When Parliament resumes in March, if the opposition wants the committee to continue investigating the Afghanistan detainee issue, then they are going to have to approve Harper's budget. Otherwise, they will have to risk an election, which Harper is going to be spending months setting up to be on his own terms.
Starting in January, expect Harper to launch more Conservative ads, and spend even more of our money on "government" partisan advertising, angled towards boosting Conservative fortunes.
Expect the ten percenters to fly though mailboxes in key ridings.
Those bills lost through Harper's arrogant prorogation? Every one of importance will be promoted again, as if new, I expect. Sadly, it works. The public has a short memory, and will mostly hear the Harper rhythm not realizing it's a tune they've heard many times before.
The PM has far too much power in this country. The opposition would be wise to concentrate on that point.
Harper suspends Parliament... BY TELEPHONE!?!?!?!?!?
That's all it takes these days? A mere telephone call to the Governor General, and Parliament is prorogued.
How will he do it next year? By text message? ("GG plz prorog til Mar3 Thx SH")
I can see Harper in a coming year, during a difficult question period, furiously text messaging the GG, and then rising. "Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question, but the Governor General has prorogued Parliament."
Our country's democracy is a mokery of the very idea.When one man can arbitrarily shut Parliament, we have no true representation and no good government.
I call on our parliamentarians to protest, not just with their voices, but with a continued presence on the Hill. We once had a senator hunger strike over Katimavik, a single small government program, to large and ongoing media coverage. What is our Parliament worth compared? Less? Or More?
I look forward to another tepid response by the Opposition, compared at least to what is at stake in this country. Oh, whine! Oh accusation! Oh, 60 days off.
James Bowie has a list of the bills that have died and will have to be reintroduced from scratch, assuming Harper doesn't call his planned post-Olympic election first.
Canada is dying a slow death.
====
Update:
Andrew Coyne has it right: Parliament should meet anyway.
How will he do it next year? By text message? ("GG plz prorog til Mar3 Thx SH")
I can see Harper in a coming year, during a difficult question period, furiously text messaging the GG, and then rising. "Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question, but the Governor General has prorogued Parliament."
Our country's democracy is a mokery of the very idea.When one man can arbitrarily shut Parliament, we have no true representation and no good government.
I call on our parliamentarians to protest, not just with their voices, but with a continued presence on the Hill. We once had a senator hunger strike over Katimavik, a single small government program, to large and ongoing media coverage. What is our Parliament worth compared? Less? Or More?
I look forward to another tepid response by the Opposition, compared at least to what is at stake in this country. Oh, whine! Oh accusation! Oh, 60 days off.
James Bowie has a list of the bills that have died and will have to be reintroduced from scratch, assuming Harper doesn't call his planned post-Olympic election first.
Canada is dying a slow death.
====
Update:
Andrew Coyne has it right: Parliament should meet anyway.
My only question if Harper closes Parliament again...
...is, what will the Opposition do this time?
Last time Stephen Harper closed Parliament in order to avoid it, I was disappointed at the response. There was some bluster and much puffing, but given the extent of the offence, I was shocked at how tepid the Opposition was in response.
When a pseudo-Straussian fascist arbitrarily closes Parliament in order to avoid democratic processes and decisions he doesn't like, the response should not be a flurry of press releases and talking heads furiously hand waving.
Instead, our Parliamentarians should be storming the Hill.
We will need action, not reaction. Real risky, sweaty effort, not armchair criticism.
I'm not calling for armed rebellion or anything, but some extended and creative activism would be most welcome.
Sadly, this bunch is not up to the task. They still do not know their enemy.
If Harper locks Parliament until after the Olympics, we will have two months of Conservative attacks ads and government funded partisan adverts to look forward to as the Conservatives strive to shape public opinion sufficiently in their favour to prepare for a Spring post-Olympic election.
I predict a small Harper majority win, based upon several months of propaganda targeting wedge groups of voters and key ridings.
Unless our hapless Opposition wakes up.
As if.
Last time Stephen Harper closed Parliament in order to avoid it, I was disappointed at the response. There was some bluster and much puffing, but given the extent of the offence, I was shocked at how tepid the Opposition was in response.
When a pseudo-Straussian fascist arbitrarily closes Parliament in order to avoid democratic processes and decisions he doesn't like, the response should not be a flurry of press releases and talking heads furiously hand waving.
Instead, our Parliamentarians should be storming the Hill.
We will need action, not reaction. Real risky, sweaty effort, not armchair criticism.
