Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Nov 19 - Barbie Jacket
on
Need an economic adviser? Here are 5 ideas for finding the very best one -
Nov 11 - US Design Hub
on
Launched my very own online store.
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Bishop Hill
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (26)
Ignorance is no defence.
Not been paying enough attention myself so I had to look to Josh's site to establish this post is what the cartoon is about
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/12/7/scotus-to-hear-climate-case.html
SSAT,
Ignorance is OK here in the States. We have a lot of it.
You should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
Once again, right on, Josh.
''Yeah but no but yeah but''
Well done Josh, keep them coming, now is not the time....
Ignorance is no defence.
Have you listened to Al Gore ?
Fred,
Gore proves that ignorance can be a pretty good offense.
Very evocative indeed. The response of scientific institutions such as the Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London, and various learned societies elsewhere, has been extremely disappointing in that they seem to have deliberately suspended disbelief in order to better enjoy the AGW movie. There remains the hope that one day, legal institutions and legal minds will take up the burden of critical assessment of the evidence and reasoning processes put forward in support of 'AGW as an Urgent Crisis'. The SCOTUS event mentioned in the previous post does not seem to fit that bill, being perhaps more concerned with the niceties of state and federal powers, but the precipitate actions of the EPA on CO2 may yet trigger a deep inquiry into their grounds for action. The sooner, the better.
Somewhat o/t (though I could make an argument that it is indeed bang on ;-) )... this is how the Scottish Court of Session dealt with a delictual - tort in less civilised jurisdictions - action which claimed that the unfortunate Mr McTear had died as a result of his cigarette smoking.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
It's lengthy but worth reading at leisure, to see how the court deals with the scientific, statistical and epidemiological evidence from a number of experts for both sides. Part V is the section dealing in detail with the expert evidence.
aussie sports commentators on abc radio a couple of nights ago (before the Poms won the second Test) were bemoaning the fact all cricketing strategy these days is based on computer models, down to every ball bowled in every over. then came the news and more AGW scares based on.......
You just pushed the line in the sand for cartoonism a wee bit further than I've seen before,
Good for you Josh. And double congratulations for resisting the impulse to squeeze in Gavin and Eric's bestest words, Robust, Consensus and Unprecedented ; aka Shoogly, high-fived and "it's been a while since the last time"
My only complaint about your output is the absence of any proper index. Sorry 'bout the plagiarism Spike!
per woodentop, re cigarette smoking:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html
"It's lengthy but worth reading at leisure, to see how the court deals with the scientific, statistical and epidemiological evidence from a number of experts for both sides. Part V is the section dealing in detail with the expert evidence."
I wouldn't call that leisure reading, but it's fascinating. I spent two hours skimming through it. If you're short of time, I recommend skipping to Part VI. If Warmists ever come up against a judge like Lord Nimmo Smith, they'll have to be swept out of court with a push broom.
hmmm!
30 Nov: Royal Scoiety Publishing: When could global warming reach 4°C?
Richard A. Betts1,*, Matthew Collins2, Deborah L. Hemming1, Chris D. Jones1, Jason A. Lowe1 and Michael G. Sanderson1
Author Affiliations
1Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter EX1 3PB, Devon, UK
2College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
*Author for correspondence (richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk).
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full
That is one neat cartoon...
I can hardly wait to send it to the judge in this case...
http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-scientist-sues-national-post
Suit Could Hold Paper Responsible for Comments and Internet Repetitions
Dr. Andrew Weaver, one of the most respected climate scientists in Canada and one of the best climate modellers in the world, has launched a libel suit against the National Post newspaper and its publisher, editors and three writer: Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster and Kevin Libin.
In the words of a news release broadcast today, the suit is for "a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet."
**********************
Read the statement of claim and you will see the parallel. Uncanny! Global Warming on trial.
But is the cartoon peer-reviewed?
I find Josh's cartoons to be a little hit and miss.
This one is a hit - I expect this is the consensus.
95% of blog visitors are convinced that this is happening..
Good work fellow. :D
I'm interested in the Nimmo Smith ruling, but I don't have time to look at it at the moment. If anyone fancies writing a precis or guest post, drop me a line.
Bish,
Others may correct me but I understood that the statistical correlation between smokers and death by lung cancer was found to be insufficient to prove that link in an individual case: correlation in a population was not accepted in this case to be causation in an individual. The claimant relied on correlation in the absence of proof, that absence being not that none was presented but that there is none in general nor any specific to this individual.
Basically, it would not be possible to state that: The deceased would have not succumbed to lung cancer but for his action of smoking.
A lot depends on 'but for' as in a statement such as: The globe would not be warming 'but for' the positive feedback of water vapour in the presence of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. That statement could only stand if there was direct proof. It would seem that statistical direct correlation in the presence of other variables (e.g. Sun) would not suffice as that proof whereas direct and reproducible results by scientific experiment(s) would.
A reasoned case by a politician! h/t chiefio
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/%e2%80%9cgreen%e2%80%9d-climate-polices-probably-unnecessary-certainly-ineffectual-ruinously-expensive-2/
Excellent, sums up the argument for AGW very well. The court case will probably drone on for as long as there are humans to take part.
Others may correct me but I understood that the statistical correlation between smokers and death by lung cancer was found to be insufficient to prove that link in an individual case: correlation in a population was not accepted in this case to be causation in an individual.
So maybe the argument against the EPA or other Govt agencies (if you can't kill AGW that is which is preferble) is that excessive CO2 may cause warming but my bit of CO2 can't be proved to be the bit of CO2 that caused the 'Tipping Point' so I do not need carbon credits.
"The court case will probably drone on for as long as there are humans to take part."
Well, lawyers, anyway...
Pat said:
That is part of a report that has been pimped around the media since 26th November but nobody named it until a couple of days ago. Very odd to read article after article with quotes from the likes of Dr. Vicky Pope but no mention of the title, the publication, links to it or any indication where it could be found.
It is an edition of Philosophical Transactions A devoted to 4 degrees of warming. The paper you linked to is the first one on the page I link to above.
Excellent, I laughed till my socks fell off. (not recomended in the current climate/weather in N E England). This just encapsulate the (lack of) verasity of their arguments
Love the cartoon, Josh - you have absolutely nailed the expression on the judge's face...