Friday
Jan212011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill News from the House of Commons
Jan 21, 2011 Climate: Parliament The Science and Technology Committee’s First Report of Session 2010–11, The Reviews into the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit’s E-mails, will be published on Tuesday 25 January at 00.01am (HC 444).
Embargoed electronic copies of the Report will be available from 11am on Monday 24 January. Copies of the embargoed Report will be available to media representatives and witnesses only on request.
Why do I have no great sense of expectation here?
Reader Comments (49)
If by "Report" these hacks mean "exonerating PR reprise excluding all relevant conclusions," why yes, we anticipate chuckling at their pathetic evasions in extenso.
O/T but I cannot resist!
WMO (via WUWT) 2010 was the hottest but not significantly.....
M.O. ......2010 was the coldest since.........
Good old Louise! She always make me laugh!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8272195/2010-was-coldest-year-since-1986-says-Met-Office.html
P.S. I do know she was on about the UK but it all looks so silly!
"P.S. I do know she was on about the UK but it all looks so silly!"
Jan 21, 2011 at 8:39 AM | Pete H
No. It really doesn't. The UK is tiny, the World is big. I can't think of any reason why it would be silly, that one would have negligable effect upon the other in this respect.
I wrote to Graham Stringer expressing my opinion on the committee's performance. Although better than the other charades they seem to go so far, but never deliver the killer questions. It seems as though they want to be seen to be more rigerous without actually getting to the truth. A classic parliamentary revue tactic.
"Why do I have no great sense of expectation here?"
Andrew Montford.
Are you perhaps hoping that the HoC report will find problems with the fundamental science, rather than the boffins invovled being a touch peeved and slapdash? If so, you're right to lower your expectations. We're four inquiries down now, and although the focus has not been primarily upon the science, it has certainly been held up to the microscope as part of the process, and found to be sound.
That would be silly, since they are discussing the inquiries, not the science. Please try to stop picking fights for the sake of it.
"That would be silly, since they are discussing the inquiries, not the science. Please try to stop picking fights for the sake of it."
Jan 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM | Bishop Hill
That's fair enough. Glib comment, and my apologies. What are your low expectations for the report into the inquiries though? The three UK ones found broadly similar things. Again, although consensus and proof are different, it can be a strong indicator.
ZBD
Read Andrew's report for the GWPF to find out what he found wrong with the inquiries.
http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html
Hope this helps.
What will the S&T committee state that we don't already know about these so-called independent investigations.
1. Oxburgh by his own admission did not investigate the science.
2. Russell by his own admission did not investigate the actions of CRU scientists as highlighted in the Climategate emails.
3. First time round S&T by its own admission did not have time to fully investigate and review the science, the allegations, or the remits of the Oxburgh and Russell commitees.
4. Norfolk police by their own admission have not yet publicly concluded that the release of the emails were due to a hack or a leak.
If the S&T state that they are happy with what has transpired and what is ongoing (or not ongoing) then they have become part of the problem and in no way represent the solution.
The concept of embargoed material in a democracy has always seemed rather devious to me. If a report is to be released, then it should be released. I don't want journalists being convenienced in preparing their view on it. They can stay up after midnight reading it and still have time to compose their piece in time for early publication. I don't see why the public, who pays for these things, should have less consideration than the hacks. It is also an opportunity for unhealthy dependencies between the government and media.
If Bob Ward ever decides to leave his job, having realised that he has become the story, there is a strong contender haunting this site. Fantastic spin:fact ratio and admirable persistence in the face of all the evidence. And, as Bob proves, scientific qualifications are not required, so go for it, ZDB, although it would mean waiving your treasured anonymity.
“the World is big”
Icebreakers were recently stuck in the Sea of Okhotsk (roughly the same latitude as the UK) so it’s not exactly toasty everywhere else. The Beeb seemed unable to report the ice thickness correctly (30cm instead of 3m) but whether that was warmist bias or simple lack of arithmetic is hard to determine.
Now that finance and business are moving away from the climate change agenda it s only a matter of time before government find the excuse to perform a U turn. Once an exit strategy becomes obvious the whole agenda will be ditched like yesterdays trash.
OT but fun item here on the practicalities (or otherwise) of electric cars. Lots of invective aimed at the Beeb for letting their green credentials slip, apparently!
Link
'Why do I have no great sense of expectation here?' you ask.
a) previous experience;
b) you heard the whole thing live ...
c) ... and you know the people (was going to use an expletive, but didn't want to lower the tone of this blog) involved.
The carbon indulgences trade could actually go tits up remarkably fast from here. Today, because the registries have been frozen, you can't deliver emissions indulgences except into a compliance requirement. This means you can't trade them either, unless via a futures contract, where your delivery obligation is some months or years in the future.
The obstacle to resumption of the day-to-day trade is that nobody knows how many allowances have been nicked, thus nobody knows whether any given certificate has been stolen or, if it has been stolen, what its legal status now is. In some countries it's valid, in others it's not, in others nobody knows.