I'm not calling for armed rebellion or anything, but some extended and creative activism would be most welcome.
Sadly, this bunch is not up to the task. They still do not know their enemy.
If Harper locks Parliament until after the Olympics, we will have two months of Conservative attacks ads and government funded partisan adverts to look forward to as the Conservatives strive to shape public opinion sufficiently in their favour to prepare for a Spring post-Olympic election.
I predict a small Harper majority win, based upon several months of propaganda targeting wedge groups of voters and key ridings.
Unless our hapless Opposition wakes up.
As if.
Richard Alley – The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History
Want to know the history of CO2 and climate? Here's a very recent, popular presentation made by Richard Alley at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) annual conference.
His audience is filled with scientists, so it may be hard to follow as he's made certain obvious assumptions about the audience's knowledge level.
I managed, so maybe you can too.
If you want to view this larger, go to http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.swf
Otherwise...
His audience is filled with scientists, so it may be hard to follow as he's made certain obvious assumptions about the audience's knowledge level.
I managed, so maybe you can too.
If you want to view this larger, go to http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.swf
Otherwise...
We have met the enemy...
“Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.
There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.
Forward!”
—Walt Kelly, June 1953
From Wikipedia.
This hit me earlier while reading over some global warming denialist over-heated mash, and Dawg's blog post regarding SDA Kate. Had to publish it.
Libel law in use
Well, libel is the subject today, it seems. Go read Dr. Dawg for some real life insight into how the libel defense of Fair Comment works. Present with a 'without prejudice' letter from Kate at SDA, Dawg shows us how it's done.
Heck, this may even constitute Responsible Communication.
Pointing out a person's clearly published innuendo isn't libel. If Kate has an objection to Dawg's interpretation, then why has she tolerated without clear comment on her blog otherwise all the bloody comments celebrating the murders of journalists? Here's a tip, Kate: If your readers think you are saying it, then a judge is going to agree with Dawg too.
Heck, this may even constitute Responsible Communication.
Pointing out a person's clearly published innuendo isn't libel. If Kate has an objection to Dawg's interpretation, then why has she tolerated without clear comment on her blog otherwise all the bloody comments celebrating the murders of journalists? Here's a tip, Kate: If your readers think you are saying it, then a judge is going to agree with Dawg too.
SCC Supports Libel Defense of 'Responsible Communication'
This may be a surprise to you all, but for years, despite exercising due diligence, journalists reporting what others say could still be successfully sued for libel.
No more.
Two separate court cases defending the Toronto Star and The Ottawa Citizen appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to support lower court rulings which created a defense of Responsible Communication for libel claims. Today, the SCC supported that defense, further increasing our rights as responsible bloggers and journalists.
The Toronto Star and The National Post both report, if you want case background.
Micheal Geists explains a little more and provides us with thel egal definition from the ruling:
Don't party too hard. Your work must be thorough and your pockets deep to use this defense. In other words, you global warming denialists running around with false data accusing scientists of perpetuationg a hoax and commiting crimes aren't covered.
No more.
Two separate court cases defending the Toronto Star and The Ottawa Citizen appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to support lower court rulings which created a defense of Responsible Communication for libel claims. Today, the SCC supported that defense, further increasing our rights as responsible bloggers and journalists.
The Toronto Star and The National Post both report, if you want case background.
Micheal Geists explains a little more and provides us with thel egal definition from the ruling:
A second preliminary question is what the new defence should be called. In arguments before us, the defence was referred to as the responsible journalism test. This has the value of capturing the essence of the defence in succinct style. However, the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.
The court then outlines the the formulation of the defence, including whether the publication was a matter of public interest and a responsible communication. It summarizes the required elements as:
A. The publication is on a matter of public interest
and:
B. The publisher was diligent in trying to verify the allegation, having regard to:
(a) the seriousness of the allegation;
(b) the public importance of the matter;
(c) the urgency of the matter;
(d) the status and reliability of the source;
(e) whether the plaintiff's side of the story was sought and accurately reported;
(f) whether the inclusion of the defamatory statement was justifiable;
(g) whether the defamatory statement’s public interest lay in the fact that it was made rather than its truth (“reportage”); and
(h) any other relevant circumstances.
Don't party too hard. Your work must be thorough and your pockets deep to use this defense. In other words, you global warming denialists running around with false data accusing scientists of perpetuationg a hoax and commiting crimes aren't covered.
As seen from space: Winter is here!
Check out this beautiful NASA composite image of the Earth, showing our Northern Hemisphere winter.
