prefers kipping on his back.”

    You’re funny, but it’s beer o clock and I have a box of Moa lagers in the fridge that are more likely to provide intelligent conversation than you.

    Like

  121. OK, enjoy your beer you sanctimonious rent-seeking parasite

    Like

  122. Beautiful plumage.

    Like

  123. Odd the way Andy uses “rent seeking” as a pejorative.
    I would have thought collecting rent was a good right-wing activity, certainly not a Hard-Left Marxist one..
    As sensible as Ian Wishart trying to denigrate climate science labeling the science a religious activity.

    Like

  124. OK, that was a bit uncalled for.

    Sorry David

    Like

  125. gallopingcamel

    It has been a while.

    I am impressed that you have been able to keep the faith in spite of Mother Nature mocking you so mercilessly.

    The inimitable Cedric Katesby is still……………inimitable.

    Your predicted “Global Warming” is not happening so you will have to find some other explanation for your imagined “Extreme” weather events.

    Are you are wondering why none of your predictions are being vindicated? Arrhenius was wrong. As long as you cling to his absurd conjectures you will be wrong too.

    Climate scientists like Jeff Severighause have already conceded that temperature drove CO2 during the last 8 ice age cycles:

    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/

    Like

  126. Let’s clarify your claims Galloping. You say “Arrhenius was wrong.” What specifically do you mean? Are you claiming that our current understanding of the fundamental vibrational properties of greenhouse gas molecules is mistaken? Are you claiming molecules like CO2 do not absorb IR radiation?

    Or you just in a “drive by” so don’t really understand the issues?

    Like

  127. Oh yes please, Give us some details, galloping. Do tell.

    Like

  128. Galloping? Hello?

    Like

  129. I think he is just a drive by troll, Cedric.

    Like

  130. Lucky us. He had us on the ropes with Arrhenius being wrong.
    Or not. ;)

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s