Worse, in some cases it may not even be knowable, because whether stolen indulgences are still valid or not hinges on which countries they've been through, and how those countries classify the indulgence in law. Some countries have never done so, and even if they did so now, it wouldn't be retrospective.
There is no single overarching body competent or empowered to rectify these defects. Governments, at the behest of greenies, instituted trading in a whole new class of government-controlled anti-commodity without defining what it was or ensuring the repositories - the national registries - were secure. The result is the biggest payday for organised villainy since Prohibition.
So it is all a splendid [snip - please moderated your language], as these young people say. The problem is that the last day for 2010 compliance is March. Anyone who's short or long of them now, and had thought to trade out of the position, needs the chaos resolved before they default or before their own stash of indulgences expires worthless.
We are moving towards a stage where there is no European Emissions Trading Scheme at all, because there'll be no trading so no scheme.
Emissions Trading: inspired by [snip - namecalling], designed by Enron, implemented by the council. How could it fail?
'fundamental science' - you got that right ZBD.
J4R
Thanks for this. I'm starting to look forward to your daily postcard from the crumbling edge of the abyss that might be about to engulf the ETS.
[response to snip]
No pressure, eh, Zed?
=========
[response to snip]
Zed
I spent quite a bit of time arguing that corner in comments on this thread:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/1/16/mooney-on-climategate.html?currentPage=2#comments
At one point I even had a pop at J4R for his choice of terminology.
I did not read the last line of his comment above properly and missed the invective.
FWIW, I absolutely agree that name-calling by all parties is wrong and should cease.
[response to snip]
"funny how ZDB should complain about the term ecofascists and not about clusterphuck ..."
Jan 21, 2011 at 3:13 PM | matthu
If you think it should be the other way around, then you have (in my opinion) odd priorities. I know of no people who have ever been hurt by swearing. In fact, people primarily seem largely to object to swearing on behalf of others they are trying to protect.
Not that I run around Effing and Jeffing with every other word, I believe that people who do that are generally inarticulate and insecure, but it is part of the language. I'm not exactly sure of Andrew's line on it, so avoid it. However, a well placed f**k can sometimes render an argument more succinct, without descending to abuse.
Likening almost anyone, or even worse, any group of people, to Nazis, is absolutely abhorrant. It's synonumous with attempted genocide, mass murder, and the many, many people who died to fight that. Flinging it around like a playground insult explicitly demeans all that, and is several levels above a term, which climate scientists use about Hilly Billies, which is literally correct, and only tangentially referential to the horrors of WW2.
BBD
I still privately bemoan its loss here, as I feel the allusion to crimes past, is largely one assumed in a sense of victimhood by Hilly Billies. I feel it literally describes the position, and rather neatly summarises the rather disparate schools of thought one encounters here, by correctly defining their common thread as being nothing more than opposition to the body majore.
However, one cannot mourn forever, and nobody yet has congratulated me on the term 'Hilly Billies', which I came up with inspired by an excellent Burgundy over Christmas, and which is playfully derisive, and works, but gives no real offense to anyone.
Fine. Apologise then, instead of ignoring:
Out last two comments crossed.
Hilly Billies is funny. To your credit.
Don't agree on denier. You are being effing disingenuous.
You used the term abusively. Please don't make me dig up quotes (you know I will).
Incidentally, to give you an example of the flavour of mendacity I get from your position re denier, it would be equivalent to me answering your objection to ecofascist by claiming that there was no special reference to Nazism implied.
BBD - maybe I am on shaky ground, but I'm afraid I can't bring myself to apologise for its use. I still use it elsewhere, and feel it's justified. I'd be surprised if I have directly used it to reference the holocaust, but can't rule it out. One can make an argument for doing so, George Monbiot (iirc) did so rather effectively at one point.
However, an overt Nazi reference is a very different ballgame, and the fascist/Nazi separation to which you alluded, is a very low wriggle indeed, something I have actually seen attempted on this website, inevitably, without condemnation or censure from you or any other commentors, who seem happy to let anything slide as long as it doesn't support AGW.
Aside from the moral angle, there is also a point of principle. Andrew has specifically requested that denier, or any redactions of such, are not used here. I've complied with that. To be fair, he also made the same request about terms like ecofascist. However, that continues to appear, especially, I think, from J4R, who appears to be, shall we say, hot-headed.
To request the removal of both terms, but only enforce one side, strongly reinforces my assertion, that scepticism here is entirely one way. Pointing this example out, wherever it appears, lends a lot of support to that assertion.
And... silence.
Funny how any exchange here has to be on your terms or it abruptly ceases.
Blast - happened again. Our posts crossed. Ignore above.
Let me be clear: are you seriously arguing that the term 'denier' as you use it, does not reference Holocaust denial and annexe opprobrium felt for the latter behaviour?