From NASA:
"Energy Balance" -- that's all about global warming, folks. Notice too, the implied implication of less snowfall over a smaller area? Less snow, less reflected light back into space, and more warming.
Hard to envision global warming today. The wind chill in Toronto was not kind. LOL.
NASA flies three large, multi-sensor satellites that monitor Earth’s land, atmosphere, oceans and energy balance. Because the instruments on each satellite take measurements at the same time from the same vantage point, scientists are able to compare observations and tease out connections between different parts of the Earth system. The first of the three satellites, Terra, launched ten years ago on Dec. 18, 1999. In the decade since Terra launched, scientists have gained insight into the intricate connections that shape our planet's climate. The relationship between snow, clouds, and sunlight is a good example. In November, the chill and snow of a Northern Hemisphere winter is on the horizon. Snow covers the far north and high elevations, as shown in the map of percent snow cover in November 2009. White areas show where snow covers the ground completely, while blue points to areas with partial snow cover. At the peak of the northern winter, more than 40 percent of the Earth’s land will be covered in snow. In addition to being an important, life-sustaining source of water, the snow also reflects sunlight, limiting the amount of heat the Earth absorbs from the sun. Image Credit: NASA
"Energy Balance" -- that's all about global warming, folks. Notice too, the implied implication of less snowfall over a smaller area? Less snow, less reflected light back into space, and more warming.
Hard to envision global warming today. The wind chill in Toronto was not kind. LOL.
Mortgage terms to toughen?
Flaherty is said to be hinting that mortgage terms may have to be further reduced, and down payment size increased. This would reduce the number of future defaults as people would need to be in a better financial position to buy a home.
The Problem: The housing market would slow as a result, dragging the economy, and potentially reducing house prices. Lower house prices can cause problems with mortgage renewals and people with zero down and 40 year mortgages may end up owning homes worth less than their mortgages. Banks just don't go for that.
Even people purchasing recently under the 5% down and 35 year term rules can find themselves owing more than they own.
I think the feds are going to be gradually firmly up the lending rules, to hopefully reduce risk without slumping the housing market too much.
Good luck with that. Looks to be quite the teeter totter.
The Problem: The housing market would slow as a result, dragging the economy, and potentially reducing house prices. Lower house prices can cause problems with mortgage renewals and people with zero down and 40 year mortgages may end up owning homes worth less than their mortgages. Banks just don't go for that.
Even people purchasing recently under the 5% down and 35 year term rules can find themselves owing more than they own.
I think the feds are going to be gradually firmly up the lending rules, to hopefully reduce risk without slumping the housing market too much.
Good luck with that. Looks to be quite the teeter totter.
Past decade is the world's warmest on record
The denialist claim we're cooling. Some have even said we're back towhere we were 30 years ago.
Well, if you're going to lie, lie big.
Fact is, this has been the warmest decade on record -- I'm calling it. And we're at a solar minimum, which is when the sun is not very active. Actually, it's likely the deepest solar minimum in a century. When the sun comes out of its funk, we may be in for some hot times.
Some news reports:
CBC: 2000s warmest decade on record: UN
'Likely' the warmest is the quote. From what I've seen of the data, it will be. The US and Canada have been cooler than average the past year. I know not to gleam much from my Toronto weather, but I'm not surprised.
BBC: This decade 'warmest on record'
2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE (World Meteorological Association)
We are up almost one-half a degree C over the 1961-1990 average.
Met Office to release records that show global temperature rise:
This deals mostly with the SwiftHack affair, noting that the CRU will release it's initial data to the public shortly, with the rest to follow once permission is acquired to do so. The CRU is expected to proclaim the outgoing decade to be the hottest yet.
And the mother of all charts: From Climate Progress (<-- read that link for all the news in detail), all three independent surface temperature series, with some lines from me added.
The orange horizontal line and purple vertical line I added. The orange line is the coolest year on this past decade. The purple line is 1980, which is when global warming becomes quite clear. Notice how even the coldest year of the past decade surmounts most of the temperatures of the last 160 years?
The denialists say we're cooling. Right. Of course, they know they can't keep that lie up, so now they're just claiming it's all made up. One big conspiracy. *sigh*
Well, if you're going to lie, lie big.
Fact is, this has been the warmest decade on record -- I'm calling it. And we're at a solar minimum, which is when the sun is not very active. Actually, it's likely the deepest solar minimum in a century. When the sun comes out of its funk, we may be in for some hot times.
Some news reports:
CBC: 2000s warmest decade on record: UN
'Likely' the warmest is the quote. From what I've seen of the data, it will be. The US and Canada have been cooler than average the past year. I know not to gleam much from my Toronto weather, but I'm not surprised.
BBC: This decade 'warmest on record'
The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization. Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record. Burgeoning El Nino conditions, adding to man-made greenhouse warming, have pushed 2009 into the "top 10" years.Global Warming theory doesn't mean that each year must be hotter than the last, just that the overall trend is hotter. hot years get hotter, cold years less cold.
2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE (World Meteorological Association)
We are up almost one-half a degree C over the 1961-1990 average.
Met Office to release records that show global temperature rise:
This deals mostly with the SwiftHack affair, noting that the CRU will release it's initial data to the public shortly, with the rest to follow once permission is acquired to do so. The CRU is expected to proclaim the outgoing decade to be the hottest yet.
And the mother of all charts: From Climate Progress (<-- read that link for all the news in detail), all three independent surface temperature series, with some lines from me added.
The orange horizontal line and purple vertical line I added. The orange line is the coolest year on this past decade. The purple line is 1980, which is when global warming becomes quite clear. Notice how even the coldest year of the past decade surmounts most of the temperatures of the last 160 years?
The denialists say we're cooling. Right. Of course, they know they can't keep that lie up, so now they're just claiming it's all made up. One big conspiracy. *sigh*
The Harper Government Counter hits 11300!
Tracking Harper's self-promotion on the taxpayers' dime.
Harper's self-obssession with referencing goverment as being all about him has escalated! In the time that I've been monitoring the use of the phrase "The Harper Government" on the non-partisan domain gc.ca, the count has moved from 8990 in early October to 11300 today.
Harper's self-obssession with referencing goverment as being all about him has escalated! In the time that I've been monitoring the use of the phrase "The Harper Government" on the non-partisan domain gc.ca, the count has moved from 8990 in early October to 11300 today.
A ShiftHack Topic: Hide the Decline is old news
As I discussed over the weekend (see A SwiftHack Topic: Tree Rings and Climatology followed by
SwiftHack / ClimateGate: I'm calling BS on 'expert' McIntyre) the 'hide the decline' issue is hardly a secret or anything improper.
The Christian Science Monitor has a good piece covering what I originally wrote, with more depth:
SwiftHack / ClimateGate: I'm calling BS on 'expert' McIntyre) the 'hide the decline' issue is hardly a secret or anything improper.
The Christian Science Monitor has a good piece covering what I originally wrote, with more depth:
Climategate, global warming, and the tree rings divergence problem
Much discussion of the Climategate e-mails has centered on "tricking" tree ring data that may not confirm global warming. What's the divergence of data all about and does it really confirm cooling instead of warming?
Conservatives consider reducing oil sector's GHG reduction goals
So reports CBC from a leaked Cabinet proposal:
This is about transferring wealth from Ontario and Quebec to Alberta. No thanks. How's that? Well, well have to cut more and pay more so they can get away with polluting more. This is perverse.
How very Conservative. They get the bucks, we pay part of their overhead.
I'm sick of subsidizing the oil and gas sector.
It says that Canada, when setting targets, must take into account that its oil and gas sector will show greater growth than the U.S, in part because of the oilsands.
The draft proposal suggests Canada should set new targets that would be lower than what was originally proposed by the Conservatives.
For example, the proposal suggests that the oil and gas industry would have to cut 15 megatonnes of emissions, rather than 48 megatonnes under its Turning the Corner plan.
The government draft documents make the argument that the U.S. bill gives smaller targets to trade-sensitive sectors such as manufacturing. It suggests the Canadian oil and gas sector, including the oilsands, deserves the same treatment.
This is about transferring wealth from Ontario and Quebec to Alberta. No thanks. How's that? Well, well have to cut more and pay more so they can get away with polluting more. This is perverse.
How very Conservative. They get the bucks, we pay part of their overhead.
I'm sick of subsidizing the oil and gas sector.
HST rollout with planned tax cuts will help low income: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
When the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaks in favour of a tax, I listen.
It has to be remembered that there's an income tax cut going in place when the HST is phased in. What we are seeing here is small shift to comsumption taxes in lieu of taxing labour, a move I favour. It is believed this will help stimulate employment.
My little business will get to claim PST on inputs when the HST essentially merges the PST into the GST, when it could not do so before. That'll save me a little money too.
It's interesting to see the NDP position on this at odds with the lefty Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, but that's politics.