Here is Edward Skidelsky on 'The tyranny of denial'. He sums it all up well:
Zed, I take your point but it is not entirely correct. Did you read my comment in response to you on the RS and sea level thread? I think it was at 1:47pm or something close. Please - go back and check. There is scepticism of the sceptics here, at least once in a while.
Zed
Please avoid calling people names, even "mildly derisory" ones. This provokes people into responding in kind or raising the temperature still further. Please do not make glib comments either.
Fair fa' oor honest, sonsie face,
We chieftains o' the puddins
Aboon them a' we tak orr place,
Na thairm, a' tripe, na Painch,:
(...think about it)
Anoneumouse
Sounds like Burns, but beyond that, I am lost. The dialect obscures the meaning...
Andrew - do you, or anyone else for that matter, really find the term Hilly Billy offensive? Do you really believe it is name calling?
There is a clear linguistic gap if one does not use the word Denier. Many of the people here are united only in their oppostion to climate science, and have nothing else in common. One therefore finds a frequent need to refer to the collective group using a single term. I genuinely thought you'd quite like Hilly Billy, I'm pretty sure it's not without charms, and certainly namechecks the site.
I'm not going to use the term Sceptic, for reasons I've explained before, I believe it to be inaccurate.
This is a bit of an ask, especially as I'm primarily an antagonist here, but could you have a think over the weekend as to whether Hilly Billy isn't a term you could come to live with? Your site, so your rules, if you feel the same come Monday I'll drop it. But that would leave the same rather crucial linguistic hole. In which case, what would you suggest I use to fill it? The suggestions last time from your contributors were not great, and in some cases, hopelessley self-aggrandising.
Thanks - ZDB.
ZBD
Boing! Time for bed.
Your just churlishly rude and a coward who hides behind a pseudonym. Rather than the D word how about 'people who disagree with me' - why the constant need to abuse?.
Zed, you come across as reasonably educated chappess (consensus term) but you can't even see how that last post marks you down as 'just not getting it'. Very few posters here are opposed to climate science, on the contrary we want to see more decent climate science. 'Hilly Billy' is just silly, as others have said, and does you no credit. The 'D' word is offensive, Sceptics is the most accurate term for the vast majority of posters here, if your language skills can't cope with anything more suitable then stick to it.
Seems possible to post comments for years without calling anyone a name. Names for third parties seems less offensive, though - maybe permissible. After all, we do have our politicians.
I am not sure why people so dislike the term "denier".
1. Richard Lindzen likes it.
2. To me it says far morer about the caller than the callee.
3. Everyone is a denier. Deny it if you can.
Graphic Conception
Yes, of course.
But the damage is insidious. Please go back to the last page of comments and look at what Skidelsky has to say (BBD 4:39PM):
[Emphasis added]
With respect, it's easier for Lindzen to like it. Because Lindzen is Jewish, to refer to him using the term "denier", with all its anti-Semitic connotations, quickly renders the abuser worthy of ridicule very simply and very obviously.
It's less easy for others to escape the negative implications of the word when used in their direction. While its usage is no less preposterous, the receiver is placed immediately (and deliberately) on the back-foot, with the expectation that in the course of the dispute they will additionally have to refute the implicit accusation of anti-Semitism.
This, of course, is the purpose of using the term at all. Having a weak scientific argument, it is notable that CAGW purporters are heavily dependent on such ad hominem abusive and other logical fallacies. ZDB should realise that whatever integrity his argument might have is severely, perhaps even terminally, diminished by the application of logical fallacies, which are easily perceived for what they are by anyone with a rudimentary understanding of debating etiquette.
Trembling, abject fear
At all their awful thoughts
Three foolish monkeys.
==================
I actually think the other term I routinely use for ecoloonies is a completely legitimate term, because one can demonstrate the very close connections in outlook and policy objective between the followers of Mussolini and the followers of Monbiot.
"Denier", on the other hand, is an attempt to characterise a certain unexceptionable view - that the science isn't settled, in many cases isn't even science, and that precipitate action is unjustified and pointlessly costly - as equivalent to Nazi apologism.
The former is arguable, the latter simply an empty insult to try to prevent any kind of debate at all.
I'm not surprised the wearers of the title don't like it, but then burglars don't like being called criminals either. It is important to know the enemy for what it is, otherwise you risk bringing the wrong perspective to the debate. You don't want to be Chamberlain in 1938, thinking the other guy is someone who can be reasoned with (or even appeased).
Could we settle on some non-inflammatory acronym? CAGW alarmists are anti-western, anti-science and anti-democracy. How about calling them AWASADs?
Looking back at this thread, ZDB has managed to hijack it completely. Has ZDB made one good point about the inquiries that makes us think perhaps it was not a white wash after all?. Has he/she given any rebuttal of Andrew Montford's review?...
I think we should all remember the rules about dealing with trolls:
1. Don't feed the troll
2. See rule 1