Ontario's controversial harmonized sales tax is "virtually revenue neutral" and not the cash grab critics say it is, argues a new report to be released Monday.
The report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says low- and modest-income families will come out slightly ahead under the Liberals' HST package, which includes increased property and sales tax credits and income tax cuts, while households with incomes above $100,000 will come out just slightly behind.
"No group is significantly worse off or better off as a result of the province's HST plan," said Ernie Lightman, a University of Toronto economist and professor of social work who co-authored Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST.
Even the researchers admit they were "surprised" to find a vast majority of Ontarians will either be slightly better off or unaffected by the tax changes.
"Assertions that this is a tax grab have no foundation in reality," Lightman said.
It has to be remembered that there's an income tax cut going in place when the HST is phased in. What we are seeing here is small shift to comsumption taxes in lieu of taxing labour, a move I favour. It is believed this will help stimulate employment.
My little business will get to claim PST on inputs when the HST essentially merges the PST into the GST, when it could not do so before. That'll save me a little money too.
It's interesting to see the NDP position on this at odds with the lefty Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, but that's politics.
SwiftHack / ClimateGate: I'm calling BS on 'expert' McIntyre
I'm calling 'BS' on Steve McIntyre's and the resulting Daily Mail claim that the IPCC is both 'hiding the decline' and hiding the fact that this was done.
For the background science on this issue, see what I wrote yesterday: A ShiftHack Topic: Tree Rings and Climatology
The 'hide the decline' false controversy is nothing more than a widely identifed issue in scientific literature (and elsewhere -- that's for another day) where historicial temperature data derived for analyzing tree rings ceases to be accurate after 1960 in trees looked at in northern areas. We know it's wrong because more accurate instrumental data from things called 'thermometers' say so. So, that data is ignored. Data prior to 1961 widely agrees with instrumental data.
The whole 'hide the decline' issues is officially known as the divergence issue.
The IPCC report clearly discusses the divergence issue on pages 472-473, and explicitly explains that some data is excluded:
I can perhaps -- barely -- excuse the Daily Mail for messing this up (that article is replete with errors and falsehoods), but not McIntrye. He's supposed to know better. Indeed, all of these papers are relevant to the Mann 'hockey stick' he keeps assailing. Has he not read them?
McIntrye has been on the divergence issue sicne 2005, yet, having survyed his blog posts, he never seems to read the relavant papers, or undertand what they are saying or explain the widely known divergence issue. Or something.
I don't have time to elaborate further today. I will be back.
It is worth mentioning that this is why the CRU scientists dont; want to cooperate with peopel like McIntrye. They aren't so much involved in science as they are misreperesentation and defamation, coupledwith obvious incompetence.
====
Update:
The IPCC Third Assessemnt Report (TAR) also mentions the divergence (2.3.2.1 Palaeoclimate proxy indicators), though does not elaborate much:
It does not directly say to truncate the tree ring data as seen on the Hockey Stick, but if you are looking for a reason why the data truncates at 1960, the above is an obvious place to look.
Once I have my hands on all the relevant papers, I will.
For the background science on this issue, see what I wrote yesterday: A ShiftHack Topic: Tree Rings and Climatology
The 'hide the decline' false controversy is nothing more than a widely identifed issue in scientific literature (and elsewhere -- that's for another day) where historicial temperature data derived for analyzing tree rings ceases to be accurate after 1960 in trees looked at in northern areas. We know it's wrong because more accurate instrumental data from things called 'thermometers' say so. So, that data is ignored. Data prior to 1961 widely agrees with instrumental data.
The whole 'hide the decline' issues is officially known as the divergence issue.
The IPCC report clearly discusses the divergence issue on pages 472-473, and explicitly explains that some data is excluded:
...In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifi cally excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’This is an ongoing matter and is still undergoing research. This is widely admitted. Thus, it is not some conspiracy. It is explicitly brought up in the IPCC report, and in the papers it cites.
was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a).
I can perhaps -- barely -- excuse the Daily Mail for messing this up (that article is replete with errors and falsehoods), but not McIntrye. He's supposed to know better. Indeed, all of these papers are relevant to the Mann 'hockey stick' he keeps assailing. Has he not read them?
McIntrye has been on the divergence issue sicne 2005, yet, having survyed his blog posts, he never seems to read the relavant papers, or undertand what they are saying or explain the widely known divergence issue. Or something.
I don't have time to elaborate further today. I will be back.
It is worth mentioning that this is why the CRU scientists dont; want to cooperate with peopel like McIntrye. They aren't so much involved in science as they are misreperesentation and defamation, coupledwith obvious incompetence.
====
Update:
The IPCC Third Assessemnt Report (TAR) also mentions the divergence (2.3.2.1 Palaeoclimate proxy indicators), though does not elaborate much:
There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible non-climatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in "multi-proxy" estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000).
It does not directly say to truncate the tree ring data as seen on the Hockey Stick, but if you are looking for a reason why the data truncates at 1960, the above is an obvious place to look.
Once I have my hands on all the relevant papers, I will.
Swifthack / Climategate: The Associated Press finds no fraud or fakery
AP did it's own review, talked with 'moderate' experts and concluded that the science is sound, and that there was no fakery in the SwiftHack/Climategate emails:
Many issues are raised in the AP article which I will cover in other posts.
I will say that there needs to be more media concentration of the deluge of FOI requests and the outright defamation that the scientists have to deal with. It is essential to understanding why they are behaving as they do in the emails.
Professor Steve Easterbrook, U of T, addresses this issue on his blog, Serendipity:
Denialists are not interesting in extending the science. They aren't even critics.
They are saboteurs. Why would anyone want to help them?
Just look at the negative framing they have been putting on these SwiftHack emails. It's often blatant libel. I've been watching the defamation flow for years. Who wouldn't be reluctant to release information under these circumstances?
E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.AP does take the scientists to task for some of their behavior, and is concerned with what may be subversion of FOI requests. But the science, they argue, is not affected.
...As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
Many issues are raised in the AP article which I will cover in other posts.
I will say that there needs to be more media concentration of the deluge of FOI requests and the outright defamation that the scientists have to deal with. It is essential to understanding why they are behaving as they do in the emails.
Professor Steve Easterbrook, U of T, addresses this issue on his blog, Serendipity:
Unfortunately, in the special case of climate science, that’s not what we’re talking about. A significant factor in the reluctance of climate scientists to release code and data is to protect themselves from denial-of-service attacks. There is a very well-funded and PR-savvy campaign to discredit climate science. Most scientists just don’t understand how to respond to this. Firing off hundreds of requests to CRU to release data under the freedom of information act, despite each such request being denied for good legal reasons, is the equivalent of frivolous lawsuits. But even worse, once datasets and codes are released, it is very easy for an anti-science campaign to tie the scientists up in knots trying to respond to their attempts to poke holes in the data. If the denialists were engaged in an honest attempt to push the science ahead, this would be fine (although many scientists would still get frustrated – they are human too).
But in reality, the denialists don’t care about the science at all; their aim is a PR campaign to sow doubt in the minds of the general public. In the process, they effect a denial-of-service attack on the scientists – the scientists can’t get on with doing their science because their time is taken up responding to frivolous queries (and criticisms) about specific features of the data. And their failure to respond to each and every such query will be trumpeted as an admission that an alleged error is indeed an error. In such an environment, is it perfectly rational not to release data and code – it’s better to pull up the drawbridge and get on with the drudgery of real science in private. That way the only attacks are complaints about lack of openness. Such complaints are bothersome, but much better than the alternative.
In this case, because the science is vitally important for all of us, it’s actually in the public interest that climate scientists be allowed to withhold their data. Which is really a tragic state of affairs. The forces of anti-science have a lot to answer for.
Denialists are not interesting in extending the science. They aren't even critics.
They are saboteurs. Why would anyone want to help them?
Just look at the negative framing they have been putting on these SwiftHack emails. It's often blatant libel. I've been watching the defamation flow for years. Who wouldn't be reluctant to release information under these circumstances?
A SwiftHack Topic: Tree Rings and Climatology
Yes, tree rings. I am writing a post about tree rings, and this is important if you want to understand certain key things about Swifthack, so wake up class, and pay attention.
One of the many lines of research in Global Warming theory is that of paleoclimatology. This is the reconstruction of historical climate change over the entire history of the Earth. There are various techniques used, and for them all, please visit this overview Wikiedia article. I'm sticking to some modest discussion of Dendroclimatology, the retrieval of climate information from tree rings. From the dendrocimatology Wikipedia article:
Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily properties of the annual tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are difficult. Other properties of the annual rings, such as maximum latewood density (MXD) have been shown to be better proxies than simple ring width. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).One of the things you can determine from tree rings in an approximation of temperature. Scientists bore into living trees, and also take cross sections from dead undecayed trees (pre-fossil). From research they know that trees growing on the upper elevation tree line have growth lines strongly influenced by temperature, and can thus determine a yearly temperature average by analyzing each tree ring found. This is known as getting temperature by proxy, thus you will see the phrase 'tree ring proxies' and 'tree ring temperature proxies' literred throughout certain discussions concerning Global Warming and temperature.
Another, more confusing phrase and related acronym floating around is maximum latewood density (MXD). This refers to a close look at the level of thickening of the cells walls towards to end of the growing season, and is understood to add more certainty to the temperature proxy.
This does not, of course, give you day-to-day temperature. It only gives a reasonable approximation of each year's average temperature.
This is not a substitute for a thermometer. When confronted with tree ring data and thermometer data, the thermometer will always be more accurate.
Feeling adventurous? Try reading this for more information (warning: pdf).
Tree ring temperature proxies are known to be reasonably reliable because temperature data derived from tree rings have been compared to known temperatures taken by thermometer. So what is learned by that comparison can be applied backwards in time to determined average yearly temperatures for ages which we lack temperature records from.
The famous and much-overhyped* 'Mann Hockey Stick' was formed in part using temperature data derived from tree rings proxies.
The Divergence Issue
This is a known issue, reported over 14 years ago (pdf to the paper), in which the temperature determined from the tree rings ceases to substantially agree for the years 1961+ with the more reliable temperature data taken from instruments. Why this is so is still not fully understood, but common practice is to ignore the data after that year -- 'hide the decline' if you will.
This applies to trees in northern areas, not southern areas.
Skeptical Science explains this issue well, in context of the SwitftHack / 'ClimateGate' emails.
You can read more about the divergence issue in these papers, if you are brave...
Briffa, K., Schweingruber, F., Jones, P., Osborn, T., 1998a. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree growth to temperature at high northern latitudes. Nature 391, 678–682. (Abstract)
Briffa, K., Schweingruber, F., Jones, P., Osborn, T., Harris, I., Shiyatov, S., Vaganov, A., Grudd, H., 1998b. Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today? Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B 353, 65–73. (pdf)
* And I mean overhyped by the denialists. For years they have pushed the false narrative that defeating Mann's Hockey Stick would sink all of Global Warming theory. The theory stands independent of the work of Mann et al.
====
Update December 16, 2009:
The Christian Science Monitor did a full piece on this issue at http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1215/Climategate-global-warming-and-the-tree-rings-divergence-problem
Little Green Footballs finds 'Climategate' 'far off the mark'
He cites the FactCheck article I linked to yesterday. He also has a stream of posts debunking the denialist's claims over Swifthack aka 'Climategate.' Using the tag view Global Warming:
It's such a joy these days to actually look forward to reading LGF...
Palin Doubles Down on Climate Denial, Denies Being a Denier
You're Being Duped By the Climate Denial Industry
Video: Environmentalists Disrupt Climate Deniers' Conference
Why I Left the Right, Exhibit P for Palin
And more...
It's such a joy these days to actually look forward to reading LGF...
Factcheck article on "Climategate" finds wild denialist claims "unfounded"
From http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/:
My research continues. I have much more to add at a later date.
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:Go on and read the whole thing.
- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
- E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
My research continues. I have much more to add at a later date.
"Let's all thank China for emitting more beneficial CO2. It benefits agriculture"
LOL. That's Fred Singer, Global Warming denialist supreme. Before he was a paid propagandist by oil companies and conservative philanthropists, Singer was in the pocket of big tobacco.
Desmogblog, among other resources (like Newsweek), has a write up on him.
Singer is a favourite at denialist conferences. The Guardian has some entertaining coverage of a small denialist conference.
Worth a read!
Desmogblog, among other resources (like Newsweek), has a write up on him.
Singer is a favourite at denialist conferences. The Guardian has some entertaining coverage of a small denialist conference.
Worth a read!
GPO Leader Mike Schreiner on The Agenda with Steve Paiken
The video can't be imbedded. Here's the link.
Well, he's not in Kansas anymore. The GPO's first full-time leader, and first new leader in nerly 20 years, it will be interesting to see if he can bring more visibility to the GPO.
When I was sitting on that Party's Executive, it clearly was a part-time political organization. It wanted to be more. Though it did well in the last election, that was during the height of the buzz over Elizabeth May, and without any clear need for fiscal restraint hanging in the air. Though the GPO typically pursues fiscally responsible positions, I think that in light of the deficits from all levels of government these days, voters will be more inclined to not venture into new territory.
Schreiner has his work cut out for him.
Well, he's not in Kansas anymore. The GPO's first full-time leader, and first new leader in nerly 20 years, it will be interesting to see if he can bring more visibility to the GPO.
When I was sitting on that Party's Executive, it clearly was a part-time political organization. It wanted to be more. Though it did well in the last election, that was during the height of the buzz over Elizabeth May, and without any clear need for fiscal restraint hanging in the air. Though the GPO typically pursues fiscally responsible positions, I think that in light of the deficits from all levels of government these days, voters will be more inclined to not venture into new territory.
Schreiner has his work cut out for him.
CRU scientists continue to receive death threats
CRU scientists continue to receive death threats from climate change denialists, reports The Guardian.
Not to mention torrents of abuse.
Class act, those denialists.
I am starting a link for appropriate global warming and SwiftHack-related sites in the right-most sidebar.
h/t Jeff Jedras via Twitter for The Guardian link.
Not to mention torrents of abuse.
Class act, those denialists.
I am starting a link for appropriate global warming and SwiftHack-related sites in the right-most sidebar.
h/t Jeff Jedras via Twitter for The Guardian link.
Fudging data
It's late, and I'm running tests on code for a client.
The code's been driving me crazy.
Instead of searching and shaping existing data to test my algorithms, I'm adding some code simulating data -- fudge. As I control the data, I can look for a clear, pre-determined outcome. If I keep getting what I expect, then I know the algorithms work. Then, I'll comment out the code, and will let the real data go through the algorithms.
Of course, if I was a climate scientist, this would be all evidence of improper tampering of results.
See Tim Lambert over at Deltoid for more.
The code's been driving me crazy.
Instead of searching and shaping existing data to test my algorithms, I'm adding some code simulating data -- fudge. As I control the data, I can look for a clear, pre-determined outcome. If I keep getting what I expect, then I know the algorithms work. Then, I'll comment out the code, and will let the real data go through the algorithms.
Of course, if I was a climate scientist, this would be all evidence of improper tampering of results.
See Tim Lambert over at Deltoid for more.
New Ontario news aggregator
Other than what I see, I know nothing about it. Something to keep an eye on. I hate missing news:
OntarioNewsWatch
OntarioNewsWatch
Kevin Page on the many inadequacies of Harper's 'made in China' economic update
From The Star:
Just a dog and pony show, in other words.
I'm reminded that the opposition parties thought that, subject to controls, the municipalities in Canada should really have figured out where to spend the stimulus cash. But that would have taken the glory away from Harper. Harper chose instead to take credit and issue huge partisan cheques and massive partisan advertising at the expense of delivering a timely stimulus to the economy. We know where Harper's priorities lay: with himself.
I'm sure Page isn't long for his job.
Kevin Page, the independent parliamentary budget officer, agreed that the latest government report card is weak because it's hard to tell if the projects being funded have actually begun or if the money is being dispersed.
In the United States, the administration has provided specific details on which projects have been started and how much money is actually being spent under President Barack Obama's $787 billion (U.S.) stimulus plan, Page said.
"We still don't really see that in any significant way in the fourth quarter report" here, he said. "It's very weak in terms of, is this having a measurable impact on economic output and jobs?"
"When you read it, you don't really get that sense as to whether it's working or not," Page said of the government's 168-page analysis of the economic action program.
Based on discussions with cities, Ottawa's infrastructure money appears to have gone out too slowly this year to have much positive effect in 2009, Page said.
"Our own sense is that a lot of that (money) will be flowing in 2010, it didn't flow in 2009," he said in an interview.
If massive infrastructure spending had made it into people's pockets this year, the economy would have shown better growth in the July-through-September period, Page said.
The economy grew at an anemic annual rate of 0.4 per cent in the third quarter, Statistics Canada said.
Just a dog and pony show, in other words.
I'm reminded that the opposition parties thought that, subject to controls, the municipalities in Canada should really have figured out where to spend the stimulus cash. But that would have taken the glory away from Harper. Harper chose instead to take credit and issue huge partisan cheques and massive partisan advertising at the expense of delivering a timely stimulus to the economy. We know where Harper's priorities lay: with himself.
I'm sure Page isn't long for his job.
Journalist disses Canada and I agree
Monbiot:
Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling
The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the only obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen
Sadly, I can only agree:
Harper did this, without ever having a majority government.
It should never have been this easy.
Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling
The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the only obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen
Sadly, I can only agree:
After giving the finger to Kyoto, Canada then set out to prevent the other nations striking a successor agreement. At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations. After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks. The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th.
Harper did this, without ever having a majority government.
It should never have been this easy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)